SolarSoftwares
Find Software →

100 products researched 2,422 sourced facts Verified September 2026 Methodology

Comparison

Aurora Solar vs PlantPredict

27 differences · 10 identical

Aurora SolarAurora Solar Inc.
Entry price
USD 159
Charged
Per seat
Free tier or trial
No free tier or trial
Named integrations
7
Verified data points
9
PlantPredictTerabase Energy
Entry price
Could not verify
Charged
Not established
Free tier or trial
Not established
Named integrations
0
Verified data points
12

The differences that matter most

  • Price published Partial Not established
  • Pricing model per-seat Not established
  • Free tier Not offered Not established

All 27 differences ↓

Aurora Solar or PlantPredict?

They differ most on price published. Aurora Solar publishes USD 159; PlantPredict publishes Could not verify. They use different pricing models, so those figures do not compare directly.

We do not name a winner. Below are 27 differences drawn from the same sourced dataset that powers both product pages.

Verified against the vendor’s own pages.

Pricing

These cannot be compared on a single number

Aurora Solar is priced per-seat and PlantPredict is priced on an unrecorded basis. These are different pricing models, so a single side-by-side figure would be misleading. Each is shown as its vendor states it.

Aurora Solar

USD 159

159 USD per user/month

Per seat

1 seat included

50 projects

PlantPredict

Could not verify

Model not established

Prices are shown exactly as each vendor writes them and are never converted between currencies.

Where they differ

27 differences, ordered by how much they are likely to matter — pricing transparency first, then capabilities the vendor explicitly confirms or denies.

Legend Verified Vendor claim Not offered Not found Could not read
Differences between Aurora Solar and PlantPredict
Capability Aurora Solar PlantPredict
Solar design & simulation
Loss and uncertainty modelling (P50/P90) — Not found Advanced Verified
Bankable / IE-accepted simulation report Basic Vendor claim Advanced Verified
CAD export (DXF/DWG) — Not found Yes Vendor claim
Ground-mount / tracker layout — Not applicable Advanced Verified
Inverter sizing Advanced Verified — Could not read
Named weather / irradiance data source — Not found basic Vendor claim
String sizing / stringing — Could not read Advanced Verified
Proposals & sales
Proposal document generation Advanced Verified — Could not read
Reporting, data & BI
Report / deliverable export — Could not read Advanced Verified
AI & automation
AI agent / copilot — Could not read Not offered Verified
AI design assistance vendor-claimed Verified — Could not read
Integrations & extensibility
MCP server — Could not read — Verified
Named, documented integrations 7 Verified — Could not read
Platform & deployment
Delivery model hybrid Verified software Verified
Web application Yes Verified — Could not read
Pricing & commercial terms
Price published Partial Verified — Could not read
Pricing model per-seat Verified — Could not read
Free tier Not offered Verified — Could not read
Entry price 159 USD per user/month Verified — Could not read
Currency USD Verified — Could not read
Project / design cap 50 Verified — Could not read
Seat cap 1 Verified — Could not read
Market fit & availability
Geographic availability US; CA; EU Verified US; global Verified
Jurisdictional compliance capability us-nec Verified — Could not read
Residential Yes Verified No Verified
Target buyer small-installer; sales-org Verified — Could not read
Utility-scale No Verified Yes Verified

Scroll the table sideways to see both products. The capability column stays in place.

Where they are the same 10 data points
  • Automatic module layout
  • Single-line diagram
  • Shading analysis
  • Remote site capture from imagery
  • Battery sizing and modelling
  • Annual energy yield simulation
  • ROI / payback calculation
  • Public API
  • Product status
  • C&I

Which might suit you

Framed as requirements, not a verdict. Both descriptions come from the same data.

Consider Aurora Solar if…

  • you need it to connect to tools you already run (7 named)
  • AI-assisted workflows matter to you
  • your work is mostly residential

For residential installers and dealer/sales organisations who need design accuracy and a proposal in the same tool, on a per-seat subscription. Not for utility-scale or large C&I work — the vendor's own navigation routes "Commercial" to a different product (HelioScope), and the Aurora plan tables cap Basic/Premium at 1 user and 50 projects/month.

Full Aurora Solar profile

Consider PlantPredict if…

  • you work at utility scale

For utility-scale energy modellers and IEs who want a browser tool with unlimited projects, a documented algorithm set their lender's IE can audit, and automation. **Not for residential or C&I rooftop sales work, not for** teams that need layout-to-construction CAD (Design Pro is GIS-based, not an AutoCAD product), and not for anyone taking the site's structured data at face value — its schema publishes a price that its own pricing page contradicts.

Full PlantPredict profile

Related comparisons

Other options in design & simulation

Frequently asked

What is the main difference between Aurora Solar and PlantPredict?

They differ most on price published. In total we recorded 27 verified differences and 10 points where they are the same.

Which costs more, Aurora Solar or PlantPredict?

Aurora Solar is priced per-seat and PlantPredict is priced on an unrecorded basis. These are different pricing models, so a single side-by-side figure would be misleading. Each is shown as its vendor states it.

Is Aurora Solar or PlantPredict better?

We do not name a winner. Both are described from the same verified data, and which suits you depends on your requirements — the differences above are the facts; the choice is yours.

Last verified

Vendors change pricing and features without notice. Check the vendor’s own page before deciding.

This comparison is generated from the feature database, not written by hand. A pair is only published when the data holds at least five stateable differences — which is why 281 candidate pairs were refused. How comparisons are built