RatedPower (pvDesign, now part of Enverus) is a cloud-based platform for preliminary solar design and feasibility studies. PVX is an AutoCAD extension for terrain-first detailed engineering. They solve different problems at different stages of a project. This post compares where each fits in the solar project lifecycle.
Quick comparison
| RatedPower (pvDesign) | PVX | |
|---|---|---|
| Architecture | Cloud (browser) | AutoCAD extension |
| Detailed engineering | Preliminary-level output | Full CAD control over every pile, cable, and grading contour |
| Construction output | DXF/KML, PDF reports | Native DWG/DXF, LandXML (IFC-ready) |
| Earthwork savings | No published project data | $727K saved, 70% less volume |
| Cable optimization | Automated with editing limitations | 3 topologies, per-string voltage drop ($430K saved) |
Browser-based tools work for preliminary feasibility. Detailed engineering and construction documents happen in CAD. Your civil team works in AutoCAD. Your IFC packages are DWG files. That is where PVX lives.
Request a Demo + 2-Week Free Trial →Where RatedPower Fits
pvDesign is a cloud platform for preliminary solar design. Upload your site boundary, set module and inverter specs, and the platform returns a layout with energy yield and financial projections.
Where it works well:
- Preliminary feasibility. Quick site layouts with energy yield estimates.
- Browser-based access. No software installation required.
- Multi-site screening. Evaluate several candidate sites before committing to one.
For development teams screening sites or producing preliminary engineering packages, pvDesign is built for that stage of the workflow.
Where the Approaches Diverge
The difference between the two tools shows up when a project moves from preliminary design to construction-grade engineering on complex terrain.
G2 reviewers note that RatedPower’s layout editor has limitations: users cannot freely move structures or change block configurations after generation. Terrain analysis has been flagged as a weak point in multiple reviews, with some users reporting layout elements that don’t sit correctly on the terrain surface. These are expected trade-offs in a browser-based platform optimized for speed.
Construction-phase engineering on difficult sites demands a different level of terrain detail. The grading plan needs to account for soil hardness variations. Cable routes need real trench corridors with voltage drop calculated per string. Pile coordinates need to adapt to localized rock and slope conditions.
What PVX Does Differently
PVX.Cad reconstructs a grid surface from the user’s input data (LiDAR, contours, survey points) at a configurable resolution, then runs grading analysis on that surface before layout begins. The user controls grid precision, and all slope analysis, cut/fill calculations, and pile placement reference this reconstructed surface.
Core capabilities:
- AutoCAD-native. PVX.Cad runs inside AutoCAD, giving engineers full CAD control over every structure, pile, and cable route.
- Multi-scenario grading comparison. Compare full-terrain smoothing, pile-adaptive grading, and table-splitting side by side with real cost calculations for each.
- Automatic cable routing. Cable route generation for Line, U-String, and Leapfrog topologies with voltage drop calculation per string, per cable cross-section.
- Construction-ready exports. DWG files, LandXML for civil contractors, PVSyst-compatible data, and CSV outputs.
- PVX.View for stakeholders. A web-based 3D viewer that lets non-CAD users review designs with terrain context, cross-sections, and annotations.
Comparison Table
| Capability | RatedPower (pvDesign) | PVX (PVX.Cad + PVX.View) |
|---|---|---|
| Primary use case | Preliminary design, feasibility, prospecting | Detailed engineering and construction documents |
| Environment | Cloud/browser | AutoCAD (desktop) + web viewer |
| Layout generation speed | Minutes | Session-based (terrain analysis first) |
| Terrain analysis | Elevation-based slope assessment (some G2-reported limitations) | Reconstructed grid surface with soil hardness, rock classification, multi-scenario grading |
| Grading optimization | Cut/fill analysis available | Multi-scenario: smoothing, pile-adaptive, table-splitting |
| Cable routing | Automated with some editing limitations | Automatic multi-topology routing with per-string voltage drop |
| Layout editing | Limited post-generation editing (G2-reported) | Full AutoCAD manipulation of every element |
| Financial modeling | LCOE, IRR, NPV integrated | LCOE, IRR, NPV + cost comparison across design scenarios |
| Export formats | DWG, PDF reports, PVSyst | DWG, LandXML, PVSyst, CSV |
| Collaboration | Cloud sharing, team access | PVX.View (3D web viewer for stakeholders) |
| Best for | Developers and teams needing fast preliminary packages | EPCs producing construction-ready documents on complex terrain |
The Numbers Behind the Methodology
The depth difference shows up on complex terrain projects. On a site with 44% hard rock and slopes reaching 40-45%, PVX.Cad’s multi-scenario grading comparison revealed that switching from full-terrain smoothing to pile-adaptive grading with table splitting reduced earthwork from 118,225 m3 to 34,819 m3. That saved $727K on a single project. Read the full earthwork case study.
On the cabling side, comparing Line String, U-String, and Leapfrog topologies across a 130 MWp site produced a $430K cost difference. PVX.Cad calculated voltage drop for every string at three cable cross-sections, across all three topologies, in the same AutoCAD session. Read the full cabling case study.
These savings come from engineering analyses that require working with terrain data at high resolution. A tool optimized for fast preliminary design operates at a different level of terrain detail.
Can You Use Both?
Yes. Some teams do exactly that.
A development company screening 15 candidate sites in a new market might use pvDesign to rank them by LCOE and narrow the list to 4. Once land agreements are signed and the project enters detailed engineering, the EPC team opens PVX.Cad to produce the actual construction documents with terrain-optimized grading, real cable routes, and precise pile coordinates.
This is not a workaround. It reflects how solar projects actually move through phases. The tool that helps you decide where to build is not necessarily the tool that helps you figure out how to build there.
Which Tool for Which Stage
Choose RatedPower if:
- You are a project developer evaluating multiple sites for acquisition or investment.
- You need fast LCOE and IRR estimates to support go/no-go decisions.
- Your team needs browser-based access and cloud collaboration.
- Speed of preliminary design packages matters more than terrain-level engineering depth.
Choose PVX if:
- You are an EPC or engineering firm producing construction-ready designs.
- Your engineers work in AutoCAD and need full CAD control over the design.
- Terrain complexity (slopes, rock, variable soil) drives significant cost risk on your projects.
- You need to compare grading approaches, cabling topologies, or tracker configurations with real cost data before breaking ground.
Consider both if:
- Your organization handles development and engineering in-house.
- You need fast prospecting at the front end and construction-grade detail at the back end.
The question is not which tool is better. It is which problem you are solving today.
The fastest way to evaluate PVX on your own site data is a 30-minute technical demo with your actual project files. Every demo includes a 2-week free trial so you can test PVX.Cad on your own projects.
Last updated: March 2026. 3.8 TWp designed with PVX.AI across 40+ countries. Competitor data sourced from public websites and G2 reviews.
