Sedna vs Logentic, which AI platform fits your forwarder?

Sedna is the stronger choice for shipbrokers and ocean forwarders that want to move their full team into a specialised shared-inbox platform with deep maritime tool integrations. Logentic is built for Dutch and continental European mid-market freight forwarders (15–200 FTE) that want to keep their existing mailbox and TMS, and just automate the repetitive back office (booking emails, B/L, CMR, customs prep) — with deep NL customs integration.

What are Sedna and Logentic exactly?

Sedna (founded 2017, HQ London) initially built a specialised mail client for shipbrokers and maritime forwarders, addressing the daily reality that traders and operators handle 200–400 emails in shared inboxes. Sedna later layered AI on top: smart reply, summarisation, document extraction. The target customer sits in maritime trading, dry bulk, tanker chartering and large international forwarders. Sedna has raised Series C funding and is an established name in the maritime segment.

Logentic (founded 2025, HQ Rotterdam) is an AI-layer product. It does not replace your mail client or your TMS; it reads your existing Outlook/Gmail inbox, extracts data from booking emails and documents (B/L, CMR, commercial invoices), and writes output back to your existing TMS (CargoWise, Softpak, Descartes, Boltrics). For NL customs there is deep integration with Portbase, AGS, DMS and NCTS. Target: continental freight forwarders and customs brokers, 15–200 FTE.

The core difference: Sedna is a new workplace for your team; Logentic is an agent that works inside your existing workplace.

Side-by-side comparison

Where Sedna is stronger

• Maritime / chartering depth. Sedna's roots are in dry-bulk and tanker chartering. Native ties to Veson IMOS, Q88 and Compass are a real technical edge for brokers and operators using those tools. If your business is chartering or ocean trading, Sedna fits better.
• Team-inbox management at scale. For teams of 50–200 traders each touching 200–400 emails a day, Sedna's shared-inbox features (assignment, threading, conversation rooms) are a tangible productivity gain. Hard to replicate by an AI layer over Outlook.
• Track record and install base. Sedna has been live since 2017, raised Series C, has a large international maritime customer base, and a mature product organisation. For an enterprise buyer minimising risk, this is a real difference vs. a 2025 launch.
• English-language global reach. For a UK or Singapore broker operating 100% in English, Sedna feels native. Logentic is strong in NL/EU but less known outside the EU.

Where Logentic is stronger

• No platform swap. Logentic runs on your existing Outlook or Gmail and your existing TMS. No team migration to a new mail client, no 3–6 month change-management programme. For mid-market forwarders, that is the difference between "live in 2 weeks" and "live in half a year".
• NL customs as a first-class scenario. Portbase, AGS, DMS, NCTS, MRN, T1, ICS2 — Logentic is built with these workflows as core. For a Rotterdam ocean forwarder or customs broker, that is tangible; Sedna would require custom work.
• Continental languages and documents. Logentic handles Dutch, German, French and English booking emails and CMR waybills from different EU countries equally well. Sedna is English-primary.
• Pricing transparency. Flat monthly fee versus per-seat enterprise licensing. For a 30-FTE forwarder without a procurement team, predictability matters.
• Direct founder access. At 15–100 FTE companies, "can we reach the vendor when something breaks?" is a real factor. With Logentic the answer is yes; with Sedna you go through a customer success team.

Honest warning — both have weaknesses

Sedna's weaknesses for NL/EU mid-market: mandatory mail-client migration is a serious change programme; no native NL customs integration; per-seat pricing scales poorly for smaller teams; less brand recognition outside maritime; less customs-focused.

Logentic's weaknesses: younger install base without Sedna's track record; less geared to chartering and broker workflows; no native team-inbox management; for teams that genuinely live inside one shared inbox as their main workplace, Logentic delivers less UI advantage.

If you are a Hamburg dry-bulk broker with 80 traders living in a shared inbox — Sedna is probably the better fit. If you are a 40-FTE Rotterdam forwarder/customs broker with CargoWise + Portbase — Logentic fits better.

Which platform fits which forwarder?

Practical: what to ask in a demo

1. "Run on our real emails." Send 10–20 representative inbound emails. Include odd formats, scans, multilingual attachments. Not the vendor's demo data.
2. "What does my team have to change?" With Sedna: full mail-client switch. With Logentic: nothing on the surface. Ask for a concrete view of the first 90 days.
3. "Which integrations are native?" Get a list, not "we have APIs". For NL: Portbase, AGS, NCTS, CargoWise specifically.
4. "Who maintains the rules?" Can ops adjust rules themselves, or does everything go through support?
5. "What do I pay in month 1 vs. month 24?" Including onboarding, support tiers, per-transaction costs, renewal.

Conclusion

Sedna and Logentic address related problems from different angles. Sedna is for teams that want a new workplace with deep maritime tools underneath. Logentic is for teams that want to keep their existing workplace and only automate the repetitive back office.

A 100-FTE global dry-bulk broker will lean Sedna. A 40-FTE Rotterdam ocean forwarder with Softpak and Portbase will lean Logentic. The middle group — 50–200 FTE EU forwarders without a heavy chartering arm — is well served by trialling both on real data before deciding.

Related

Raft vs Logentic · Bill of Lading guide · Booking-email automation

---

Bogdan Ivtsjenko is the founder of Logentic. This comparison is based on public information about Sedna (website, product pages, press) and internal knowledge of Logentic. Reach out on LinkedIn with corrections — I'll update the doc.