Five tools dominate utility-scale solar design in 2026: PVX, PVcase, PVFARM, RatedPower (pvDesign), and Helios 3D. Each solves a different slice of the design problem, and the differences are structural: where the tool runs, when it analyzes terrain, what it hands to construction, and how you pay for it.
This comparison covers all five on terrain methodology, grading, cable routing, workflow integration, and pricing. Every claim is sourced from public documentation, G2 reviews, published case study data, or direct product capabilities. Where data is unavailable, we say so.
The short version
- PVX runs the deepest civil analysis of the five (slope, soil hardness, water flow, multi-scenario grading) and compares cable layouts to optimize voltage drop and cost. Documented project savings: $727,105 on earthwork, $429,936 on cabling. The only tool offered as an annual license or pay-per-use credits.
- PVcase is an AutoCAD-based layout tool, rated 4.5/5 on G2 across 349+ reviews.
- PVFARM is a browser-only platform with grading optimization, for teams that do not use CAD.
- RatedPower generates feasibility layouts and LCOE reports in minutes, built for early-stage prospecting across many sites.
- Helios 3D is a terrain planning application for teams already working inside AutoCAD Civil 3D, which it requires.
See the full analysis below, or book a 30-minute technical demo to see PVX run grading and cable routing on your own DWG file.
How we compared
We evaluated all five tools on the criteria that drive cost on utility-scale projects: terrain and grading methodology, electrical and cable design, workflow integration, construction outputs, and pricing model. Sources: public product documentation, verified G2 reviews, published pricing where it exists, and PVX engineering case studies (130 MWp plant data, authored by our engineering team). PVX is our product; competitor claims are sourced, and we note where public data is missing. Last updated: June 4, 2026.
The five tools at a glance
PVX is an AutoCAD-native extension for utility-scale solar design built on terrain-first methodology. Its two products, PVX.Cad (design inside AutoCAD) and PVX.View (analyze and share in a browser), cover detailed engineering through construction handoff. PVX runs a full civil analysis set on the actual topo surface: slope analysis, 7-class soil hardness classification, water flow analysis for drainage planning, and three grading approaches compared side by side. On the electrical side it optimizes cable topology with per-string voltage drop calculation. 3.8 TWp designed across 40+ countries. Rated 5.0/5 on G2 (4 reviews). Available as an annual license or pay-per-use credits, with a 2-week free trial you can download and run on your own projects.
PVcase is an AutoCAD-based solar design tool with a layout-first methodology: generate the panel arrangement first, then analyze grading afterward. Rated 4.5/5 on G2 from 349+ reviews. It requires a separate AutoCAD license. Full PVcase vs PVX comparison.
PVFARM is a cloud-only solar design platform that runs entirely in the browser, with an emphasis on grading optimization. It cites NREL research and claims 20-30% earthwork reduction. It sells annual licenses in modular packages (Layout Modelling, Civil, Energy, Repower, Electrical) and offers a 7-day trial. Rated 4.4/5 on G2 from 14 reviews. It has no CAD integration. Full PVFARM vs PVX comparison.
RatedPower (pvDesign) is a cloud-native feasibility engine that generates layouts, energy yield estimates, and LCOE reports in minutes. It is built for the developer prospecting stage, where you need fast answers across many candidate sites before committing engineering resources. Rated 4.4/5 on G2 from 282 reviews. Full RatedPower vs PVX comparison.
Helios 3D is a terrain-focused solar plant planning application that runs inside AutoCAD Civil 3D. It works with TIN surfaces and supports detailed terrain modeling and VR visualization. Because it requires a Civil 3D license to run, its total cost stacks two licenses: the Helios 3D license (reportedly around EUR 11,800) on top of Autodesk Civil 3D.
