Source Intelligence and Assent both sell packaging EPR as one module of a wider supply chain compliance platform, and both are bought for the same bottleneck, the packaging data that sits with your suppliers rather than in your own systems. What separates them is what each one names in writing.
Extended producer responsibility (EPR) is the duty to register, report and pay for the packaging you put on a market.
Source Intelligence vs Assent is a close comparison, so this page sticks to what each company publishes about coverage, supplier chasing, filing, PPWR and price.
The bottleneck both platforms are sold to fix
A packaging EPR return is not hard to understand. It is hard to fill in, because of what one line of it demands.
Before you can file, you need four things for every item of packaging you put on a market.
- The list of items. Every stock keeping unit (SKU) you sell, broken into its packaging components, so a bottle, its cap, its sleeve and its outer case are four separate rows.
- What each component weighs. In grams, per component, not per shipment.
- What each component is made of. The material, precisely enough to match the scheme's own categories.
- How much recycled content it holds. The post-consumer recycled (PCR) percentage, which almost nobody has on file.
For a manufacturer with thousands of SKUs, none of that lives in one place. It lives with the suppliers who make the packaging, and they have no particular reason to answer an email about it.
Both of these products are written to that problem. Source Intelligence promise "comprehensive data integration" and "automated data collation". Assent promise to "engage even the hardest-to-reach suppliers".
So the question that frames most software comparisons, whether to hand the job over or run it yourself, does not separate these two. They are the same kind of tool, aimed at the same missing numbers.
What separates them is narrower and more useful. Which duties each one names, how much human help each one publishes, and where each one's stated responsibility stops.
What each company puts in writing
The most honest way to compare two platforms that are sold by demo is to set their own pages side by side and record what is on them. The table below does that, ordered in three bands, the things only Source Intelligence name, then the things only Assent name, then the things neither of them names.
| What the page names | Source Intelligence | Assent |
|---|---|---|
| WEEE as an EPR stream | Named on the EPR page | Not named |
| Batteries as an EPR stream | Named on the EPR page | Not named as EPR, the EU Batteries Regulation is covered as due diligence |
| A software-only option you run yourself | "pure SaaS solution for companies that want to self-manage compliance" | Not named |
| ERP and PLM systems it plugs into | SAP, Oracle/Agile, PTC Windchill, Sage | Not named |
| Something to look at before you book a demo | "Preview our software" and "View solution guide" | A PPWR scoping guide to download |
| Specific packaging EPR laws | None named, only "global regulations" and "country-specific standards" | California SB54, Oregon SB582, Colorado HB22-1355, Canada's Federal Plastics Registry |
| Supplier outreach in your suppliers' languages | Not named | "multilingual education and 1:1 support" |
| Help running the reporting itself | "fully managed services" as a delivery model | "optional EPR execution services", on the PPWR page |
| The industries it is built for | Not named | Medical devices, industrial equipment, aerospace and defence, electronics, automotive |
| Textiles as an EPR stream | Not named | Not named |
| Any EU member state packaging scheme | Not named | Not named |
| How many schemes or countries are covered | Not published | Not published |
| Who submits your report to the scheme | Not stated | Not stated |
| Who pays your fees | Not stated, fees are evaluated | Not stated, fees are estimated |
| A packaging declaration of conformity | Not named | Not named |
| A price | Not published | Not published |
The bottom half of that table is the part worth sitting with. On the six questions a producer usually asks first, these two companies publish exactly the same thing, which is nothing.
Source Intelligence sell one platform with two levels of help
Their EPR module lives inside a platform they call C-Map, and the product shot on their own page shows what it is pointed at.
That dashboard is a calendar of obligations rather than a data-entry screen, which tells you where the product puts its emphasis.
What the platform does without you
Their EPR page names four working parts, and all four are about moving data rather than about a particular country's rules.
- Comprehensive data integration. Packaging data is pulled in from the systems that already hold it, and they name the systems, SAP, Oracle/Agile, PTC Windchill and Sage.
- Automated data collation. The pulled data is assembled into the shape a report needs.
- Real-time updates on tariff changes and reporting schedules. The deadlines and rates move on their side, not yours.
- Automated evaluation of eco-modulation fees. They calculate what a design choice costs you, and they extend this into design assessments that show end-of-life cost before you commit to packaging.
Across the wider platform, EPR is one item under Sustainability, sitting beside EU PPWR. The other three areas are product compliance (REACH, RoHS, TSCA, PFAS, SCIP and more), responsible sourcing (conflict minerals, EUDR, human rights, audit management) and component obsolescence.
How much of the chasing their people do
This is the part of their offer that is easiest to miss, because it is published on the platform page rather than the EPR page. They sell the same software two ways.
- You run it. A "pure SaaS solution for companies that want to self-manage compliance", in their words.
- They run it. "Fully managed services", where their team does the gathering.
Their homepage carries a client testimonial for the managed option that is worth reading as what it is, a customer's own words rather than an audited figure. It reads "SI gathered about 60% of our data in four months... more than we gathered over the course of five years!"
