A shared asset sheet can work when one person maintains a stable register and the count is straightforward. Software becomes more useful when verification is distributed across people or locations and the differences need controlled review.
Compare the register and the count separately
The register describes the asset: its identifier, location and assigned person. The count records what someone observed at a point in time. Combining both in one editable row can obscure whether a changed location is a correction, a movement or an unresolved finding.
In a spreadsheet, preserve a baseline and keep observations distinguishable from the original record. In software, evaluate whether the system models those records separately and makes their relationship clear.
Review the awkward cases
Test an asset found in another location, a missing identifier and two people reporting on the same asset. Establish who is allowed to resolve each difference and what explanation remains afterwards.
Shared files can support a small controlled review. As parallel edits and separate copies grow, reconciliation can become a workflow of its own. That is a stronger reason to evaluate software than the appearance of the spreadsheet.
Evaluate a prototype honestly
The Asset Inventory prototype shows asset records, commissions and report views using sample data. These screens let a team discuss the workflow; they do not demonstrate a customer deployment or certify an audit process.
Choose based on the actual count and review responsibilities. Keep spreadsheet exports for analysis where useful, while deciding which record is authoritative.