Head-to-head comparison
| Feature | PVX | PVcase | PVFARM | RatedPower | Helios 3D |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Platform | AutoCAD extension | AutoCAD extension | Cloud (browser) | Cloud (browser) | Inside AutoCAD Civil 3D |
| Terrain methodology | Terrain-first | Layout-first | Cloud engine | Simplified | TIN surfaces |
| Grading comparison | 3 approaches side by side | Basic grading | Grading optimization | Cut/fill estimation | Local grading |
| Soil hardness classification | Yes (7-class) | No | Not documented | No | No |
| Water flow analysis | Yes | Not documented | Not documented | No | Via Civil 3D |
| Voltage drop per string | Yes | Not documented | For cable sizing | For cable sizing | No |
| PVsyst export | PVCollada 2.0, terrain-corrected | Yes | Not documented | Yes | Yes |
| Web viewer/sharing | PVX.View (browser) | No | Cloud-native | Cloud-native | VR (desktop) |
| Site selection/GIS | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | No |
| Financial modeling | NPV/IRR in PVX.View | PVcase Yield | Yes | LCOE/IRR/NPV | No |
| Pricing model | Annual license or pay-per-use credits | Per-seat annual, quote only | Annual packages, quote only | Tiered, quote only | Reportedly ~EUR 11,800, plus Civil 3D |
| Free trial | 2 weeks (download) | 2 weeks (on request) | 7 days | Not published | Not published |
| G2 rating | 5.0 (4 reviews) | 4.5 (349+ reviews) | 4.4 (14 reviews) | 4.4 (282 reviews) | 2.0 (1 review) |
| Best for | Civil analysis and detailed engineering on complex terrain | AutoCAD layout design at scale | Cloud-first teams without CAD | Developer prospecting | Civil 3D-centric terrain planning |
Which tool handles terrain and grading best?
Terrain handling is where the five tools diverge most. The differences determine earthwork volumes, construction costs, and whether a design survives the transition from screen to site.
PVX analyzes the actual topographic surface before layout generation. It compares three grading approaches on the same site in the same session: full terrain smoothing, pile-adaptive local grading, and table splitting combined with pile-adaptive grading. On a documented project with 44% hard rock and slopes reaching 40-45%, the comparison produced these results: full terrain smoothing required 118,225 m3 of cut at a cost of $1,062,481; pile-adaptive grading cut that to 48,109 m3 and $438,046; table splitting plus pile-adaptive grading reached 34,819 m3 and $335,376. That is 70% less earthwork volume and $727,105 saved on one project. Grading is one piece of a broader civil analysis set that runs on the same surface: slope analysis identifies buildable zones, 7-class soil hardness classification separates rock from soil before grading strategy is chosen (44% of that site was rock), and water flow analysis shows how drainage moves across the graded site so erosion and ponding risks surface in design, not in construction. Read the full grading methodology.
PVcase evaluates grading after panel placement, which is the defining constraint of layout-first methodology. Its layout tooling is mature and widely adopted. The tradeoff: analyzing terrain after the layout is committed tells you the cost of the design you already have, and verified G2 reviews flag terrain analysis accuracy as a recurring issue on complex sites.
PVFARM has invested seriously in grading optimization and cites NREL research with 20-30% earthwork reduction claims. The constraint is architectural: it runs in the cloud, so it cannot work on native CAD terrain surfaces at full resolution, and whether it produces construction-grade grading outputs in DWG format is not documented publicly.
RatedPower estimates earthwork cut and fill volumes for feasibility and CAPEX screening: you set slope and post-length limits, and it computes the volumes needed to bring structure groups within them. It does not produce an engineered graded surface or grading design deliverables, which is consistent with its prospecting focus. G2 reviewers have flagged layout elements that do not sit correctly on the terrain surface.
Helios 3D works with TIN surfaces inside Civil 3D and supports local grading analysis, which gives it genuine terrain depth. It does not offer multi-scenario grading comparison, and using it requires a Civil 3D environment and license.
The key distinction: tools that analyze terrain after layout can tell you the cost of the design you already have. Tools that analyze terrain before layout let you choose the design that costs the least.
Which tool optimizes cable routing and electrical design?
Cable routing determines a significant share of BOS cost on large plants.
PVX compares three cabling topologies (Line String, U String, Leapfrog) automatically across every DC combiner and transformer area, with voltage drop calculated per string at each cable cross-section. On a 130 MWp plant with 338 DC combiners and 26 transformer areas, the results were:
| Topology | Loop Length | Voltage Drop (4mm2) | Per-DCB CAPEX | Total CAPEX (130 MWp) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Line String | 191.86 m | 1.20% | $11,304 | $3,820,752 |
| U String | 181.37 m | 1.14% | $10,880 | $3,677,440 |
| Leapfrog | 165.85 m | 1.04% | $10,032 | $3,390,816 |
Leapfrog saved $429,936 and shortened cable runs by 14% versus Line String on this plant. Per-string voltage drop calculation lets the engineer select the topology and cable gauge combination that meets electrical constraints at the lowest cost, instead of estimating from averages. Read the full cabling analysis.
