Rentman vs CurrentRMS

Rentman is built around granular control — detailed crew management, transport scheduling, purchase orders, and multi-location warehouse management. CurrentRMS is built around simplicity and speed — a cleaner interface, a smoother onboarding experience, and particularly strong Xero and Stripe integrations. Both cover inventory, quoting, scheduling, and invoicing. The choice usually comes down to whether you need Rentman's operational depth or CurrentRMS's ease of use and accounting polish.

Both are widely used in the UK AV market and both are solid choices. CurrentRMS is UK-built and has strong name recognition with UK event hire companies. Rentman is Netherlands-built but extremely common in the UK and Ireland. UK companies with more complex crew and transport operations often lean toward Rentman. Companies that want something clean and fast to learn often prefer CurrentRMS. EventQuoter integrates directly with both, so either way your quoting workflow can be automated.

Both have been in the market for over a decade, so neither is a new entrant. CurrentRMS launched in 2013. Rentman has roots going back similarly far, though the modern cloud version of the platform has evolved significantly in the past five years. Both are actively developed and receiving regular updates. Longevity isn't a differentiator here — focus on features and workflow fit instead.

Rentman has a broader European footprint — it's widely used across the Netherlands, Germany, France, Belgium, and the Nordics. CurrentRMS is more concentrated in the UK and Ireland, though it has customers across Europe. If your business is UK-only or Ireland-focused, both have a strong user community you can draw on. If you operate across multiple European countries, Rentman's wider continental presence may mean more peer knowledge to draw on.

Yes, EventQuoter integrates directly with both via their REST APIs. Whether you're on Rentman or CurrentRMS, the workflow is the same: paste a client enquiry, the AI extracts the details, you review the proposed quote, and it pushes the data straight into your RMS — as a Project Request in Rentman or an Opportunity in CurrentRMS. Your choice of RMS doesn't affect how you use EventQuoter day-to-day. See how it works in a demo.

Yes, companies do switch — but it's not trivial. You'd need to export your equipment catalogue and client list and re-import it into the new system. Historical jobs don't typically transfer cleanly, so most companies treat a migration as a clean-start from a go-live date and archive the old data. The bigger cost is the re-training time for your team and the disruption to live quoting during the transition. It's worth getting the choice right upfront rather than switching later.

Rentman. Its permission structures, department management, and multi-location warehouse support give it an advantage as operations scale. If you have separate warehouse, sales, crew, and production departments all using the same system, Rentman handles that complexity better. CurrentRMS scales reasonably well but starts to show limits when operational complexity grows significantly — things like cross-warehouse availability and complex crew scheduling benefit from Rentman's more granular controls.

Either works, but for a solo operator Rentman's free plan is a genuine advantage — you can run a real business on it without paying anything until you need multiple users or advanced modules. CurrentRMS has no permanent free tier, so you'll be on a paid subscription from day one. If budget is a constraint and you're operating solo or with a very small team, Rentman's free tier gives you time to validate the system before committing to monthly fees.

Rentman's pricing is modular — you pay for the user seats and the modules you need. Core modules include quoting, planning, crew, and warehouse. Pricing starts from around €39–€49 per user per month for smaller plans, increasing for full-feature enterprise access. The free plan supports one user with basic functionality. Always check Rentman's current pricing page directly as their plans evolve and promotions apply.

CurrentRMS pricing is tiered based on the size of your operation — they quote based on the number of users and your specific requirements. Plans are typically in the £60–£200+ per month range depending on user count and features. Like any SaaS, pricing can shift, so get a current quote from their sales team. There's no free tier, but there is a trial period to test the system before committing.

Yes. Rentman has a free tier that supports a single user with limited modules. It's useful for very small operations or companies who want to trial the system without committing to a subscription. Core functionality is unlocked on paid plans, but the free plan gives you a genuine sense of how the system works before you spend a penny. This is a meaningful differentiator against CurrentRMS, which has no permanent free option.

Yes. CurrentRMS offers a free trial period so you can test the system before committing. Unlike Rentman, there is no permanently free tier — once the trial ends you need a paid subscription to continue. The trial is generous enough to let you build a real quote, check equipment availability, and test the Xero integration. Use that time to do something real rather than just clicking around the demo data.

Both. Rentman's pricing is based on a combination of user licences and the modules you activate. You pay for each active user seat and then add on modules like crew management, warehouse, and planning as needed. This means you can start with a leaner setup and add capability as you grow, but it also means the total price can climb quickly once you want the full feature set across a growing team.

