Bunker Procurement Platforms and E-bunkering: 2026 Buyers Guide

February 6, 2026

Bunker procurement platforms and e-bunkering are getting attention because they compress a messy workflow into a repeatable cycle: plan stems, invite quotes, compare offers with a paper trail, then push confirmations and delivery documentation through fewer emails and fewer spreadsheets. The real value is not “digital for digital’s sake”. It is better price discovery, fewer process misses, and faster dispute resolution when quantity, quality, or timing is contested.

Bunker Procurement Platforms

Tip: drag the scrollbar to scan columns (top half).

Platform (link)	Type	What it does well	What it is not	Cost model (public signals)	Best fit	Evaluation questions
Auction AuctionConnect	Bunker procurement auctions (competitive bidding) Designed to run structured RFQs with bids you can compare side by side and keep as a clean procurement record.	Price discovery: Competitive bids can expose spread and supplier aggressiveness. Process control: Clear steps reduce missed offers and “lost in email” errors. Audit trail: Good for internal governance and later dispute timelines.	Not a guarantee of best price if supplier participation is thin, or if credit and delivery terms are not standardized in the RFQ.	Signal: seller fee per metric ton supplied to platform introduced buyers is described in publicly available terms.	Fleet operators that plan stems and want fewer opaque negotiation threads.	Participation: How many qualified suppliers typically bid in our top ports? Comparability: Do bids normalize credit terms, barge timing, and delivery window? Disputes: How are quantity and quality disputes logged and routed?
Procurement suite ZeroNorth	Bunker procurement workflow platform A structured process layer for RFQs, offer comparison, approvals, and record keeping, often positioned to connect with voyage and fuel decision workflows.	Standardization: Consistent steps and approvals across teams and vessels. Traceability: Easier to reconstruct why a supplier and price were selected. Cross-team alignment: Planning, ops, and procurement can work from one record.	Not purely a marketplace. Outcomes still depend on supplier coverage, RFQ discipline, and counterparty terms.	Signal: public commentary has described fee per tonne transacted models for some bunker solutions.	Operators that want procurement tied to governance, planning, and internal controls.	Preferred lists: Can we run restricted RFQs to approved suppliers when needed? Evidence pack: Can we export a complete dossier per stem, including approvals? Ranking logic: How does it score and compare offers across terms and timing?
Marketplace Moorio	Bunker quote marketplace (RFQ + negotiation) Centralizes requests, offers, and negotiation so procurement is less dependent on individual inboxes and phone threads.	Inbox reduction: RFQs and offers stay in one place instead of scattered email chains. Coverage: Marketplace approach can broaden supplier engagement in some ports. Order tracking: Helps keep confirmations and follow-ups visible.	Not a substitute for credit discipline and supplier qualification, and not all ports have equal liquidity.	Signal: pricing is commonly proposal based; public messaging references supplier plans in some cases.	Operators buying across many ports who want consistent process and visibility.	Supplier quality: How are suppliers verified and how are issues tracked? Controls: Can we enforce approval steps and segregation of duties? Post-delivery: What is retained for disputes (timestamps, docs, comms)?
Market intelligence Integr8 ENGINE	Fuel market intelligence and benchmarking platform Used to benchmark prices, understand port spreads, and support better procurement calls with market context.	Benchmarking: Helps teams validate whether offers are in-range for that port and day. Market context: Useful when aligning ops and finance on fuel cost narratives. Reporting: Often supports structured internal reporting on procurement outcomes.	Not always a direct procurement marketplace. Often combined with services and commercial arrangements.	Pricing typically not posted publicly and is usually proposal based.	Teams that want price context plus structured tracking and reporting.	Coverage: Which ports have strongest data coverage for our routes? Freshness: What is live versus delayed, and how is it sourced? Export: Can we export clean reports without manual cleanup?
Planning + ops StormGeo Bunker Management	Bunker planning and management module Procurement support embedded in a broader operational toolset, often linking planning view, execution, and reporting.	Integrated view: Planning and procurement actions in one operational picture. Execution support: Helps reduce missed steps during voyage execution. Consistency: Standardizes how bunker decisions are captured fleet-wide.	Not a trading venue. Outcome depends on supplier engagement and RFQ discipline.	Pricing typically proposal based.	Operators already using integrated ops tooling who want bunker process discipline.	Controls: Approvals, role separation, and audit trail support? Data links: How does it connect to voyage plans and reporting? ERP: Integration path with accounting and voyage cost workflows?
Document rail SGTraDex	Trade document and data exchange infrastructure A secure way for counterparties to exchange standard documents and data in a consistent format, including marine fuels use cases.	Fewer document gaps: Reduces chasing of BDNs, invoices, and attachments. Standardization: Helps align formats across multiple counterparties. Dispute speed: Cleaner document trail can shorten resolution time.	Not a procurement marketplace. Think of it as plumbing for exchanging data and documents.	Commercial terms vary by participation and integration; not consistently public.	Teams aiming to reduce paperwork friction and make the record cleaner.	Network: Are our key counterparties already connected? Scope: Which documents and fields are supported today? Integration: What is required to connect to our internal systems?

