E2open vs Infios for Multimodal EU Freight Shippers

Two renamed vendors, two new owners, one shortlist problem

If you shortlisted BluJay or MercuryGate within the last three years, you weren't comparing E2open vs Infios. You were comparing two independent TMS brands that have since been swallowed by much larger platform strategies, on almost the same timeline. WiseTech Global completed its acquisition of E2open Parent Holdings on 3-4 August 2025 for $2.1 billion, paid fully in cash and funded through a new syndicated debt facility, folding the former BluJay shipper TMS into the CargoWise parent brand. Seven months earlier, Körber Supply Chain Software, the joint venture that had bought MercuryGate, launched a literal rebranding of its name to "Infios," a joint venture between its parent company Körber AG and KKR.

Procurement teams refreshing an old RFP are often still working from stale vendor identities. If your distribution list says "MercuryGate" or "BluJay," you're emailing a brand that no longer exists in that form. This comparison is built for European and EU-active shippers deciding between E2open and Infios in late 2026, once the ownership dust has (mostly) settled.

Scoping the use case: who this comparison is for

This is written for European or EU-active shippers running a mixed FTL/LTL/intermodal/ocean/air freight profile, with roughly $25M or more in annual freight spend, who need a dedicated shipper-side TMS rather than a forwarder or customs platform. If you're parcel-only or sub-$5M in freight spend, you're better served looking at nShift, Sendcloud, Shippo, or EasyPost. Both E2open and Infios target the segment that needs real multi-carrier shipping software with deep carrier connectivity across modes, not a shipping label generator.

The criteria that decide this choice

Five things actually move the needle for a $25M+ multimodal shipper evaluating these two platforms, and they're not the usual feature-checklist items.

• Carrier network reach and connectivity depth. This drives your implementation timeline and EDI/API integration cost. A vendor with thousands of pre-connected carriers gets you live faster than one asking you to build connections from scratch.
• Ownership stability and integration roadmap. Both vendors are mid-integration into larger parents. That's not a footnote, it's a live risk to your contract and your support experience for the next 18-24 months.
• Pricing model and transparency. Neither vendor publishes list pricing, which changes how you should run your RFP and your ROI model.
• Platform scope. Standalone TMS versus a bundled TMS+WMS+OMS suite changes your integration surface and your lock-in exposure.
• Independent analyst validation. Gartner and IDC recognition gives you a cross-check against vendor marketing, though it's not a substitute for your own reference calls.

E2open vs Infios at a glance

Carrier network and connectivity depth

E2open's pitch rests on scale. The former BluJay network, now folded into E2open, offers connectivity to over one million carriers for tendering and track-and-trace, and IDC's 2026 assessment describes the carrier base as a live, transacting ecosystem where carriers are already integrated, credentialed, and processing freight daily, not just a directory. For a shipper weighing out how fast they can onboard EU road, ocean, and air carriers, that pre-built connectivity shortens the integration phase of implementation.

Infios doesn't publish an equivalent carrier count. Its argument is mode and rate depth rather than raw network size: MercuryGate's solutions are unique in their native support of all modes of transportation on a single platform including Parcel, LTL, Truckload, Air, Ocean, Rail, and Intermodal. The trade-off is straightforward. E2open gives you breadth you can lean on from day one. Infios asks you to bring more of your own carrier relationships and rate logic, in exchange for tighter multimodal rate management inside one engine.

Ownership stability and integration roadmap risk

Neither acquisition is finished settling. On the E2open side, third-party analysis of the BluJay transition flags that platform integration between acquired BluJay capabilities and legacy E2open modules is ongoing, and that's before accounting for WiseTech's own integration workload now that e2open sits inside a group that just absorbed its largest acquisition to date. On the Infios side, the company's own CEO has been candid that the joint-venture structure created identity confusion after the MercuryGate deal, describing the pre-rebrand period as "murky to figure out who we were", which is a polite way of saying customers weren't always sure which roadmap they were buying into.

For your RFP, this means asking both vendors for a named integration milestone roadmap, not a marketing slide. Put a contract clause tying support fees or renewal terms to delivered integration milestones rather than announced intentions. If a vendor can't name a specific module consolidation date, treat that as a yellow flag during negotiation, not a detail to chase after signature.

Pricing model: two flavours of "quote only"

Neither vendor runs a self-serve price list. E2open's shipper TMS is subscription, quote-based, with pricing disclosed only through sales conversations. Infios is the same: quote-based commercial packaging rather than a public self-serve price list, with third-party buyer guides commonly placing annual software contracts in roughly the $80,000 to $250,000 range depending on volume, modes, and integrations. That figure is a market estimate from buyer guides, not an official vendor SKU, and it should be treated as a planning anchor rather than a number you build your business case on.

There's a related risk worth flagging for any shipper already inside the WiseTech ecosystem through CargoWise. On 1 December 2025, WiseTech transitioned roughly 95 percent of CargoWise customers to CargoWise Value Packs, replacing the seat and transaction license model that had run since 2014, and bundling 216+ modules and unlimited users into a single per-transaction automation fee. That change applies to CargoWise's forwarder product, not to E2open's shipper TMS specifically, but it tells you how WiseTech thinks about pricing contagion across its portfolio. If you're negotiating an E2open contract, ask explicitly whether a similar transaction-based repricing is on the roadmap for the shipper product, and get any "no" in writing.

Platform scope: standalone TMS vs bundled suite

Infios is explicit about consolidation. The vendor states its platform integrates order management, warehousing and fulfillment and transportation management into a comprehensive suite of solutions. If you already run a separate WMS, that's either a pro (fewer integrations, one vendor relationship) or a con (a bigger blast radius if one module underperforms and you're locked into a single commercial agreement across three functions).

E2open is consolidating around network and trade adjacency instead. Its shipper capabilities span planning and rating, execution, in-transit visibility, settlement, analytics, and procurement, sitting inside a WiseTech portfolio built around trade compliance, customs, and global logistics execution. Shippers who already need customs and trade-document adjacency get more natural fit here than they would from Infios's warehouse-and-order-management lean.

Verdict, scoped to the use case

For a $25M+ multimodal European shipper, Infios is the better fit if you want TMS, WMS, and order management consolidated under one vendor relationship and one (quote-based) commercial conversation, and you can tolerate a Körber/KKR integration that's still maturing its identity post-rebrand. E2open is the better fit if your priority is the largest pre-built carrier network, ocean-carrier connectivity, and trade/customs adjacency through its WiseTech lineage, and you can tolerate a slower, phased integration cadence between legacy E2open and former BluJay modules.

Neither vendor clears the bar on pricing transparency. If a clean, published per-carrier or per-shipment rate card is a hard requirement for your finance team, add a lighter connectivity-first layer to your RFP alongside these two. Cargoson, alongside Alpega and Transporeon, sits in that category: multi-carrier connectivity without buying into a quote-only enterprise suite. It's not a replacement for E2open or Infios at this freight volume, but it's a useful reference point for what transparent pricing in this market actually looks like.