A mid-size freight forwarder with operations spanning two continents. Six offices: headquarters on the US West Coast, plus locations in Hong Kong, mainland China, Taiwan, and Vietnam. Over 50 employees handling mixed FCL and LCL ocean freight, primarily serving retail importers moving goods from Asia to North America.
For more than five years, they ran their operations on CargoWise. It was the industry standard. It was what they knew. And increasingly, it was holding them back.
“The system is too complex. The procedure is very complicated. You can’t proceed even if you make a small mistake.” — Operations manager, Hong Kong office
What sounds like a training problem was actually a design problem. CargoWise’s comprehensive functionality came with comprehensive complexity. Every task required navigating multiple screens, following rigid procedures, and hoping you didn’t make the small mistake that would force you to start over.
For a team processing hundreds of shipments monthly across six time zones, this friction added up.
“I’m scared to death every time I see a bill, I get a headache.” — Branch manager, US operations
The per-transaction pricing model meant costs were unpredictable. A busy month meant a bigger bill. Price increases—four in recent years—compounded the problem. Budgeting became guesswork, and every invoice arrived with a sense of dread.
The Asia offices faced a specific challenge: they needed batch operations that CargoWise didn’t provide.
“Updating one by one… you will do it to death.” — Discussion with Asia accounting team
When a vessel schedule changed, the Taiwan and China offices needed to update invoice posting dates across dozens of shipments. When AR invoice numbers needed adjustment for e-invoice compliance, they had to do it shipment by shipment. What should have been a 10-minute task became hours of repetitive clicking.
To avoid CargoWise’s per-filing fees, the company used external services for ISF and AMS filing.
“We didn’t use CargoWise to do this because CargoWise is too expensive. They use another third party.” — Branch manager
This meant double data entry: once in CargoWise for operations, once in the filing service for compliance. More labor, more errors, more complexity.
The December 2025 pricing announcement was the catalyst, but not the cause. The cause was years of accumulated friction:
When they calculated their true total cost of ownership—not just the CargoWise invoice, but the third-party tools, the double-entry labor, the training overhead—the number was sobering. They started evaluating alternatives.
Any replacement system needed to address their specific pain points:
Must Have:
Nice to Have:
Non-Negotiable:
After evaluating three alternatives, they chose GoFreight. Here’s what made the difference:
GoFreight committed to developing the specific batch operations their Asia offices needed:
This wasn’t a standard feature request—it was custom development for their specific workflow. The fact that GoFreight was willing to build it, on a reasonable timeline, signaled the kind of partnership they were looking for.
ISF and AMS filing built into the platform. One data entry, automatic filing, status visible on the shipment record. No more third-party tools. No more double entry.
A flat monthly cost based on users, not transactions. No surprise invoices. No penalty for growth. They could budget accurately for the first time in years.
Not a ticket queue. A person who knew their account, understood their workflows, and was accountable for their success.
Given the complexity—six offices, custom development, multi-currency setup—this wasn’t a 7-day implementation. But it was far shorter than the 6-9 months a legacy system would have required.
Week 1-2: Contract and Kickoff - Contract signed - Dedicated success manager assigned - Requirements confirmed for custom batch features - Data export from CargoWise initiated
Week 3-4: US Headquarters Pilot - Master data imported - US team trained - First shipments processed - Parallel running with CargoWise
Week 5-6: US Offices Go-Live - Remaining US offices transitioned - Workflow adjustments based on pilot learnings - Custom batch features delivered for testing
Week 7-8: Asia Offices Transition - Hong Kong and Vietnam offices trained (evening US / morning Asia sessions) - Multi-currency accounting configured - E-invoice compliance workflows validated
Week 9-10: China and Taiwan Go-Live - Final offices transitioned - Batch features deployed to production - Full adoption monitoring begins
They didn’t try to go live everywhere at once. The US headquarters served as a pilot, surfacing issues and refining training before rolling out to other offices. By the time Asia came online, the process was smooth.
CargoWise Training (Before): - Months to proficiency for new hires - Formal certification requirements - Ongoing training for system updates - Staff reluctance to use advanced features
GoFreight Training (After): - Operations staff functional within 1 week - Accounting staff trained in 2-3 days - No certification required - Team actually uses the features they’re trained on
“The interface just makes sense. We’re not afraid to click on things anymore.” — Operations lead, Taiwan office
| Metric | Before | After | Improvement |
|---|---|---|---|
| Time for batch invoice updates | 3-4 hours | 15 minutes | 90%+ reduction |
| ISF/AMS filing workflow | Double entry | Single entry | 50% time savings |
| New hire training time | 3-4 months | 2-3 weeks | 75% reduction |
| Monthly billing variability | ±30% | Fixed | Predictable |
| Third-party tool subscriptions | 3 tools | 0 | Eliminated |
1. Calculate True TCO, Not Just Invoice Cost Their CargoWise invoice wasn’t their true cost. The third-party tools, double-entry labor, and training overhead doubled their actual spend.
2. Don’t Let Fear of Switching Keep You Stuck The “trapped” narrative is powerful but not accurate. Yes, switching requires effort. But the effort is finite. The cost of staying on the wrong platform compounds forever.
3. Phased Rollout Reduces Risk Going live office by office let them learn and adjust. By the time they reached the final offices, implementation was routine.
4. Custom Features Are Possible They assumed batch operations would require them to compromise. Instead, they found a vendor willing to build what they needed.
5. Support Quality Matters The difference between a ticket queue and a dedicated success manager was transformational.
This company isn’t unique. They’re a typical mid-size forwarder who had outgrown their enterprise software. The complexity that once felt necessary had become a liability. The pricing that once seemed acceptable had become anxiety-inducing.
What made the difference wasn’t finding a “perfect” alternative. It was finding a platform that:
If their situation sounds familiar, you’re not alone. And you’re not trapped.
Is your situation similar? If you’re a multi-office forwarder dealing with:
We’d like to understand your specific requirements and show you what’s possible.
No pressure. No obligation. Just an honest conversation about whether we can help.
Related Resources:
Last updated: February 2026
Note: This case study is based on an actual GoFreight customer. Details have been anonymized to protect confidentiality. Contact us to request references from customers willing to share their experience directly.