Most carbon platforms are built for a company with a sustainability team, and priced for one. EsgaSIS is built for a business where the person doing this also does three other jobs, and it is opinionated about refusing to produce numbers it cannot stand behind.
Four differences that show up in practice:
Collection is organised by who holds the data, not by GHG Protocol scope — and each cluster is delegable to that person by a link with no account.
There is one claim and no dropdown. Every report says it is prepared with reference to the GRI Standards; accordance is not offered, because this service does not ask for enough of GRI 2 to support it.
Country-specific processes refuse to fall back. No Malaysian waste factor means no Malaysian waste figure, and a stated exclusion — not Singapore’s incineration model quietly applied to a landfill.
Factors are snapshotted per entry, so a report you sent last year still reproduces even after the registry is corrected.
The gap this is aimed at is specific. Enterprise platforms assume dedicated staff, a data warehouse and a budget. Cheap calculators produce a number with no provenance, which fails the moment a customer asks where it came from. The middle — defensible provenance at a price an SME can justify, in a region where the factors actually differ by state — is thinly served.