Ten years ago, 31% of shops said they would prefer not to use any of the electronic parts ordering systems available. In the 2026 “Who Pays for What?” – Frame & Mechanical Operations Report, that share is 5%.
The finding comes from the report’s additional questions, which go beyond how often insurers pay to cover topics including the tools shops use. The survey, conducted by Collision Advice and CRASH Network, drew responses from 473 shops in 49 states during April.
OEConnection CollisionLink leads in use at 71%, CCC TRUE Parts Network in preference at 36%
OEConnection is still the most commonly used system in shops, with the CCC TRUE Parts Network second, according to the report. Shops could check more than one. OEConnection CollisionLink was at 71%, compared with 75% in 2025, and CCC TRUE Parts Network was at 58%, up from 55%.
Asked which system they would prefer if they could use any, 36.0% of shops chose CCC TRUE Parts Network and 33.8% chose OEConnection CollisionLink. The two are 2.2 points apart, and the report puts its minimum margin of error at plus or minus 4.5%.
“None of the systems listed” drew 4.7%, compared with 10.1% in 2025.
Ease of use is the top reason for five of the six most common systems
The report charts the primary reason shops chose each of the six most commonly used systems, including quality or quantity of parts located, cost, and OEM certification requirement. Ease or speed of use ranked first for OEConnection CollisionLink, CCC TRUE Parts Network, Overall Parts Solutions (OPSTRAX), Car-Part.com, and Auto PartsBridge. An insurer or DRP requirement ranked first for PartsTrader.
Wholesalers are frustrated by paying for multiple systems, Anderson says
Mike Anderson, president of Collision Advice, wrote in the report that he facilitated a series of workshops with wholesale parts managers on behalf of one automaker. The wholesalers “definitely have a preference for which systems they use,” he wrote, and their “frustration over having to pay for multiple systems is quite high.”
Anderson wrote that there was “an absolute consensus” among attendees on which systems they prefer and which one they do not, though the report does not name them. “I believe collision repairers feel the same,” he wrote.
Anderson wrote that he also heard through the workshops “that people prefer freedom of choice rather than mandated programs,” and he called parts ordering “one area in our industry that could use some disruption.”
Nearly three in 10 shops have no invoicing system for clips and seam sealer
Asked about invoicing systems for items such as clips and fasteners, seam sealer, and weld-through primer, 29% of shops said they do not use an inventory management or invoicing system at all.
Forty-two percent said their invoicing or inventory management system is integrated with their shop management system. When the remaining shops were asked if they wished it were integrated, 63% said yes.
In the report’s table of systems in use, 3M RepairStack is listed first at 22% for 2026, compared with 17% in 2025 and 23% in 2024. EagleMMS has risen each year, from 5% in 2023 to 14%. A shop’s own internal system is at 10%, down from 16% in 2025, and Kent Automotive is also at 10%.
Fewer shops have never charged for OEM subscription fees
Shops are most likely to have an annual OEM repair information subscription with Fiat Chrysler (35%), GM (33%), Ford (33%), Nissan/Infiniti (33%), and Honda/Acura (32%), according to the report. The figures include no-cost subscriptions, which is how dealer-affiliated shops and shops with access through OEM certification were asked to categorize theirs.
The report also asked whether shops add a separate line-item charge to cover those subscription fees. Forty-three percent have never passed along such a charge, down from 51% in 2020 and 57% in 2019. Another 36% charge only when using websites to which they do not have an annual subscription, and 22% always or almost always include the charge.
Sixty percent now research OEM procedures most or all of the time
Thirty-two percent of shops said they research OEM repair procedures all the time when writing an estimate, up from 18% in 2016. Combined with those who do so most of the time, the total is 60%, up from 48%.
Anderson wrote that this research “must be done all of the time.” He recently wrote an estimate on three of the same year and model of vehicle, and the alignment and battery disconnect procedures differed based on trim levels and engine types. “Learn to research, research to learn,” he wrote.
Most automakers offer training on navigating their repair information systems, according to Anderson, and Collision Advice’s YouTube channel and I-CAR offer resources as well.
Anderson also wrote that he has found “a lot of inaccurate information” in some software companies’ ADAS research systems, without naming any. “None of these products should be viewed as a replacement for checking the automaker electronic service information,” he wrote.
Anderson recommends an invoicing system and OEM research every time
In his guidance on what a not-included item is worth, Anderson tells shops to “use an invoicing system, like 3M’s Collision Repair Materials Planner (CRiMP) tool, for materials or supplies.”
The report makes no recommendation on a subscription-fee line item, but its three response groups show the options shops are using.
On OEM research at the time of the estimate, Anderson’s standard is all of the time.
The full Frame & Mechanical Operations Report is available to download now.
