Freight and trucking API development built so a shipment means the same thing in every system it touches.
We build the integration layer between your TMS and the carriers, brokers, aggregators and telematics providers you have to talk to: rating and quoting, load tendering and dispatch, status and ETA, documents and settlement, over direct APIs and over EDI.
Most of this work starts with a stack that already half works: two carriers on an API, three on EDI, and one partner whose portal somebody keys by hand every morning. We will tell you which of those is worth changing, including when the answer is none of them.
- 120+Projects delivered across 12 countries since 2012
- 100+Senior in-house engineers, six countries
- 5.0Unified rating across 61 client reviews on Clutch
- 2 to 4 weeksTypical time from signature to start
- ISTQBCertified QA inside every sprint
- ISO 27001Certified security practice, audited by Quay Audit UK
01Overview
What a freight API actually connects, and what it has to survive
Freight and trucking API development is the design, build and integration of the interfaces that move freight data between shippers, carriers, brokers, 3PLs and their customers, over a direct carrier API, over EDI, or through an aggregator, and most operators end up running all three routes at once. The closest published work is the freight management platform and live-quote engine for Mover Technologies, a client since 2009. The operation around this layer is on our logistics software development page.
- Price and bookThe commercial half, before a truck is committed to a load.
- Rate and quote requests
- Load tender and acceptance
- Booking confirmations
- Track and proveWhere the load is, and the record that says it arrived. Three sources, rarely agreeing.
- Milestone and status events
- GPS and telematics feeds
- Proof of delivery
- Settle and documentThe regulated half. A shipment record becomes paperwork with its own retention rules.
- Freight invoice and audit
- Customs and export documents
- Hours-of-service records
- Translate and reconcileWhat decides the cost of the other three every time a partner changes.
- One internal shipment model
- A translator per partner
- Replay and reconciliation
02Routes
Direct carrier API, EDI or an aggregator: pick the failure mode you can live with
There is no clean way to connect to a carrier. There are three imperfect ones plus the option of doing nothing, and each hands you a different problem later. Below: what each costs when it goes wrong, and what we do about it. One row ends in advice to build nothing.
| How you connect | The failure mode it hands you | What we do about it |
|---|---|---|
| A direct carrier APIREST, one integration per carrier | The carrier changes it and tells you afterwards | One translator per carrier into a shipment shape you own, plus contract tests, so a change fails on your build and not in front of a customer.Platform development and integrationOr book a meeting |
| EDIX12 204, 990, 214, 210, or EDIFACT | Slow to build, and it will outlive whoever set it up | Map the transaction sets onto the same internal shape and expose REST over it, so nothing downstream learns what a 214 is.Where EDI usually terminates: the ERPOr book a meeting |
| An aggregator or visibility platformCoverage bought rather than built | Coverage on day one, and your rate and status history in someone else’s hands | Take the coverage, and keep your own copy of every event, so leaving the vendor costs a migration and not your history.Owning your own event historyOr book a meeting |
| Nothing: somebody keys it into the portalThe route most operators are actually on | Staff time, and it is often still the cheaper option | Keep doing that. Below the volume where one person clears the queue in a morning, integrating costs more than keying does.How we scope before anyone buildsOr book a meeting |
| All three at onceWhat a real freight stack looks like | Two truths about one shipment, and no rule about which wins | Written precedence per event type and one reconciliation path, so every disagreement resolves the same way, re-answerable from the log.How we build custom systemsOr book a meeting |
03Surfaces
What a freight integration layer is actually made of
Six pieces. The first four are what a buyer asks for, the fifth decides the cost of all of them, and the sixth is what your own partners ask you for once this works.
Collect rates from carriers, dealers and your own pricing rules, and return one comparable quote nobody has to re-key anywhere.
- What it fixes
- One quote, from many carriers
Offer a load, take the acceptance or the refusal, assign it, write the status back. The same flow over REST or over an EDI 204 and 990 pair.
- What it fixes
- A load offered and accepted in software
Carrier events, telematics pings and EDI status messages normalized into one status with written precedence, so a dashboard and an alert cannot disagree.
- What it fixes
- One status, not three
Bill of lading, proof of delivery, freight invoice and customs paperwork generated off the same shipment record, not assembled by hand at month end.
- What it fixes
- The invoice matches the load
One internal model for a shipment, a translator per partner into it, idempotent inbound events, a replayable log. It decides whether adding a carrier is a week or a quarter.
- What it fixes
- Swapping a carrier stops being a project
Versioned endpoints, signed webhooks, rate-limit-aware clients and docs your own customers can build against without a call with your engineers first.
- What it fixes
- Partners onboard without you
Driver hours, customs documents and personal data all travel through a freight integration
A freight API is not only shipment status. Hours-of-service and ELD records reach a planner through it, and in the EU tachograph and Mobility Package rules decide whether a load may legally be offered to a given driver. Customs and export declarations come off the same shipment record, with their own retention rules, and the European e-CMR turns the paper consignment note into a signed digital one. Driver identities, location histories and consignee details are personal data under GDPR the moment they land, so retention and access are data-model decisions we take at scoping, never afterwards.
04Stack
The stack behind our freight and logistics integration work
The stack across the four logistics platforms we publish: the dealer and customer apps that consume the API, the services behind it, and the clouds they run on. Send your partner list with the enquiry and we will say what is realistic before you commit.
React
Angular
iOS
Android
- REST API
ASP.NET MVC
ASP.NET
.NET
Java
PHP
AWS
Azure
Every freight integration is a choice between three imperfect options, and you pick the one whose failure mode you can live with. Whichever you pick, we argue for the same thing underneath: your own system describes a shipment its own way, and every carrier gets translated into that. Then swapping a carrier is a week of work, not a quarter.