Neither system mandates a large setup fee, but both offer optional onboarding packages — guided setup sessions, data import assistance, and training. CurrentRMS has an onboarding process you can pay for if you want a structured start. Rentman similarly offers implementation support at an additional cost. Most companies with a dedicated operations manager can self-implement both systems without paying for extra onboarding help, particularly if your data is well-organised to begin with.

For very small teams, Rentman is cheaper — or free. For mid-sized teams wanting the full feature set of each platform, the pricing is broadly comparable. CurrentRMS tends to be simpler to predict (fewer module variables), while Rentman's modular structure can result in higher costs if you activate everything. Get quotes from both with your actual user count and required features before making a cost-based decision. The operational fit matters more than a £20/month difference.

The free plan gives you one user seat with access to basic inventory management, quoting, and scheduling. Features like crew management, advanced planning, sub-rental, and the API access required for EventQuoter integration are locked to paid tiers. If you're evaluating Rentman for a growing business, plan on a paid subscription — the free plan will show you the system logic, but it won't support a real multi-user operation.

In both systems, you create a new project or opportunity, set event dates, and add equipment and labour line items. The system checks availability and applies your rate cards. You then generate a formatted PDF quote to send to the client. The core workflow is identical. The difference is in the interface — CurrentRMS is generally considered cleaner and faster to navigate for basic quoting. Rentman's quoting is more powerful but has more steps and settings to navigate, particularly around pricing rules.

Yes. Both Rentman and CurrentRMS support kit building — grouping individual items into a named bundle that can be added to quotes as a single line. This is essential for AV operations where you routinely package the same gear together (a standard PA system, a lighting rig, a video wall setup). Setting these kits up properly is one of the highest-return configuration tasks in either system — it makes quoting dramatically faster and reduces the risk of forgetting individual components.

Both show availability conflicts in real-time as you build a quote. The visual presentation differs — CurrentRMS uses a clean calendar-style availability view. Rentman provides a more detailed breakdown including buffer times and multi-location availability. For companies with gear spread across multiple warehouses, Rentman's availability view is more informative. For single-location operations, both systems handle this equally well.

Both allow you to customise the PDF quote template with your logo, colours, and layout. In practice, CurrentRMS's default templates and the client-facing portal are generally considered cleaner and more modern out of the box. Rentman's quote documents are professional but may require more template configuration to reach the same visual standard. That said, both support custom HTML/CSS templating if you're willing to invest the time in customisation.

Yes. Both have client-facing portals where clients can view and approve quotes online with a click. CurrentRMS's approval flow is particularly polished — the client link is clean, the interface is simple, and it's easy for non-technical clients to navigate. Rentman's approval flow works well but has historically been considered slightly less refined in presentation. Either way, online approval eliminates the need for email back-and-forth on a signed quote — a meaningful time saving.

Rentman has a built-in sub-rental module — you can flag items as sub-rented from a specific supplier, track the cost, and raise purchase orders against the job. CurrentRMS handles sub-rental as a workflow but lacks the PO management depth of Rentman. If sub-rental is a significant part of your operation — borrowing gear from other AV companies to fulfil large jobs — Rentman's structured approach is more robust and keeps the financials cleaner.

Yes in both, but Rentman handles it more granularly. In Rentman you can define multiple stock locations, track exactly which item is in which warehouse, and see cross-location availability in a single view. CurrentRMS supports location management but with less granularity. For operations with a single depot, this distinction doesn't matter. For companies with multiple warehouses or depot-to-site logistics, Rentman's multi-location support is meaningfully stronger.

Both support multiple price lists — so you can have a standard retail rate, a trade rate, and a preferred-client rate, and assign each client to the right list automatically. Discount rules work similarly in both: you can apply percentage discounts to individual lines or to the whole quote. Rentman's pricing logic is more complex and allows more granular override rules. CurrentRMS's pricing system is simpler but covers most common use cases without requiring deep configuration.

Rentman, clearly. It has more granular crew scheduling tools — availability, roles, rates, certifications, and crew assignments all managed per job with a visual planning view. You can see every crew member's schedule across all active projects and spot conflicts at a glance. CurrentRMS has crew scheduling, but it's less sophisticated and doesn't offer the same level of detail. If crew management is a core daily operation for your business, this is one of the clearest differentiators in Rentman's favour.