Top half covers auctions, workflow platforms, marketplaces, intelligence, and document rails.

Mid scroll control for columns above

This scrollbar moves the top table columns.

Mid scroll control for columns below

This scrollbar moves the bottom table columns.

Tip: drag the scrollbar to scan columns (bottom half).

Platform (link)	Type	What it does well	What it is not	Cost model (public signals)	Best fit	Evaluation questions
System SG Smart Tech E-Bunkering System	Configurable e-bunkering workflow software Designed for RFQs, offers, confirmations, order tracking, and delivery documentation inside your own system.	Ownership: You run a consistent workflow regardless of counterparties. Documentation: Supports structured record keeping around delivery paperwork. Configuration: Can be shaped around your approvals and roles.	Not automatically a network marketplace. Counterparties may still work outside your system.	Pricing typically proposal based.	Ship managers, suppliers, brokers, and procurement teams wanting workflow tooling they control.	Audit logs: Role based access and change history? Evidence pack: Can it export a stem dossier with docs and events? APIs: Integration options with ERP and accounting?
Supplier tooling Minerva Bunkering	Delivery-side coordination and visibility concepts Often focused on making delivery execution more visible and reducing confusion during physical supply.	Delivery clarity: Better visibility on delivery steps and status updates. Fewer surprises: Can reduce last minute coordination issues.	Not typically a neutral procurement venue. Often tied to supplier service model.	Commercial model commonly embedded in supplier arrangements rather than posted pricing.	Buyers that prioritize delivery assurance and want a cleaner delivery day process.	Event capture: What delivery events are logged and retained? Access: Who can access records and for how long? Disputes: How are timing and quantity disputes supported?
Online bidding BunkeringAtSea	Online bidding and e-auction style workflow Positions a structured procurement approach with a bid record that can be easier to audit than free-form email quotes.	Traceable bids: Formal record of requests and responses. Process discipline: Clear stages reduce missed steps and lost offers.	Not a replacement for counterparty risk, credit checks, and quality controls.	Pricing not consistently posted publicly.	Operators seeking structured bidding workflow with traceability.	Liquidity: How many suppliers are active in our key ports? Approvals: Does it support approvals and role separation? Docs: Can it capture post-delivery docs and notes?
Commercial ops Veson Nautical	Commercial workflow and voyage economics platform Bunkers are often tracked as part of voyage cost control, approvals, and documentation, rather than a stand-alone RFQ marketplace.	Governance: Strong approvals and record retention for cost components. PnL linkage: Connects bunker cost decisions to voyage economics.	Not a marketplace. Supplier engagement and RFQ collection still happen elsewhere.	Pricing proposal based.	Operators that want procurement records tied to voyage PnL and approvals.	Evidence: Can it store and export a complete stem record? Workflow: How does it integrate with your existing procurement steps? Retention: Document retention and audit export formats?

