vs Giraffe
Giraffe is where you design the scheme. Feasibly is where you get the rules to design within.
Giraffe is a map-based 3D design and feasibility canvas, a genuinely capable place to sketch schemes, model scenarios and collaborate on them. But the canvas doesn’t know your site’s planning rules: in most workflows you (or an enterprise data deployment) supply them. Feasibly is that supply: the schedule-specific envelope, permit triggers and yield verdict, cited and confidence-tagged, ready to design against.
Head to head
The canvas and the constraint feed
These tools barely overlap, which is exactly the point. The comparison is about where the planning rules come from before the design work starts.
| Giraffe | With Feasibly | |
|---|---|---|
| Core job | 3D design + feasibility canvas: sketch schemes on a map, model scenarios, collaborate. | Interpret the planning scheme for an address: envelope, permit triggers, buildability, in seconds. |
| Where the planning rules come from | You configure them, or an enterprise data deployment supplies them (strongest in NSW via Land iQ). | Codified: 620+ Victorian council schedules read by hand, plus six more states from authoritative APIs. The rules arrive interpreted. |
| Source citation & confidence | Not the product’s job: the canvas renders what it’s given. | Every value cited to its clause with a verified / machine-extract / default confidence tag. |
| Permit triggers | We found no “does this trip a permit here” output: it’s a design environment, not a scheme interpreter. | Forward-looking triggers per overlay schedule (2,306 rules, 79/79 VIC councils; NSW consent triggers), with exemptions. |
| Accuracy posture | Not applicable to a canvas: the rules are yours. | Published benchmark + the wrong-zone guarantee: free lookup + 10 credits + a public correction. |
| Economics | ~US$250/user/month, project-shaped, priced for teams living in the canvas. | Credit-metered: Free 20/mo → $29 → $99. Priced for dozens of per-address checks a week. |
| Delivery | Web canvas; API access on paid tiers. | MCP-native (Claude / ChatGPT / Cursor) + REST from the free tier, drops into whatever you design in. |
Decision
When to reach for each
Reach for Giraffe when you need to…
- Sketch and iterate schemes on a live 3D map
- Model scenarios and design-led feasibility with your team
- Work NSW sites with Land iQ’s data depth
- Present a spatial story to stakeholders
Reach for Feasibly when you need to…
- Get the verified envelope and triggers before the canvas opens
- Screen a pipeline of addresses for go/no-go, fast
- A source-linked answer you can defend to a client or lender
- Feed interpreted rules into your design workflow, including Giraffe’s
Closing
Our honest position
- Giraffe is a design canvas, and a good one. We don’t compete with the canvas. We don’t draw anything.
- A canvas is only as good as the rules you design within. Feasibly supplies those rules interpreted, cited, confidence-tagged and underwritten.
- In NSW design contexts, Giraffe’s Land iQ data runs deep. We say so plainly. Our NSW layer is consent-trigger and API-deep; Victoria is where we’re schedule-deep beyond anything we’ve seen published.
- Use both: look up the rules in seconds, then design against them. MCP + REST means the handoff is one tool call.