SolarSoftwares
Find Software →

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

Comparison

HelioScope vs Reslink Energy

25 differences · 14 identical

HelioScopeAurora Solar Inc. (acquired Folsom Labs, 2019)
Entry price
USD 159
Charged
Capacity tiered
Free tier or trial
Free trial
Named integrations
1
Verified data points
12
Reslink EnergyReslink Technologies Private Limited
Entry price
USD 2000
Charged
Capacity tiered
Free tier or trial
Demo only, no trial
Named integrations
0
Verified data points
9

The differences that matter most

  • Price published Partial Published
  • Free tier free-trial demo-only
  • Entry price 159 USD per licence/month 2000 USD per year

All 25 differences ↓

HelioScope or Reslink Energy?

They differ most on price published. HelioScope publishes USD 159; Reslink Energy publishes USD 2000.

We do not name a winner. Below are 25 differences drawn from the same sourced dataset that powers both product pages.

Verified against the vendor’s own pages.

Pricing

Both use the same pricing model, so the figures below are directly comparable.

HelioScope

USD 159

159 USD per licence/month

Capacity tiered

Size ceiling: 1.25 MW DC (Basic) / 5 MW (Pro) / 30 MW (Enterprise)

1 seat included

10 projects

Reslink Energy

USD 2000

2000 USD per year

Capacity tiered

Size ceiling: 100 kW / 500 kW / 5 MW / 100 MW

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

Where they differ

25 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 HelioScope and Reslink Energy
Capability HelioScope Reslink Energy
Solar design & simulation
3D roof and obstruction model — Could not read Advanced Verified
Annual energy yield simulation Advanced Verified Basic Vendor claim
CAD export (DXF/DWG) Yes Verified Yes Vendor claim
Export to other simulation tools none Verified — Could not read
Ground-mount / tracker layout Not offered Verified Advanced Verified
Inverter sizing Basic Vendor claim — Could not read
Named weather / irradiance data source basic Vendor claim — Not found
On-site capture (drone / photogrammetry) — Could not read — Not found
Shading analysis Advanced Verified — Could not read
String sizing / stringing — Could not read Advanced Verified
Proposals & sales
E-signature — Verified — Could not read
Estimation & financial modelling
ROI / payback calculation Advanced Verified Basic Vendor claim
AI & automation
AI defect / anomaly detection not-claimed Not found — Could not read
AI design assistance vendor-claimed Verified — Could not read
Integrations & extensibility
Named, documented integrations 1 Verified 0 Verified
Public API Advanced Verified Basic Vendor claim
Pricing & commercial terms
Price published Partial Verified Published Verified
Free tier free-trial Verified demo-only Verified
Entry price 159 USD per licence/month Verified 2000 USD per year Verified
Project / design cap 10 Verified — Could not read
Seat cap 1 Verified — Could not read
System size cap 1.25 MW DC (Basic) / 5 MW (Pro) / 30 MW (Enterprise) Verified 100 kW / 500 kW / 5 MW / 100 MW Verified
Market fit & availability
Geographic availability US; global Verified IN; global Verified
Residential No Verified Yes Verified
Target buyer small-installer; engineering-firm Verified small-installer; enterprise-epc Verified

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

Where they are the same 14 data points
  • Currency
  • Pricing model
  • Automatic module layout
  • Single-line diagram
  • Remote site capture from imagery
  • Battery sizing and modelling
  • Bankable / IE-accepted simulation report
  • Loss and uncertainty modelling (P50/P90)
  • Product status
  • C&I
  • Utility-scale
  • Delivery model
  • Web application
  • Proposal document generation

Which might suit you

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

Consider HelioScope if…

  • your systems fit within 1.25 MW DC (Basic) / 5 MW (Pro) / 30 MW (Enterprise)
  • AI-assisted workflows matter to you

For C&I designers and engineers who need a layout, a bankable-grade production estimate and a sales proposal without leaving one tool. Not for residential one-roof sales work (the same vendor routes that to Aurora) and not for jobs above 30 MW DC — the vendor publishes a hard design-size cap on every tier.

Full HelioScope profile

Consider Reslink Energy if…

  • you need a price you can plan against before talking to sales
  • your systems fit within 100 kW / 500 kW / 5 MW / 100 MW
  • your work is mostly residential

Indian rooftop and C&I EPCs whose sales reps carry a phone rather than a laptop and who want the design, BOM and proposal produced on the roof. It is not for anyone who needs a price they can rely on before they call sales: the same site publishes four mutually incompatible price schedules, in two currencies, on two billing periods, with two different sets of plan names — and a fifth figure appears on its Capterra listing. [✓ https://www.reslink.org/pricing/ · 2026-09-25]

Full Reslink Energy profile

Related comparisons

Other options in design & simulation

Frequently asked

What is the main difference between HelioScope and Reslink Energy?

They differ most on price published. In total we recorded 25 verified differences and 14 points where they are the same.

Which costs more, HelioScope or Reslink Energy?

Both are priced capacity tiered. HelioScope: USD 159. Reslink Energy: USD 2000.

Is HelioScope or Reslink Energy 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