Yes in both. Crew members can submit timesheets against specific jobs, which updates the job cost summary and feeds into payroll or invoicing calculations. Rentman's timesheet and approval workflow is more developed — crew can log hours via the mobile app, managers can review and approve, and the data flows through to job profitability reporting. CurrentRMS supports hour logging but the approval and reporting layer is simpler.

Rentman has a dedicated mobile app (iOS and Android) that crew can use to view their schedule, check job details, scan equipment, and log hours from the field. CurrentRMS is browser-based and responsive on mobile, but there is no dedicated native app. For crew who need to check kit lists, confirm equipment on arrival, or log their hours from a phone on a live show, Rentman's native app is a tangible operational advantage.

Rentman has a dedicated transport module where you can manage vehicles, assign loads to specific vehicles, track prep and load times, and schedule drivers alongside crew. This is a genuine operational advantage for AV companies with a meaningful transport function — you can see in one view what's going in which van to which show. CurrentRMS handles transport as part of the job but without the same depth of logistics scheduling. If transport planning is complex in your operation, this is a meaningful Rentman advantage.

Yes. Both systems let you add crew members who are freelancers or subcontractors — you assign them to jobs just like employees, with their own rate and role. Neither system is a payroll tool, so the actual payment processing happens outside the RMS (via your accounting software). What both systems give you is a record of who was on each job, how many hours they worked, and what cost was attributed to the job — which feeds into your profitability view.

Rentman. You can define different cost rates and charge rates per crew role, apply overtime rules, and see a detailed labour cost breakdown per job. CurrentRMS covers basic labour costing but with less configuration depth. For operations where accurate labour cost tracking matters — particularly on larger shows where crew is a significant cost centre — Rentman's granularity helps you price more accurately and spot where margin is being lost.

CurrentRMS. Its Xero integration is consistently praised as one of the strongest in the event hire software market. Invoices sync cleanly, payment statuses update automatically, and the reconciliation between the two systems is smooth. Rentman also integrates with Xero and it works well, but CurrentRMS's integration is more polished and has historically been more reliable. If Xero is central to your accounting workflow — and for most UK businesses using Xero, it absolutely is — this is worth weighing in CurrentRMS's favour.

Yes. CurrentRMS has a native Stripe integration that lets clients pay deposits and invoices by card directly through the client portal link. This is a meaningful operational advantage — clients get a payment link alongside the quote, and deposit collection becomes nearly automatic rather than requiring a manual follow-up call or bank transfer. This feature alone is the reason many UK AV companies choose CurrentRMS over Rentman.

Rentman does not have a native Stripe integration in the same way CurrentRMS does. You can send invoices that clients pay via bank transfer, or you can set up payment processing through third-party tools using the API, but there's no built-in card payment button on quotes and invoices the way CurrentRMS provides. If frictionless online deposit collection from clients is a priority, this is a gap in Rentman's feature set compared to CurrentRMS.

Both systems handle invoicing, deposits, and credit notes in a broadly similar way. You raise invoices from confirmed jobs, apply deposit amounts, and generate credit notes to reduce outstanding balances. The mechanics work the same. Where they differ is in the flow to Xero — CurrentRMS's cleaner sync means that credit notes and partial payments reconcile more reliably in Xero without manual intervention. With Rentman, the Xero sync is solid but may occasionally require manual matching on complex invoice scenarios.

Rentman has a proper purchase order module — you can raise POs against specific jobs, track supplier costs, and match supplier invoices to jobs. CurrentRMS tracks sub-rental costs but doesn't have the same formal PO workflow. If your operation regularly sub-rents significant quantities of equipment from other suppliers, Rentman's PO structure keeps the finances and logistics far cleaner. For occasional ad-hoc sub-rental, the CurrentRMS approach is adequate.

Both support configurable VAT rates for UK, Irish, and EU invoicing. For straightforward VAT invoicing, either system handles it well. For multi-currency operations — billing in EUR, GBP, and USD on the same platform — Rentman has more developed multi-currency support and is better suited to internationally active companies. CurrentRMS works primarily in a single base currency configuration. For UK-only operations, this isn't a relevant difference.

Both have capable REST APIs. Rentman's API documentation is comprehensive, actively maintained, and covers most of the system's functionality — which is why EventQuoter and other tools build against it. CurrentRMS also has a solid API. In practice, both APIs are sufficient for building custom integrations. Rentman's API may be slightly more complete in terms of the data objects it exposes (particularly around crew and transport), but for core quoting and inventory operations, both are equally capable.