What their EPR page does not do is name a single country, US state or compliance scheme. It stays at the level of "global regulations", and no scheme count is published anywhere. Which registers they can actually report into is therefore a question for the call.
Assent built theirs around getting suppliers to answer
Their EPR module sits inside a platform they call the Assent Product Intelligence Network, and the product is described almost entirely in terms of the supplier.
Where Source Intelligence lead with integration, Assent lead with outreach. The difference shows up in which nouns each page uses most.
What the platform does without you
Their page describes an AI-native product that starts at the SKU and ends at a report.
- It identifies the SKUs and centralises their packaging data. One place for what would otherwise be a spreadsheet per business unit.
- It collects the specific attributes. Materials, weights and PCR percentage, which is the shortlist from the top of this page.
- It shows you the gaps. Missing material and missing supplier data are surfaced rather than silently left blank, which is the failure mode of doing this by hand.
- It estimates and formats. Eco-modulated fees are estimated, and the output is a jurisdiction-specific report they describe as report-ready.
The laws they name are the sharpest thing on the page, and there are four of them. California SB54, Oregon SB582, Colorado HB22-1355 and Canada's Federal Plastics Registry. All four are North American, and no EU member state scheme appears.
How much of the chasing their people do
The supplier engagement engine is the centre of what they sell, and it is a mix of software and people.
- Ready-to-use education and outreach. Campaign material aimed at suppliers who have never been asked for packaging data before.
- Multilingual education and 1:1 support. Their own phrase is to "engage even the hardest-to-reach suppliers", which is a claim about persistence rather than about features.
- Tailored requests for information. Each supplier is asked for what is actually missing rather than for everything.
- Optional EPR execution services. Named on their PPWR page, not the EPR page, as help "to manage reporting complexity and reduce administrative burden".
Around the EPR module sit the duties that usually bring a manufacturer to Assent first. Product material compliance (RoHS, REACH, TSCA, PFAS, SCIP) and trade compliance.
Then carbon border rules, deforestation, sustainability reporting, conflict minerals, digital product passports and product carbon footprints.
The industries they name are medical devices, industrial equipment, aerospace and defence, electronics and automotive, all of them businesses with long bills of materials. They have been headquartered in Ottawa since 2010.
Neither one says it will file your report
This is the most important thing on the page, and it is a shared blank rather than a difference. Read both EPR pages closely and the deliverable is a report, not a submission.
Source Intelligence describe a dashboard showing every scheme you are registered with and when reports are due. Assent describe outputs that are report-ready. Neither sentence says anybody presses submit for you.
Laid out across the job, the published coverage of the two platforms stops in the same place.
Fees work the same way. Source Intelligence evaluate eco-modulation fees, Assent estimate them, and neither page contains a claim to pay a scheme on your behalf.
That claim does exist in this market. Sphera publish it in the words "We carry out your registration and reporting", which is exactly why its absence here is worth noticing.
What report-ready actually leaves you to do
If you buy either platform on its published terms, three jobs stay on your desk.
- Registering. Getting on the right register in each country, which neither page claims to do for you.
- Submitting. Taking the finished numbers into each scheme's portal by its deadline, which is EPR reporting in the narrow sense.
- Paying. Settling the invoice with the scheme or your producer responsibility organisation.
Both companies will discuss taking some of that on, Source Intelligence as fully managed services and Assent as optional EPR execution services. Neither publishes what is inside those services, so it belongs in the quote rather than in a comparison.
Where your packaging numbers actually come from
Both platforms assume the answer is your suppliers. That assumption is correct often enough to have built two businesses, and it is worth testing against your own situation before you buy either.
The two go about it differently. Assent's engine is aimed at the supplier who will not reply, with outreach material, translation and one-to-one follow-up.
Source Intelligence lead with integration into the systems that already hold component data, and offer their own team as the fallback when the data is not there.
When the data is already inside your business
Some manufacturers already hold component weights and materials in their PLM or ERP because a different regulation made them collect it. If that is you, an outreach engine is the expensive part of the purchase and the part you need least.
If your packaging data is already in your own systems and the job you actually have is producing the return, a self-serve reporting platform is a different category of purchase from either of these.
That is what Repax Core is, and it is our own product, so read this paragraph as our pitch rather than as part of the comparison.
Our pricing is public, with a free tier and paid plans from 29 EUR a month, which is a different way of buying from anything on this page.
PPWR is the one duty both of them sell a product for
The EU Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR) came into force in February 2025, and its first big obligations land on 12 August 2026.
Both companies have built a dedicated page for it, which is not true of every vendor in this category.
They frame it differently, and the framing tells you what each one thinks PPWR is.
| What to compare | Source Intelligence | Assent |
|---|---|---|
| How they describe it | "software built for packaging data management" | an "AI-native PPWR solution" that helps you "collect, validate, and reuse data" |
| Duties named | packaging minimisation, recycled content, design for recyclability, substance restrictions, technical documentation | substances of concern, recycled content verification, labelling, documentation, EPR alignment |
| What you get out | technical documentation, audit-ready records, packaging BOM analysis, recycled content tracking, design-for-recyclability visibility | substance coverage across PPWR requirements, centralised reusable compliance data, EPR data and execution support |
Both pages therefore promise the technical documentation that PPWR requires you to hold. Neither page names the document that sits on top of it.