PVcase routes cables with user-defined trench paths. Comparing multiple routing strategies on the same plant is a manual exercise.
PVFARM routes string cables automatically along the shortest path to the transformer and offers Trunk Bus and Harness wiring schemes with voltage-drop-based cable sizing and a cable bill of quantities. What it does not present is a side-by-side comparison of named topologies with per-topology cost and voltage-drop deltas: the optimizer picks a route rather than laying out the tradeoff for the engineer to decide.
RatedPower sizes string cables against current-carrying and voltage-drop criteria and supports leapfrog wiring with pitch or axial string grouping. Cable lengths in its bill of quantities are derived from structure-grouping geometry rather than drawn cable paths, consistent with its feasibility focus.
Helios 3D does not include cable routing in its core platform.
How do these tools fit an engineering workflow?
AutoCAD extensions (PVX, PVcase) keep engineers in their existing CAD environment. Survey data, civil drawings, and coordination sets stay in one workspace, and outputs are native DWG files that go directly into IFC documentation. Following recent performance improvements, PVX handles plants of roughly 1 to 1.5 GW in a single DWG, so large designs do not need to be split across separate drawing files to stay workable.
Cloud platforms (PVFARM, RatedPower) trade CAD integration for accessibility: anyone with a browser can run a design, which works well for distributed teams and prospecting. The tradeoff is the handoff. Engineers producing IFC documents still need to move results into CAD, and every export-import cycle introduces translation risk.
Helios 3D runs inside AutoCAD Civil 3D. For teams already designing in Civil 3D, that is a native fit. For everyone else it means adopting and licensing a second, more expensive Autodesk product alongside standard AutoCAD.
Collaboration and review. PVFARM and RatedPower share designs natively since they are already in the browser. PVX covers this with PVX.View, a browser-based viewer where non-CAD stakeholders explore the 3D terrain model, cross-sections, and financial data (NPV/IRR) without an AutoCAD license. PVcase and Helios 3D rely on file exports for stakeholder review.
PVsyst export. PVX, PVcase, RatedPower, and Helios 3D all export PVsyst-compatible files. PVX exports PVCollada 2.0 (.pvc2), the current version of the open 3D exchange format that PVsyst imports natively. Because the file embeds PV tables, module orientations, spacing, and tracker axes, PVsyst reconstructs the scene and its orientations automatically, with none of the manual PV-face assignment that raw DAE/3DS imports require. Combined with terrain-corrected module positions, this protects shading and yield accuracy on complex terrain models. PVX works closely with the PVsyst team on improving PVCollada interchange. PVFARM’s PVsyst export quality is not documented publicly. How the PVX to PVsyst workflow runs.
How much does utility-scale solar design software cost?
None of the five vendors publishes a full price list. Here is what is publicly known as of June 2026:
| Tool | Pricing model | Published figure |
|---|---|---|
| PVX | Annual license or pay-per-use credits | Quote-based |
| PVcase | Per-seat annual license | Not published, quote only |
| PVFARM | Annual license, modular packages | Not published, quote only |
| RatedPower | Three tiers: Basic, Advanced, Enterprise | Not published, quote only |
| Helios 3D | License on top of required AutoCAD Civil 3D | Reportedly around EUR 11,800 |
Two structural differences matter more than the hidden numbers. First, total cost includes the CAD layer: PVX and PVcase require an AutoCAD license, and Helios 3D requires AutoCAD Civil 3D, a separate and more expensive Autodesk product. Second, the payment model: PVcase, PVFARM, RatedPower, and Helios 3D sell annual licenses only. PVX is the only tool of the five also offered as pay-per-use credits, which decouples cost from seat count for teams whose design workload varies project to project. Teams with steady design volume take the annual license; teams with variable project flow buy credits as needed.
Which tool fits which use case?
Civil analysis and detailed engineering on complex terrain: PVX. When the site has slopes above 10%, mixed soil hardness, drainage concerns, or earthwork and cabling as significant budget lines, the civil analysis set (slope, soil hardness, water flow, multi-scenario grading) is the mechanism that finds the cheaper design. The $727,105 earthwork savings and $429,936 cabling savings above came from real projects, not simulations. Try it on your own project or book a demo with your own terrain data.