Yes. Rentman supports webhooks — you can configure triggers that fire when specific events happen in the system, such as a quote being approved, a project being created, or an invoice being paid. These webhooks can connect to Zapier, Make, or any custom endpoint. This opens up a significant range of automation possibilities: Slack notifications, Google Sheets logging, CRM pipeline updates, and more — without needing custom development on Rentman's side.

Yes. CurrentRMS also supports webhooks, allowing you to trigger external workflows from events inside the system. The range of triggerable events is similar to Rentman. For most common automation use cases — notifying a team when a quote is approved, logging new opportunities to a spreadsheet — both systems provide the necessary webhook support. Neither system requires middleware like Zapier to make basic automations work, though Zapier simplifies the configuration considerably.

Both connect to Zapier and Make via webhooks and API. Rentman has more community-built Zaps due to its larger global user base, which means you're more likely to find a pre-built template for common workflows. CurrentRMS users typically build their own automations from scratch using the API or webhooks. In practice, either system can connect to the same automation tools — it's just that Rentman users have more pre-existing resources to draw on.

Neither system connects directly to your email inbox in a way that automatically processes incoming enquiries. Your inbox and your RMS remain separate. Quote confirmation emails are sent from within the RMS, but incoming client emails still live in your email client. This is precisely the gap EventQuoter fills — your team pastes the client enquiry into EventQuoter, the AI extracts the data, and it pushes a pre-built quote into whichever RMS you're using. You don't need to type anything into the RMS manually.

EventQuoter uses the API of whichever RMS you're connected to. For Rentman, it pushes a Project Request with client details, event dates, venue, and equipment line items pre-populated. For CurrentRMS, it pushes an Opportunity with the same structured data. The experience for your team is identical — paste the enquiry, review the AI draft, click to push. The only difference is which system receives the data at the end. Book a demo to see it live.

Yes. Rentman has a native mobile app available for iOS and Android. It covers crew schedule viewing, equipment scanning via barcode/QR code, job detail access, and timesheet logging. The app is designed for warehouse staff and on-site crew rather than office quoting work — you wouldn't typically build a full quote on the mobile app, but for field operations it's genuinely useful and actively maintained.

CurrentRMS is a browser-based platform and does not have a dedicated native mobile app. The web interface is responsive and works on phones and tablets, which covers most light mobile use — checking a booking, looking up a client, reviewing a quote. For warehouse barcode scanning and structured crew field workflows, the lack of a native app is a limitation. If your team relies heavily on mobile devices for warehouse operations, this is a point in Rentman's favour.

CurrentRMS. The interface is intentionally clean and the core quoting and availability workflow is more intuitive. New staff can usually build their first real quote within a day of getting access. Rentman has a steeper learning curve — the system has more features, more settings, and more configuration options, which makes it more powerful but initially harder to navigate. Plan for more training time if you implement Rentman, particularly for staff who aren't naturally technical.

Yes in both, but Rentman's scanning workflow on tablet is more purpose-built. The Rentman mobile app on a tablet with a Bluetooth barcode scanner is a well-established warehouse workflow — scan items out, confirm packing lists, scan items back in, log damage. CurrentRMS on a tablet via the browser is workable but less optimised for high-speed scanning workflows. For a warehouse team doing regular equipment prep, Rentman's scanning experience is better.

CurrentRMS. The interface is consistently described as cleaner and less cluttered for day-to-day quoting. Navigating between opportunities, checking availability, and sending quotes feels faster in CurrentRMS for many users. Rentman's interface provides more information density, which is useful when you need it but can feel overwhelming for simple quoting tasks. If your team's primary RMS use case is creating and sending quotes, CurrentRMS's UX is an advantage.

Neither Rentman nor CurrentRMS has a meaningful offline mode. Both are cloud-based systems that require an internet connection for most functions. The Rentman mobile app may cache some data for limited offline viewing, but creating quotes, checking availability, and syncing actions all require connectivity. In practice, this is rarely a problem — most warehouse and office environments have reliable Wi-Fi. For field scenarios without connectivity, plan accordingly.

CurrentRMS. The initial configuration steps are fewer and the interface guides you through them more clearly. Getting from a new account to a usable quoting setup takes less time in CurrentRMS. Rentman's setup has more variables — warehouses, modules, permission levels, crew configuration — which gives you more control but requires more time and thought upfront. A well-organised AV company with clean data can be quoting in CurrentRMS within a day or two. Rentman typically takes a week or more to configure fully.

