Best Solar Design Software USA: The Full Scorecard (2026)

Quick Answer

Why This Matters for Installers and EPCs

Nearly every "best solar design software USA" page ends the same way: a named winner, a price per seat and no way to check the verdict. That is an assertion with a table attached, not a ranking. An installer choosing a platform that will run the business for years deserves to see the criteria and the evidence, not only the conclusion.

The scoring table, the criteria definitions and the sources are published below, not summarized away. If you are still deciding which type of solar software you need, start with our guide to solar software by type and use case. This piece exists to be checked, not only quoted: disagree with a score, and you can see which criterion and which source to argue with.

The Methodology, in Full

Nine criteria, each scored 1 to 5, for 45 points in total. A platform scoring under 24 is not disqualified, but the gap shows where it is weakest for a US installer who wants one design to carry the job through to the permit.

• Phone-based 3D design: real design capability on a phone during a roof visit, not a read-only viewer.
• Capture and roof model source: roof capture from the device with LiDAR or photogrammetry, plus aerial imagery and AI detection for remote starts.
• Automated cable routing: cables routed from the design, with lengths taken from the routes.
• Bill of materials: electrical and structural quantities generated from the design, not rebuilt by hand.
• NEC single line diagram, layout and string drawings: produced from the same design.
• Permit package: generated from the design, without a separate order or redraw.
• Solar-plus-storage design: battery sizing, backup and proposals in the same project as the PV design.
• Residential to commercial range: both project types on one platform.
• Proposal and ownership options: customer-facing output that covers cash, loan, lease or PPA from one design.

Scoring scale: 5 means the capability is native and documented, 3 means it is partial, 2 means tablet only on the phone criterion, and 1 means the capability is not available.

Sourcing rule applied to every score: a vendor's own published pricing, feature and help pages count as a self-reported source and are flagged as such. Reslink product documentation is flagged separately, and Reslink's verified feature comparison is the reference for every competitor row. No score is asserted without a named source.

The Full Scorecard

Pylon's scores are drawn from Pylon's own published materials.

The score basis, platform by platform:

• Reslink: full 3D design on a phone, aerial imagery with photogrammetry and LiDAR data, automated cable routing, electrical and structural bills of materials, bank-ready SLD with layout and string drawings, automated permit packages, solar-plus-storage design, and CAPEX and OPEX/PPA proposals. Source: Reslink product documentation.
• Aurora Solar: tablet only for design, aerial imagery with photogrammetry and LiDAR data, no automated cable routing or bill of materials, SLD and drawings, no automated permit packages, partial storage design, and deep US utility-rate and financing integrations. Source: Aurora Solar's published pages.
• HelioScope: no phone-based design, aerial imagery, partial cable routing and bill of materials with conductor lengths from string ends to the inverter, SLD and drawings, no automated permit packages, and partial storage design. Source: HelioScope's help center.
• Solargraf: tablet only, aerial imagery, no automated cable routing or bill of materials, partial SLD and drawings, no automated permit packages and no storage design. Source: Solargraf's published pages.
• Pylon: iPad and desktop design, aerial imagery, and battery storage design. Source: Pylon's published materials.
• OpenSolar: no phone-based design, aerial imagery, no automated cable routing, bill of materials, SLD package, permit packages or storage design, and financing inside the proposal. Source: OpenSolar's published pages.

Where Each Platform Actually Wins

Scores are not the whole story. Here is what each platform is honestly best at, including where that is not Reslink.

• Reslink wins on phone-based design, cable routing and documents from one design by the widest margin in the table, the combination that matters most for installers who want a job to move from roof visit to permit without a second tool.
• Aurora Solar is a defensible choice for an office-based residential sales team whose priority is US utility-rate and financing integrations.
• OpenSolar is the honest free option for a solo installer at very low volume, with trade-offs in the bill of materials and in phone-based design that matter more as volume grows.
• Solargraf suits residential teams that want proposals tied closely to Enphase hardware.
• PVsyst, unscored by design, remains the standard for lender-grade yield simulation on large financed projects.

What EPCs Should Do Now

Common Mistakes to Avoid

• Do not trust a ranking that shows a verdict without the criteria behind it.
• Do not read a partial score as a failure. It means the step is only partly automated in the tool.
• Do not score PVsyst against design platforms on the same axes, because it answers a different question.
• Do not treat a vendor-written comparison, including this one, as independent without checking the named sources.
• Do not compare tools on seat price alone, because billing bases and plan limits differ.

Where Reslink Fits

Every criterion in this scorecard maps to something Reslink either ships natively or was built to solve for US installers: design on a phone, cable routing, a bill of materials and NEC-compliant drawings from the same model, a permit package generated from the design, and storage quotes in the same project. A near-perfect score is worth some suspicion on principle, which is why every cell traces to a named source, and why Reslink is scored at 4 on range and proposals, where Aurora's utility-rate and financing depth is the established benchmark.

Check any row against its source, including Reslink's. See the scorecard run against your own project mix: Book a demo.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q1. Why does this page exist alongside your other solar software comparison pages?

This is the methodology-first version. The flagship guide to the best solar design software in the US answers "which one" in narrative form, and the guide by type and use case answers "which kind of software first". This page shows the scoring behind those answers, criterion by criterion, with a source for each. Use whichever one matches the question you are asking.

Q2. Why is pricing not one of the nine criteria?

Plan prices and billing bases differ between vendors, with per-user and per-project models, and monthly and annual rates. Scoring them together would mislead, and they change often. The scorecard scores capability instead. Capability is the stable part of a comparison, so that is what the scores measure. Check each vendor's own pricing page for current numbers, and see Reslink's plans on the pricing page.

Q3. How should a commercial team weight these criteria?

Commercial teams usually weight cable routing, bill of materials, drawings, storage and range higher, because those drive quantities, approvals and project size. Phone design matters if sales visits sites without a design engineer. For large financed projects, add a lender-grade yield report from PVsyst alongside any design platform, since the scorecard does not score simulation. Residential teams can weight phone design and proposal options higher instead.

Q4. Can a platform's score change after publication?

Yes, and it should be expected to. Vendor features, plan structures and documentation all change. Treat any dated scorecard, from any publisher, as accurate on its date and not as a permanent ranking. Where a vendor adds or documents a capability, the relevant score should move, and the named source column makes that check straightforward. A dated table with named sources is easier to update than a verdict with none.

Q5. What does a score of 3 mean in this table?

A 3 means the capability is partial. For example, HelioScope calculates conductor lengths from string ends to the inverter, which is partial cable routing, and its structural quantities need a third-party integration, so its bill of materials is partial too. It is not a criticism of the product overall. It shows the step is not generated natively from the design the installer is already working in.

You May Also Like

• Best Solar Design Software in the US for 2026
• Best Solar Software in the US: By Type and Use Case
• Best HelioScope Software Alternative in 2026

Sources

• Reslink's verified feature comparison, October 2026: the reference for competitor capabilities on phone design, roof model source, cable routing, bill of materials, SLD and drawings, permit packages and storage.
• Aurora Solar pricing and features pages, accessed October 17, 2026: confirm tablet Sales Mode, LiDAR data use, Aurora AI and storage modeling.
• HelioScope help center and pricing page, accessed October 17, 2026: confirm conductor lengths in the bill of materials, the single line diagram and storage features.
• OpenSolar features and support pages, accessed October 17, 2026: confirm the design modes and financing inside the proposal.
• Pylon product materials, accessed October 17, 2026: confirm the iPad and desktop design studio and battery storage design.
• Reslink product documentation: confirms phone design, capture, cable routing, bill of materials, drawings, permit package, storage and proposal capabilities.