Why Swift Ship

Six things we do that a freight audit platform does not

Swift Ship is the audit engine run by Apex Flow Technology Ltd. The comparisons below describe the standard platform audit model — the category Trax and Intelligent Audit sell — not any single vendor's current feature list.

The six differences

01

We audit the contract, not the tender record

Platform audit tools confirm an invoice matches what was tendered. That check passes even when the tendered rate itself breached the signed agreement, and even when an accessorial was never in the contract at all. We ask both questions on every line.

Platform model
Invoice vs. tender record
Swift Ship
Invoice vs. signed rate agreement

02

No retainer, no licence, no implementation fee

We take fifteen per cent of a credit a carrier actually issues, and nothing otherwise. A platform fee plus a share of savings means a finance director has to justify spend before seeing a single result.

Platform model
Platform fee plus a share
Swift Ship
15% of recovered credit only

03

A result in about fifteen minutes

Send a handful of recent invoices with the matching rate agreement and we return the flagged lines. There is no TMS integration project, no data mapping phase and no onboarding measured in weeks.

Platform model
Integration project, weeks
Swift Ship
Fifteen minutes, no integration

04

Every invoice, not a sample

A manual desk audit reviews five to ten per cent of invoices and catches the large errors. We read one hundred per cent of them, which is where the small repeated accessorials live — individually minor, and waved through every week.

Platform model
5–10% sampled
Swift Ship
100% audited

05

Evidence attached to every flagged line

Each finding names the charge, the contracted position it breaches and the exact difference. That is a dispute file a carrier has to answer, not a variance report somebody still has to investigate.

Platform model
Variance report
Swift Ship
Dispute-ready evidence per line

06

Haulage rules the freight tools skip

Detention re-priced after the contractual free-time window is deducted and reconciled to your gate log. The same movement re-invoiced under a second reference after the first was paid. A fuel surcharge still holding a peak percentage after diesel came back down.

Platform model
Parcel and LTL focus
Swift Ship
Road haulage rules built in

Case study

First recovery in progress

We publish recovered credit, not projections

No carrier has yet issued a credit against an audit we have filed, so there is no recovery figure on this page. We will not put a modelled number here and call it a result. What the engine has already flagged on real invoices, with the contract term behind each line:

  • A tarp fee and a chassis split charge that appear nowhere in the signed accessorial schedule.
  • Detention billed without the contractual free-time window deducted first.
  • One movement invoiced a second time under an alternate reference after the first invoice had been paid.
  • A fuel surcharge still set at a previous peak percentage after the index fell.

When the first credit lands, the full case study replaces this panel: the invoice value audited, the lines flagged, the credit issued and the time it took.

How a first audit runs

  1. STEP 1

    Send a handful of recent carrier or haulier invoices with the rate agreement behind them.

  2. STEP 2

    We return the flagged lines, each with the contract term it breaches and the exact difference.

  3. STEP 3

    Your finance team disputes them. When a carrier issues a credit, we take fifteen per cent.