Practical note: platform value is usually proven by better quote coverage, shorter RFQ-to-confirmation time, and faster dispute resolution because the record is clean.

All in Bunker Offer Comparator

Normalize quotes into a single comparable all in USD per MT, including fixed fees and an optional payment terms cost.

Common inputs

Fuel quantity (MT)

This quantity is used for all offers so you compare apples to apples.

Currency (display)

This tool does not convert FX. Use one currency for all offers.

Annual cost of capital for terms calc (%)

Used only if you enter payment days for an offer. Example: 10% annual.

Optional risk buffer (USD per MT)

If you want, add a small buffer to all offers to reflect quality timing risk or operational friction. Leave at 0 if not used.

Offer A

Offer name Quoted price (USD per MT) Fixed fees total (USD)

Include delivery, barge, service, port extras, sampling fees if quoted as fixed amounts.

Payment terms (days)

0 means ignore terms cost. 30 means you carry capital for 30 days.

Offer B

Offer name Quoted price (USD per MT) Fixed fees total (USD) Payment terms (days)

Offer C

Offer name Quoted price (USD per MT) Fixed fees total (USD) Payment terms (days)

Lowest all in price

Spread best to worst

Total cost difference (best vs worst)

Notes

Ranked offers (all in USD per MT)

All in price = quote price + (fixed fees ÷ MT) + terms cost per MT + optional risk buffer.

Terms cost method: (days ÷ 365) × annual cost of capital × base delivered value per MT. This is a planning proxy, not accounting advice.

Best practice when using this tool If the winning offer is only slightly cheaper, check whether you are comparing like for like on delivery window, credit terms, grade, and any exclusions. Many disputes start from a quote that was not fully comparable.

Bunker Platform Evaluation Scorecard

Score each platform from 0 to 5, apply your weights, and get a ranked result with quick interpretation.

Scoring guide: 0 = not supported, 3 = usable with gaps, 5 = strong and proven for your workflow. Weights are your priorities (0 to 5).

Tip: drag the top scrollbar to scan columns quickly.

Criterion	What good looks like	Weight (0 to 5)	Platform A	Platform B	Platform C
Setup Platform name	Use your actual shortlist names.	Weight not used here.
Coverage Supplier coverage in your ports	Your core ports have enough participating suppliers to produce meaningful competition and reliable execution.		Liquidity by port	Liquidity by port	Liquidity by port
Workflow RFQ and offer comparability	Offers are comparable because key fields are structured: grade, delivery window, credit terms, fees, and conditions.		Apples to apples	Apples to apples	Apples to apples
Governance Approvals and audit trail	Clear approval steps, change logs, and an exportable record per stem that survives staff turnover.		Who approved what	Who approved what	Who approved what
Disputes Quantity and quality dispute support	Stores delivery events, documents, and notes in one place so disputes do not become long email archaeology.		BDN, lab, notes	BDN, lab, notes	BDN, lab, notes
Integration ERP and data export readiness	Clean exports or APIs that match your accounting and voyage cost workflow, with minimal manual cleanup.		API, exports	API, exports	API, exports
Usability Speed for ops teams	Low friction: quick RFQs, clear status, mobile-friendly views, and easy handoffs when people rotate.		Day to day speed	Day to day speed	Day to day speed
Commercial Cost clarity and predictability	You can predict total cost as volume changes (subscription, per stem, per MT, or bundled model).		Cost predictability	Cost predictability	Cost predictability

Winner

Ranked totals

Higher total means better fit given your weights.

Gap to second place

Small gaps mean you should validate with a port coverage test and a live RFQ pilot.

How to use this scorecard in real life First, set weights based on what matters for your operation. Then score after a demo plus one realistic stem walk-through. Finally, run a pilot and rescore using real RFQ cycle time, supplier participation, and dispute handling experience.

By the ShipUniverse Editorial Team — About Us | Contact