AI container inspection: Visy vs Camco vs CERTUS

Inspect the container at the movement

Container damage inspection is a different purchase from general factory vision. A terminal needs evidence attached to a particular container, arrival, or crane move, with an exception process that keeps normal traffic flowing. Visy ADDS, Camco Argus ADI, and CERTUS Container Inspection address that operational decision. Their most useful differences are where images are captured, how damage becomes an actionable exception, and how condition evidence stays connected to the terminal workflow.

Visy ADDS

Visy ADDS 2.0 analyzes container imagery with a deep neural network and reports damage class, location, and severity. Its product scope includes holes, bulges, dents, rust, scratches, damaged locking components, and missing covers. Operators can set sensitivity and alert thresholds by damage class and container side, making the output more useful than an undifferentiated damaged/not-damaged flag. Visy links the system to its truck and rail portals, crane OCR, and TopView roof imaging. Events appear in Visy Access Gate or can be delivered to an existing GOS or TOS through an API. This suits a terminal that wants container identity and condition scoring in the same event stream. The initial calibration uses the site’s traffic imagery, so camera positions, lighting, container mix, and chosen views are part of the actual system specification. A score supports a human operational decision; it does not itself certify container fitness.

Camco Argus ADI

Camco Argus ADI scans imagery from its OCR infrastructure and highlights damage that merits operator attention. The current product page names rib deformation, corner-post damage, holes and rips, bulges and dents, and open doors or broken locking mechanisms. Severe cases can be flagged immediately while less urgent images remain available in The Bridge for later review and claims. This makes Argus particularly relevant to a terminal already using Camco gate, crane, or rail imaging. Its no-extra-hardware proposition applies to the compatible Camco camera infrastructure, rather than an unequipped lane. Tank containers, open-top containers, trailers, and chassis remain listed as upcoming ADI features. Camco separately describes LIDAR-based oversize detection for irregular loads: that is a related configuration to discuss, rather than an assumption that every camera inspection includes 3D measurement.

CERTUS Container Inspection

CERTUS Container Inspection places condition evidence within a broader gate and crane identification workflow. Its STS Crane OCR captures five container sides during loading and discharge, processes imagery through an AI engine, and presents damage images and damage alarms alongside container codes, labels, seals, and other selected data. Results move into central exception handling and are validated against TOS information. Operators use CERTUS PASS Crane OCR Navigator to resolve those exceptions from a central desk. AutoGate applies a similar transaction-centered approach at gate-in and gate-out. The practical strength is associating a condition concern with the correct operational movement and container identity. Camera quantity and hardware depend on the selected features, and the crane system uses a local controller linked to the central server. CERTUS OCR recognition statistics should not be read as an independently established accuracy figure for every damage class.

Compare the damage decision

Visy makes damage class, location, side, and configurable scoring explicit in the ADDS proposition. Camco emphasizes immediate severe-damage flags with archived images available for later assessment. CERTUS emphasizes a validated transaction and a centralized exception workflow around its OCR event. For a terminal deciding which defects should stop a move, Visy’s threshold structure is especially relevant. For Camco users building an evidence trail, Argus and The Bridge form a coherent route. CERTUS is attractive when condition review belongs inside an existing crane or gate exception desk.

Compare capture points and system fit

Visy, Camco, and CERTUS all connect inspection with operational imaging, but their equipment ecosystems matter. Visy explicitly spans truck, rail, crane, and roof views. Camco reuses its compatible OCR images across terminal capture points. CERTUS describes five-side STS capture and gate automation as distinct operating contexts. Roof coverage, camera views, and container types therefore need to match the intended lane or crane. Buying a damage model alone is different from buying the imaging and transaction infrastructure that makes its findings usable.

Compare the commercial scope

Numeric prices, billing intervals, hardware charges, and contract minima remain unconfirmed for all three offerings. Visy’s site calibration and integration, Camco’s compatible OCR infrastructure and any LIDAR option, and CERTUS’s selected camera and exception features create different project scopes. Compare the proposed capture points and usable defect classes alongside the software entitlement. An existing camera installation can change implementation costs substantially, but it does not establish free AI inspection or identical support terms. The profiles retain the verified source links and commercial uncertainties.

Which should you choose?

Consider Visy for explicit damage scoring, Camco for inspection built around its OCR imagery and archive, and CERTUS for condition exceptions tied closely to TOS transactions. The strongest fit is the product whose capture points and operator workflow match the terminal’s daily moves.