How do fleet managers view the value they receive from their fleet management companies (FMCs)? This anonymous pulse check sets out to capture a directional snapshot of that relationship — where FMCs are seen as delivering value, where frustrations arise, and how those perceptions influence satisfaction and openness to change. 

While not intended as a definitive industry benchmark, the findings provide insight into emerging themes that can guide fleets in their FMC relationships and help FMCs focus on the areas that matter most to their customers. 

Automotive Fleet collected 55 fleet manager responses via an online form from July 16 to August 15, 2025. Many questions allowed open-ended responses to allow respondents to elaborate beyond the scores. 

Respondent Demographics

Organization type: Over half (52%) of respondents came from corporate fleets; 30% identified as commercial fleets, and the rest split between utilities, government, and delivery/logistics. 

Fleet size: About one-third manage 1,000 to 5,000 vehicles. 28% manage 100-499; 13% manage 5,000 or more; 13% manage 500-599; and 11% manage fewer than 100.

Vehicle mix: When ranked by count, light-duty pickups and vans topped the list, followed by passenger vehicles and then medium- and heavy-duty vehicles.

FMC usage: 48% use one FMC for all needs; 24% manage some needs with an FMC and others in-house, and 15% split fleet needs between multiple providers.

Core Services, Funding, and Financing

The six services assessed here are: funding and financing structures, vehicle acquisition, upfitting support, lifecycle cost management, compliance and safety, and vehicle disposal/resale support.

Among these, funding and financing stood out most clearly as a strength: nearly three-quarters rated their FMC positively, including 41% who rated it “very good” and 32% “good.” One respondent said, “Funding is absolutely critical and consistently handled well.”

Other areas reflected more diverse perspectives. Vehicle acquisition earned strong marks from 29%, who rated it “very good,” while another 24% rated it “good.” However, 37% described performance as “acceptable” or worse.

Upfitting support also showed a split, with about 24% rating it “very good” and 15% “good.” Yet 17% rated it “poor" or “very poor.” Lifecycle cost management landed in the middle, with 22% rating it “very good” and 32% rating it “good,” although more than a third (42%) found it merely acceptable or below. Compliance and safety reflected similar middling views, with 20% “very good,” 24% “good,” and over a third rated “acceptable” or worse.

Finally, disposal and resale support were more often described as “acceptable” (39%), with only 17% rating it “very good.” As one manager noted, “Vehicle resale values are not optimized — could do better.” Another said, “End-of-lease process takes too long.” 

Other Services and Operational Support

The operational support services assessed included fuel program management, account management responsiveness, accident management, driver support and help desk, roadside assistance, telematics support, toll and violation management, order-to-delivery timing, and license and titling.

Fuel program management emerged as a strength, with more than two-thirds of respondents rating it positively —including 41% who rated it “very good.”

Other services reflected more varied experiences across fleets. Account management responsiveness received strong “good” ratings (39%), paired with 29% offering “very good.” Accident management was also recognized, with about half of respondents rating it positively, though many noted it as an area that doesn’t apply to their operations.

Services such as driver support and help desk, and roadside assistance drew mixed assessments. Roughly half rated them “good” or “very good,” while 24% placed them in the “acceptable” range and 15% in the poor or very poor range.

Meanwhile, several support services surfaced as opportunities for FMC to differentiate further. Telematics supports a wide spread of responses — 20% “very good,” 17% “good,” and 12% “acceptable,” though over a third indicated telematics was “not applicable.”

The services receiving the greatest percentage of “poor” and “very poor” marks in this area were toll and violation management (12% poor) and order-to-delivery timing (15% poor, 10% very poor), with license and titling (27% poor, 20% very poor) being the most problematic by far.

License and titling scored the lowest marks of any service assessed in this pulse survey. One fleet manager said bluntly:

“License and title is a mess.” Another added: “Ongoing issues with renewals, still waiting on titles from months ago.” 

Strategic Value 

Strategic value was assessed in three areas: reporting and analytics tools, alignment and support for organizational goals, and tech platform usability and integration.

Among these, reporting and analytics tools stood out as the strongest performers. More than two-thirds of
respondents rated their FMC “good” or “very good.” One respondent noted: “Their reporting tools are strong and give us what we need.”

Responses varied regarding alignment with organizational goals such as cost efficiency, safety, and sustainability. Over half rated their FMC positively (51% “very good, or “good”), while roughly the same share described the performance as “acceptable” (27%) or “poor” (20%).

One fleet manager noted: “They’re reactive, not proactive. Nothing is done without our asking.”

Tech platform usability and integration landed in between, with nearly six in ten rating their FMC positively (24% “very good,” 34% “good”). At the same time, 20% described their experience as “poor.” One respondent noted: “FMCs forgot we were the customer — they take so long to set up and once you’re in, they all need to heavily step it up.”

Overall Satisfaction and Willingness to Switch

When asked to look back over the past five years, most fleet professionals reported that satisfaction with their FMCs has remained steady.

Nearly two-fifths (38%) said their satisfaction is “about the same,” while close to three in ten saw improvement (13% “much better” and 15% “slightly better”). A quarter felt their experience had declined slightly (25% “slightly worse”), - More than 40% would be likely or very likely to recommend their FMC to a peer.

Looking forward, fleets expressed a measured openness to reconsidering their FMC partnerships. Nearly half (45%) said they would not consider switching providers in the next 12–24 months. However, 38% said they would consider a switch during that timeframe, and another 18% were unsure.

The reasons were illuminated in the comments. One respondent praised their FMC’s team as “always responsive and helpful,” while another pointed to frustration: “They don’t take accountability — just lots of excuses.”

Accountability and Cost Partnership

Across several open-ended questions, a common theme was accountability. Some fleet managers credited their FMCs with readily owning mistakes. “Yes, they accept responsibility and work toward corrective action,” one said. Others felt remedies took too long or missed the mark: “Not really — they slow-walk fixes, and we end up waiting months.”

On cost mitigation, some said FMCs do “absolutely” help reduce costs, while others felt support was inconsistent: “Only when we push them” or “No, in fact they make it more difficult with their processes.”

Varied Experiences and Partnerships

These “pulse check” results reflect a spectrum of fleet manager experiences. Areas like funding and fuel programs earned consistently strong marks, while others, such as licensing, disposal, and strategic alignment, received more mixed reviews. It’s important to note that, just as no two fleets are alike, neither are the FMCs that serve them. 

The findings here are not a blanket judgment on the industry, but a reflection on varied experiences across different partnerships.

The data and comments reflect the diversity of providers and the varied needs of the
fleets they serve.