SolarSoftwares
Find Software →

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

Comparison

Aurora Solar vs Scanifly

26 differences · 13 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
ScaniflyScanifly, Inc.
Entry price
Not publicly disclosed
Charged
Quote only
Free tier or trial
No free tier or trial
Named integrations
2
Verified data points
7

The differences that matter most

  • Price published Partial Not published
  • Pricing model per-seat quote-only
  • Entry price 159 USD per user/month Not established

All 26 differences ↓

Aurora Solar or Scanifly?

They differ most on price published. Aurora Solar publishes USD 159; Scanifly publishes Not publicly disclosed. They use different pricing models, so those figures do not compare directly.

We do not name a winner. Below are 26 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 Scanifly is priced quote-only. 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

Scanifly

Not publicly disclosed

Quote only

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

Where they differ

26 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 Scanifly
Capability Aurora Solar Scanifly
Solar design & simulation
Battery sizing and modelling Advanced Verified — Not found
CAD export (DXF/DWG) — Not found Yes Verified
Loss and uncertainty modelling (P50/P90) — Not found Advanced Verified
3D roof and obstruction model — Could not read Advanced Verified
Annual energy yield simulation Advanced Verified Basic Vendor claim
Ground-mount / tracker layout — Not applicable Basic Vendor claim
Inverter sizing Advanced Verified — Could not read
On-site capture (drone / photogrammetry) — Could not read Not offered Verified
Shading analysis Advanced Verified — Could not read
String sizing / stringing — Could not read — Not found
Proposals & sales
Proposal document generation Advanced Verified — Not found
E-signature — Could not read — Verified
Estimation & financial modelling
ROI / payback calculation Advanced Verified — Not found
Integrations & extensibility
Named, documented integrations 7 Verified 2 Verified
Platform & deployment
Android app — Could not read Yes Verified
iOS app — Could not read Yes Verified
Pricing & commercial terms
Price published Partial Verified Not published Verified
Pricing model per-seat Verified quote-only Verified
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
C&I No Verified Yes Verified
Geographic availability US; CA; EU Verified US Verified
Jurisdictional compliance capability us-nec Verified — Could not read
Target buyer small-installer; sales-org Verified — Could not read

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

Where they are the same 13 data points
  • AI design assistance
  • Free tier
  • Automatic module layout
  • Single-line diagram
  • Remote site capture from imagery
  • Bankable / IE-accepted simulation report
  • Named weather / irradiance data source
  • Public API
  • Product status
  • Residential
  • Utility-scale
  • Delivery model
  • Web application

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 Scanifly if…

  • your team works from phones in the field
  • AI-assisted workflows matter to you
  • your work is mostly residential

US residential and small-commercial contractors whose real cost is revisions, change orders and finance rejections, and who are willing to put a drone in every surveyor's van. It is not for utility-scale work, not for anyone who cannot or will not fly drones on site (the drone half is the differentiator; without it this is an ordinary remote design tool), and not for a buyer who needs a price before a sales call — **Scanifly publishes no pricing at all**. [✗ not found · https://scanifly.com/pricing/ returns HTTP 404; no price string appears anywhere on the site 2026-09-25]

Full Scanifly profile

Related comparisons

Other options in design & simulation

Frequently asked

What is the main difference between Aurora Solar and Scanifly?

They differ most on price published. In total we recorded 26 verified differences and 13 points where they are the same.

Which costs more, Aurora Solar or Scanifly?

Aurora Solar is priced per-seat and Scanifly is priced quote-only. 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 Scanifly 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