What these checks cost, what you actually get for the money, and the cases where paying is the right call. Written by a company that gives the checks away — read it with that in mind, and check every claim against the sources named.
Australian planning and hazard data is public government data. Nobody selling a property report owns the underlying facts — they are selling aggregation, presentation and speed, which is a real service with a real cost.
What has changed is that aggregation is no longer expensive to build. That is why the same checks that carry a per-address fee on property-data platforms are given away inside Draftly's site brief: the research is not our product, so we have no reason to meter it.
That is an argument with an obvious conflict of interest, so the rest of this page is specific about where the paid platforms are genuinely better.
Point-in-time figures for the Australian property-data category, from our maintained comparison audit. They describe the category rather than any single named vendor, and vendor pricing moves — verify before you rely on any of it.
| Check | Property-data platforms | Draftly site brief |
|---|---|---|
| Flood report | $39–$69 | Free |
| Bushfire pre-screen | $39–$69 | Free |
| Planning PDF | around $9 | Free |
| Geotechnical desktop study | around $119 | Free |
| State heritage certificate | $63.04 | Free |
Source: Draftly's public comparison audit, last updated 2026-08-12 — the same figures shown at /compare/. Figures are point-in-time and describe the property-data category generally, not any one named vendor; verify current pricing with the vendor. A state heritage certificate fee is set by the state heritage body.
Individually these are small amounts. The reason they matter is that feasibility is iterative: a trade pricing work across five possible sites, or a homeowner comparing two blocks, multiplies every line above. Per-report pricing quietly discourages the checking you should be doing most.
Breadth of data. A dedicated property-data platform carries well over a hundred layers per address — noise, acid sulfate soils, school catchment, soil hazards. Draftly does not aggregate those nationally, and if your work depends on them, that breadth is the product.
Site acquisition at volume. Summary scores per property, lead qualification, portfolio screening — these are built for buying and selling sites. Draftly is built for the person who already has the site and needs to build something on it.
Developer feasibility. Platforms like Archistar aggregate planning rules from tens of thousands of government sources and generate compliant 3D envelopes. For a multi-unit development, that is a different and largely better tool. Their own documentation is explicit that the output is concept-level and that detailed design, engineering and approvals still require licensed professionals.
Statutory documents. A flood certificate, a BAL assessment under AS 3959, a state heritage certificate, a re-establishment survey — none of these are lookups, and no free tool substitutes for them. A free pre-screen tells you which of them you actually need, which is usually worth more than it costs.
For the question "what am I dealing with on this block?", a government-sourced brief answers it. Zone, overlays, verified lot boundary from the cadastre, registered easements, design wind region and nearby DA activity cover the decisions that actually change a backyard project: whether a permit is triggered, whether the structure has a legal location, and what the engineering has to withstand.
Paying per report for that specific answer, repeatedly, is the part that stopped making sense.
Planning zones are live via government APIs in six states and territories — VIC, NSW, QLD metro councils, TAS, SA and ACT. WA and NT are gaps, and per-state overlay completeness varies. Hazard depth is thinner than the dedicated platforms. Where a government service does not expose a layer, the brief says so instead of implying the site is clear, and uncovered lookups fall back to guided manual entry rather than a fabricated answer.
Every rule carries a data version and a human-reviewed date stamp, and every figure is named with its source — so you can check us against the portal the data came from. That is deliberate: a free report that cannot be verified is worth less than a paid one that can.
The table below is maintained as an audit and includes our own weaknesses. It is the same data rendered at /compare/.
| Dimension | Draftly | Canibuild | Buildertrend / CoConstruct | Archistar | Property-data platforms | ClearCalcs | Council & state portals |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Address-to-answer speedType an address → a useful answer, with nothing in between. | 4 | 5 | 1 | 4 | 4.5 | 1.5 | 1 |
| Planning data reliabilityHow much of the planning answer is real government data vs inference. | 4 | 4 | 1 | 4.5 | 4 | 1 | 5 |
| Visual UXMap, drag-and-drop, live feedback — how it feels to use. | 4 | 5 | 3.5 | 4 | 3 | 3.5 | 1 |
| Drafting & exportDrawings, DXF/PDF sets, documents a council or certifier accepts. | 4.5 | 2 | 1.5 | 1 | 1 | 2.5 | 1 |
| Engineering defensibilityStructural calculations, member schedules, AS/NZS-referenced outputs. | 4 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 4.5 | 1 |
| Commercial readinessPricing clarity, payments, onboarding, market maturity. | 3.5 | 3.5 | 4.5 | 4 | 3.5 | 3.5 | — |
| Partner / trade ecosystemPartner programs, integrations, API access, white-label. | 4.5 | 3 | 3.5 | 2.5 | 2 | 2 | 1 |
| Running the buildSchedule of works, trade dispatch, purchase orders, and what the homeowner can see. | 3 | 1.5 | 4.5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | — |
| What you get before payingHow much of a usable answer arrives without a subscription, a per-report fee, or a sales call. | 5 | 1 | 1.5 | 1.5 | 2.5 | 2 | 3 |
Scores are calibrated for ONE job: the address-to-permit-to-built workflow for Australian backyard structures and small residential builds (pergolas, decks, sheds, carports, granny flats) — for trades, builders and homeowners. They are not a verdict on general construction software. A tool can score low here and be excellent at what it is actually built for.
Scored 1–5. “—” means the dimension does not apply to that product. Last updated 2026-08-12. See the full comparison · Report an error.
This table is an audit, not a brochure. These are our own limitations, published because a comparison that only flatters us is worth nothing.
Free, no account, not metered. Runs the full site brief — zone, overlays, verified lot boundary, easements and design wind — and gives you the PDF.