Rentman offers a knowledge base, video tutorials, and email support on all paid plans. Live chat support is available. More structured onboarding assistance is available at an additional cost. The Rentman community forum and user group are reasonably active, and there's a growing ecosystem of implementation consultants who specialise in Rentman setup for AV companies. For self-implementers, the documentation is thorough enough to get most things done without hand-holding.

CurrentRMS provides email and chat support, a knowledge base, and optional onboarding sessions. Their support team is UK-based and generally well-regarded for responsiveness. The documentation is clear for core workflows. Because the system is simpler to set up, the support burden is typically lower — most questions can be answered from the knowledge base without needing to contact support directly. Where CurrentRMS users do contact support, response times have historically been strong.

Rentman has a larger global community — more users, more forum activity, more YouTube tutorials, and more third-party implementers. CurrentRMS has a more concentrated UK community that is engaged and helpful but smaller in scale. If you're the kind of buyer who learns from peer reviews, YouTube walkthroughs, and community forums, Rentman's ecosystem gives you more to work with. For professional implementation help, both have qualified consultants available.

Both offer implementation assistance either directly or through certified partners. If you want guided data import, workflow configuration, and staff training done by a specialist rather than doing it yourself, both platforms have options. The cost varies significantly based on the scope of your setup. For most AV companies with an organised equipment list and a dedicated manager willing to learn the system, self-implementation is entirely achievable — particularly with CurrentRMS.

Most AV companies never outgrow either Rentman or CurrentRMS — both scale to multi-van, multi-department operations. The more common scenario is outgrowing the discipline of using the system properly rather than outgrowing the system's capabilities. If your business does reach a scale where neither system fits — typically very large corporate AV operations with complex finance requirements — the step up would be to something like Flex or a custom ERP solution, which is a significant undertaking. For the vast majority of UK and Irish AV companies, both systems scale comfortably.

If crew and transport logistics are central to your operation, choose Rentman. If you want the fastest onboarding, the cleanest interface, and the best Xero and Stripe integration, choose CurrentRMS. Both are genuinely good systems and either choice is defensible. The one thing we'd say is this: don't choose based on a feature comparison spreadsheet alone — request a proper demo from each vendor, do something real in each trial, and see which workflow feels more natural for how your team actually works.

Rarely, for UK and Irish AV companies. If you're a US-based AV company, Flex may be more appropriate. If you're a very large corporate operation with complex ERP requirements, a dedicated enterprise system might be warranted. If you primarily do party hire rather than AV production events, something like EZRentOut may be a simpler and cheaper fit. But for the typical UK or Irish AV event company — corporate, live events, conferences, touring — Rentman and CurrentRMS are the two platforms worth evaluating seriously.

Theoretically yes, but practically no. Running two RMS systems in parallel creates the exact problems an RMS is supposed to solve — split inventory data, duplicate bookings risk, inconsistent pricing. The one scenario where it might make sense is a business that has acquired a company already on the other system and is in a transition period. Consolidate onto one platform as quickly as possible. Dual-RMS operation is not a long-term strategy.

Ask both: What does the Xero sync actually do — and what doesn't it sync automatically? What happens to my data if I cancel? Can I see a live demo with our own equipment data rather than demo data? What's the support response time for a critical issue during a live event week? How often are major features released and how do I find out what's changed? What do customers typically get wrong in their first six months? The answers tell you far more than any feature checklist.

Yes. EventQuoter integrates natively with both Rentman and CurrentRMS. Whichever platform you're on, EventQuoter reads your client enquiry emails and pushes a structured, pre-built quote draft into your RMS in minutes. Your team reviews and sends — rather than building from a blank slate. The time saving is the same regardless of which system you're using. If you switch RMS platforms later, EventQuoter switches with you. Book a demo and we'll show you the exact workflow for your RMS.

Rentman's biggest advantage: crew and transport management depth. If your operation lives and dies by getting the right people in the right van with the right gear, Rentman gives you more control over that complexity than any other system in this market. CurrentRMS's biggest advantage: Xero and Stripe integration. If clean accounting sync and frictionless online payment collection from clients are the things that keep you awake at night, CurrentRMS solves both better than Rentman does. Know which problem matters more to your business and the decision gets a lot clearer.