The EU declaration of conformity is the signed statement that your packaging meets the regulation, and it is the artefact a market surveillance authority asks for first. The phrase does not appear on either company's PPWR page.
That does not tell you they will not help with it, but it does mean you should ask. The deadline is fixed, and the declaration itself is a specific piece of paper rather than a data set.
The quote is the only price either one gives you
Neither company publishes a price. That is verified rather than assumed. Both companies' pricing pages return a not-found error, and the word does not appear anywhere in either company's own site index.
What you can see before you speak to anybody differs slightly. Source Intelligence offer a software preview and a solution guide alongside the demo request. Assent offer a PPWR scoping guide to download, with calls to action to book a demo, get a quote or talk to sales.
Because both are quoted rather than listed, the shape of the bill is the thing to pin down early. Ask what the number is counted on, because supplier count, SKU count, jurisdiction count and managed-service hours are four different meters and they scale very differently as you grow.
Your supplier base decides this more than the feature list does
The feature lists on these two pages are close enough that comparing them line by line will not settle it. What settles it is which of the following is true of your business.
- Your duty covers WEEE or batteries as well as packaging. Only Source Intelligence name WEEE and batteries as EPR streams. Assent's EPR module is packaging.
- Your suppliers are spread across languages and do not reply. Assent describe the outreach for exactly that in the most detail, down to translation and one-to-one follow-up.
- The laws biting first are Californian, Oregonian, Coloradan or Canadian. Assent name those four by name. Source Intelligence name no jurisdiction at all.
- Your obligations are EU member state packaging schemes. Neither page names one, so make it the first question on both calls.
- You want to keep the work in-house on software alone. Source Intelligence publish a self-manage model in those words. Assent do not.
- Your component data already sits in SAP, Oracle Agile, PTC Windchill or Sage. Source Intelligence name those integrations, which shortens the part of the project that usually runs long.
- You want somebody else to do the gathering. Both will, Source Intelligence as fully managed services, Assent as optional EPR execution services, and neither publishes what that includes.
- PPWR technical documentation is the near-term job. Both sell a product for it, and neither names the declaration of conformity.
Three things to settle on the call
Their published material does not separate them cleanly, so the separation has to happen in the meeting. Three answers do most of that work.
- Which schemes in which countries can you report into, and who presses submit. Neither company publishes a number, and neither claims the submission, so this single question covers the two biggest blanks in the table above.
- What happens when a supplier never answers. Both sell an engine for chasing suppliers, so the honest difference is in the escalation path after the third unanswered request. Ask for a named example rather than a capability.
- Which of my waste streams does the EPR module cover this year. Source Intelligence name three, Assent name packaging, and the answer decides whether you are buying one tool or two.
On what they publish, these two are genuinely close, and neither is the safer default. The answers above are what tell them apart.
That is also why the same three are worth putting to any other vendor on your list, including the enterprise EPR platforms that sell the filing itself.
Frequently asked questions about Source Intelligence and Assent
Short answers to the questions producers ask most about these two platforms.
Is Source Intelligence or Assent better for EPR compliance?
Neither is better in general. Source Intelligence name packaging, WEEE and batteries plus a self-manage software option, and Assent name packaging with four North American laws and a heavier supplier-outreach engine. Your streams and your suppliers decide it.
What is the main difference between Source Intelligence and Assent?
Coverage and emphasis. Source Intelligence cover three EPR streams and lead with integration into the systems that already hold your data. Assent cover packaging and lead with getting hard-to-reach suppliers to answer, naming four North American laws.
How much do Source Intelligence and Assent cost?
Neither publishes a price. Both companies' pricing pages return a not-found error and neither site index lists one, so every figure comes from a quote. Ask whether it is metered on suppliers, SKUs, jurisdictions or service hours.
Does Source Intelligence or Assent file your EPR report for you?
Neither page says so. Source Intelligence describe a dashboard of schemes and due dates, Assent describe report-ready outputs, and both offer separate services that may include more. Confirm who submits before you sign.
Which one covers WEEE and batteries?
Source Intelligence name packaging, WEEE and batteries as EPR streams. Assent's EPR module is packaging, and their EU Batteries Regulation product covers due diligence rather than battery scheme reporting. Neither names textiles.
Do Source Intelligence and Assent cover EU PPWR?
Both sell a dedicated PPWR product. Source Intelligence emphasise packaging data management and audit-ready records, Assent emphasise substances of concern and reusable data. Both promise the technical documentation PPWR requires you to hold.
Can either one produce a packaging declaration of conformity?
Neither PPWR page names the declaration of conformity, which is the signed statement required from 12 August 2026. That is not the same as refusing to help, so ask directly, because the document is separate from the data behind it.