AutoCAD layout design at scale: PVcase. Its layout tooling is mature and widely adopted. For complex-terrain grading and topology-level cable optimization, the layout-first methodology is the limiting factor. PVcase vs PVX in detail.
Cloud-first teams without CAD: PVFARM. If your team does not use AutoCAD, PVFARM covers layout and grading optimization in the browser. The limit arrives at detailed engineering, when results must move into CAD for IFC documentation. PVFARM vs PVX in detail.
Developer prospecting: RatedPower. For screening dozens of candidate sites with fast yield and LCOE reports, it is the quickest path from coordinates to feasibility answer. Its earthwork and electrical outputs are estimation-grade by design, built for screening rather than construction documentation. RatedPower vs PVX in detail.
Civil 3D-centric terrain planning: Helios 3D. If your workflow already centers on AutoCAD Civil 3D and you need TIN-based terrain planning with VR visualization, Helios 3D fits natively. The two-license cost stack and the absence of multi-scenario grading comparison are the tradeoffs.
Combining tools is common. Many teams prospect with RatedPower or PVFARM and engineer with an AutoCAD-native tool. The question is which combination matches your project mix.
Frequently asked questions
What is the best solar design software for utility-scale projects?
It depends on the project stage. For detailed engineering on complex terrain, PVX produced the strongest documented results: $727,105 in earthwork savings from multi-scenario grading comparison and $429,936 in cabling savings from topology optimization on real projects. For early-stage prospecting across many candidate sites, RatedPower generates feasibility reports fastest. For teams without CAD infrastructure, PVFARM covers layout and grading in the browser. PVcase is a widely adopted option for AutoCAD-based layout design. Helios 3D fits teams already working in AutoCAD Civil 3D.
What is the best PVcase alternative for complex terrain?
PVX is the closest like-for-like alternative because both run inside AutoCAD. The methodological difference: PVcase generates the layout first and analyzes grading after; PVX analyzes terrain first (slope, soil hardness, earthwork volumes) and adapts the layout to what the ground allows. On a documented project with 44% hard rock and slopes reaching 40-45%, PVX’s terrain-first approach cut earthwork volume by 70% and saved $727,105 versus conventional full-terrain smoothing.
How much does utility-scale solar design software cost?
None of the five major vendors publishes a full price list. PVcase, PVFARM, and RatedPower all quote per inquiry. Helios 3D reportedly costs around EUR 11,800 per license, on top of the AutoCAD Civil 3D license it requires to run. PVX is quote-based and is the only tool of the five offered under two models: an annual license or pay-per-use credits.
Can I try PVX before buying?
Yes. PVX.Cad has a 2-week free trial. You can download the installer and run it on your own AutoCAD projects. PVFARM offers a 7-day trial, and PVcase offers a 2-week trial on request through its sales team.
Which solar design tools work inside AutoCAD?
PVX and PVcase are AutoCAD extensions; both require an AutoCAD license. Helios 3D runs inside AutoCAD Civil 3D, which is a separate, more expensive Autodesk product. PVFARM and RatedPower are browser-based and have no CAD integration.
Do these tools export to PVsyst?
PVX, PVcase, RatedPower, and Helios 3D all export PVsyst-compatible files. PVX exports PVCollada 2.0 (.pvc2) with terrain-corrected module positions and orientations embedded, so PVsyst reconstructs the scene automatically without manual PV-face assignment. PVFARM’s PVsyst export quality is not well documented publicly.
Closing
No tool wins on every dimension. RatedPower is the fastest path from site coordinates to feasibility report. PVFARM brings grading optimization to the browser. PVcase has the widest adoption for AutoCAD layout work. Helios 3D serves Civil 3D-based terrain planning. PVX delivers the deepest civil and electrical analysis for detailed engineering, with documented savings on earthwork and cabling from real projects, and it is the only tool in the category with a pay-per-use pricing option.
The fastest way to evaluate is a 30-minute technical demo on your own project files: your terrain, your constraints, your numbers. Book a demo, or download the 2-week free trial and run PVX.Cad on your next site.
Last updated: June 4, 2026. Competitor data sourced from public documentation, G2 reviews, and published listings. Project savings figures from PVX engineering case studies.
