Table 7.

Comparison between Cropviz and the PA technology solutions included in the summary.

Features	Cropviz	12–15	16–19	20,21,23	7,24,25
On-site challenges analysis	✓	x	x	x	x
On-site challenges prioritization with SMF	✓	x	x	x	x
Farmer-centered approach	✓	x	x	x	x
Field evaluation and iterations	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
Improved cost–benefit equation for the SMF	✓	x	x	x	x
Improved up-front costs	✓	x	x	x	x
Improved management, operation and maintenance costs	✓	x	x	x	x
Works without Internet connection at the farm	✓	x	x	✓	x
Works without electricity at the farm	✓	x	x	✓	x
Simplified installation	✓	x	x	✓	x
Simplified maintenance	x	x	x	✓	x
Easy to adapt to technology evolution	✓	x	✓	✓	x
Simplified functionality	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
Device-enabled	✓	✓	✓	x	✓
Simplified digital interface	✓	✓	✓	x	✓
Simplified customer-interface	✓	✓	✓	x	✓
Works without previous analysis or studies at the farm	✓	✓	✓	x	✓
Flexibility on aggregating other functionalities or variables	✓	x	x	x	x
Alerts provision	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
Remote control possibility	x	x	x	x	x
Supporting several farms	✓	x	x	✓	✓
Easy to scale	✓	x	x	✓	x
Historical data visualization and analysis	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
Extension to other crops	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
Easy and automatic georeferentiation	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
Adequate latency	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
Close to real-time monitoring at the farm	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
User friendly	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
Different users with different profiles and authorizations	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
Adaptability to integrate new analysis or research	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
Accuracy in data	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
Meeting spatial information quality	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
Meeting required spatial resolution	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
Current data	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓

The columns cite various PA solutions grouped by functionality.