Ihor PrudyvusDelivery Director, unicrew05Delivery
How a freight integration engagement runs
Four stages, and the order is the argument. The first partner is expensive, because it is where the internal shipment model, the event log and the reconciliation path get built. Every partner after it is a translator. Most engagements start within two to four weeks of signature.
- Inventory the partnersEvery carrier, broker, aggregator, telematics provider and portal you touch, how each is connected today, and which of them somebody keys by hand.You getA partner-by-partner map of what is connected and what is manual
- Agree the internal shape firstOne model for a shipment, a load, a stop and a status event, versioned, before a single connector is built. Skipping it is what makes the fifth carrier cost as much as the first.You getOne internal shipment model, written down and versioned
- One partner end to end, in productionThe highest-volume partner first, against real traffic, with the event log, the replay path and the reconciliation report beside it. Nothing else is committed until it answers correctly.You getOne live connector, and the harness the rest reuse
- Add partners, keep the contract testedEach new partner is a translator plus its contract tests, and each degrades on its own: a carrier that goes quiet should cost you that carrier, not your dispatch board.You getA new carrier measured in weeks, and tests that fail before your customers do
06Proof
What we can show you in freight and logistics
Two named clients, in their own words, and an honest note about what we have no stake in.
- A live-quote engine that pulls carrier APIsFor Mover Technologies we build the live-quote calculator. Its founder's verified Clutch review: quotes come "by collecting data from each dealer, and also by pulling API data from freight companies", and "The system allows users to choose which freight company they want to use for transportation." Also: "We started working with Artelogic in 2009 and we continue to build the system." Under our former Artelogic brand.2009the year this freight client started with us
- Four logistics platforms with names on themMover Technologies in Florida, Cloud Van Lines in Boston, Bitergo in Dortmund and MiniMoves in Chicago. For Bitergo we rebuilt an app store front end and completed its backend integration over REST. MiniMoves' VP of IT writes that enhancements to the order management system "increased productivity and allowed us to maintain double digit growth without a substantial increase in staffing".4published logistics case studies
- No licence revenue riding on your answerunicrew is a custom development and integration partner, not a reseller and not a channel partner of any freight, telematics or visibility platform. Nothing we earn depends on which one you connect to, which is why the table above has a row ending in advice to keep keying loads into the portal.0freight platforms we resell or take commission on
07Case studies
Freight and logistics platforms we built
Three builds where the integration layer was the hard part: a freight platform quoting live off carrier APIs, a moving SaaS with tracked containers behind it, and a warehouse app store whose back end we connected over REST.
See all case studies- LogisticsA freight-management platform and mobile apps for a US logistics startup (Mover Technologies)
LogisticsCustom software for USA moving companyAn end-to-end SaaS platform for managing household moves and every business operation of a logistics company.Built from scratchAn end-to-end SaaS for household moves and the operations behind them
LogisticsApp Store for warehouse managementOur client Bitergo offers a collection of business apps to optimize warehouse management, scalable from start-ups to 4PL companies. Given the business drivers, the client decided to upgrade the front-end of all their applications to the latest version of Angular.Rapid increaseOf test accounts ordered by potential customers after the site launched
08Questions
Freight API development: frequently asked questions
Usually all three, and the question is which partner takes which route. A direct API where the relationship is big enough that the carrier warns you before it changes something. EDI where the partner requires it, which still means most large carriers and North American 3PLs. An aggregator when you need coverage faster than you could build it, renting the mapping. Cost across all three turns on having one internal shape for a shipment.
They will disagree, so the design decides which one wins. A GPS ping, a carrier webhook and an EDI 214 describe the same leg, arriving hours apart, out of order, sometimes twice. We write precedence rules per event type rather than per source, keep every raw event as it arrived, and derive status from that log instead of overwriting a field. Disagreements stay answerable afterwards, and a replay returns the same answer.
That is the normal case, so the build assumes it. Every carrier-specific quirk lives inside one translator per partner rather than spread through the application. Contract tests against recorded responses make a shape change fail on your build instead of in front of a customer, and each partner flow degrades on its own. The fix is a translator edit and a test update, not a release across the platform.
Three engagement models: time and materials billed hourly and quoted per project, fixed price quoted per project against an agreed outcome, and team extension billed monthly per team member. Which fits depends on how firm the partner list is, and we recommend one after scoping. We publish no project price band: the spread between one integration and a dozen is too wide for one number. Fixed-scope work carries a post-launch warranty agreed in the contract, and team extension carries no recruitment or placement fee.
Most engagements start within two to four weeks of signature. The first partner takes the longest: it is where the internal shipment model, the event log and the reconciliation path get built. Everything after it is a translator against a harness that already exists. One documented vendor API reaches a usable release far faster than a mixed EDI and portal stack. Scoping ends with a phased plan carrying the order and the cost.
Contracts and NDAs are signed before anyone starts. Credentials stay server-side, scoped and rotated, and never reach a browser. We work from least-privilege access agreed with your technical contact, never write access to production during discovery. unicrew holds ISO 27001:2022 and ISO 9001:2015, audited by Quay Audit UK, and delivery runs with ISTQB-certified QA engineers. We do not hold SOC 2. Driver and consignee data falls under GDPR, so retention and access are data-model decisions taken at scoping.
Send your partner list, get a straight answer on what to connect
A call with a senior engineer who has shipped freight and carrier integration work, not a sales qualifier. You leave with an opinion on which partners are worth integrating, and in what order.
What happens after you contact us
- We reply within one business dayA senior engineer reads your message, not a bot.
- A call about the partnersWho you connect to, how, and where it breaks today.
- Route and engagement model, in writingDirect API, EDI or aggregator, per partner, priced as time and materials, fixed price, or team extension.
- NDA, then scopingMost engagements start within two to four weeks of signature.
