Heliosolve or PVcase to Design and Finance a Ground-Mount PV Plant?
The honest summary: these two tools are strong at different ends of the same project. PVcase is anchored in AutoCAD and goes deep into the ground — terrain, grading, piles, cable engineering. Heliosolve stays in the browser and goes forward into the money — LCOE-driven layout search, P90 by Monte Carlo, the debt that P90 supports, inverter and battery searched together by NPV. Where they overlap, the differences are method differences, and we name them.
TL;DR (based on PVcase’s public documentation as of 2026-09-14)
- PVcase documents terrain, cut and fill, piles, IEC 60287 / NEC cables and an energy simulation with front and rear ray tracing, including torque tubes. Ground Mount runs as an AutoCAD add-on.
- Heliosolve works in the browser and adds, in the same model, what PVcase, according to its public documentation, does not describe or describes with a different method: correlated Monte Carlo P90, DSCR debt sizing, a joint inverter and battery search by NPV and an article-by-article NEC compliance report.
- If your team works in AutoCAD and needs terrain and pile detail, PVcase fits; if you need to decide which plant can be financed, compare with Heliosolve.
What the published evidence says before either of us claims accuracy
Three measurements are worth having in mind, because they bound what any vendor here can honestly assert.
- Neither of us appears in a published blind comparison covering this plant type. The 2026 blind study compared seven commercial tools — PVsyst, SAM, SolarFarmer, PlantPredict, RatedPower, Solargis Evaluate and 3E SynaptiQ — on two fixed-tilt monofacial systems, with mean annual-yield error up to 2.5 % (15.4 kW) rising to 6.0 % (14.5 MW) (Deville et al., Solar Energy 304, 114207, 2026). Heliosolve was not among the participants, the study does not rank the tools by name in any form we can quote, and no published blind comparison covers trackers, bifacial modules or terrain at all.
- Rear-side irradiance is the weakest link in the industry, ray tracing included. Validated against an NREL dataset, relative RMSE was 7.2 % (view factor) and 7.6 % (ray tracing) on the front face, against 20.9 % and 22.9 % on the rear; bias differed in kind — ray tracing −0.1 %, view factor underestimating the rear by 8.4 % (Ernst et al., Applied Energy 369, 123574, 2024, abstract). So ray tracing does have the better rear bias in that dataset — a real point in PVcase’s favour — and the rear face is still modelled about three times worse than the front whichever method you use.
- Module temperature defaults are off for glass-glass bifacial. Two 2026 studies put the measured heat-transfer coefficient near 40 W/m²K rather than the common 29 W/m²K free-mounted default (Pfeiffer et al., Solar Energy Advances 6, 100140; Kirsten Vidal de Oliveira et al., Prog. Photovolt. 34(1), 84–103, abstracts; both on small fixed systems, not utility-scale trackers).
If you are choosing between tools on modelling grounds, ask each vendor which dataset, period and conditions back their numbers — that includes us.
Where is PVcase strong?
- Terrain and piles: terrain model, cut and fill, and pile data (terrain and piles · terrain import · grading).
- Front and rear ray tracing in the energy simulation (blog), with torque tubes (help).
- Cell-string simulation for mismatch (help).
- IEC and NEC cables, including IEC 60287 (help), single-line diagram (help) and labels (help).
- Combined uncertainty from P50 to P99 (help).
- Vendor-published validation at one plant in Spain, nMBE −0.5% (article).
- Public price and a 2-week trial.
What does Heliosolve add?
Only what customers can use today in Heliosolve’s interface and that PVcase’s public documentation does not describe or describes with a different method:
- DSCR debt sizing at P90, with DSRA, interest during construction, LLCR and PLCR (method).
- P50/P90/P99 by Monte Carlo with correlated uncertainties and multi-year horizons.
- Inverter and battery searched together by NPV, with rainflow and calendar degradation, augmentation, DC clipping recapture and stacked revenue (method).
- Article-by-article NEC compliance report with PASS / FAIL / ADVISORY / OPEN / N/A statuses (electrical package).
- String assignment by mathematical optimisation and cell-level mismatch with bypass and MPPT.
- Module temperature by energy balance with thermal inertia, thermal classes for floating PV, and soiling from particulates and rain.
- Layout optimisation by LCOE, market profile derived from coordinates and provenance of every input on screen.
- A single browser workflow, no AutoCAD.
Capability table
● documents it · ◐ partial or different method · ○ its documentation describes a different method or excludes it · – not publicly documented as of 2026-09-14 (does not mean it lacks it).
| Capability | Heliosolve | PVcase | PVcase source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terrain: DEM, cut and fill, grading | ● | ● | Terrain and piles · Grading |
| Terrain-following rows with piles | Not available | ● | Terrain and piles |
| Bifacial rear side by ray tracing with torque tube | Not available | ● | Blog · Torque tube |
| IEC 60287 / NEC cable sizing with short-circuit and protection | ● | ● | Cables |
| P50/P90/P99 by correlated Monte Carlo | ● | ◐ combined σ | Uncertainty |
| DSCR debt sizing at P90 | ● | – | — |
| Market profile from coordinates | ● | – | — |
| Provenance of every input | ● | ◐ computed losses shown in grey | Losses |
| Joint inverter and battery search by NPV | ● | – | — |
| Storage with rainflow and calendar degradation | ● rule-based dispatch | ◐ layout design and cabling | Storage |
| Article-by-article NEC report with single-line diagram | ● | ◐ single-line diagram and labels | Single-line · Labels |
| String-to-inverter/MPPT assignment by optimisation | ● | ◐ rules (Roof Mount article) | String distribution |
| Temperature by energy balance with thermal inertia | ● | – | — |
| Thermal classes for floating PV | ● | – | — |
| Soiling from particulates and rain | ● | ○ constant, 1% by default | Soiling |
| Cell-level mismatch with bypass and MPPT | ● | ◐ cell-string | Cell-string |
| Layout optimisation by LCOE | ● | ◐ capacity target | Capacity iteration |
| Browser CAD, no AutoCAD | ● imports the site boundary as KML/KMZ | ○ AutoCAD add-on | Autodesk Marketplace listing |
| Browser workflow from terrain to finance | ● | ◐ three linked products | Products |
When should you choose PVcase?
- Your team works in AutoCAD and wants to stay in that environment.
- You need bifacial rear-side ray tracing with torque tubes.
- You need terrain-following rows with piles.
- Your main deliverable is terrain, cut-and-fill and pile detail in AutoCAD.
How do you use them together?
- Decide in Heliosolve, detail in PVcase. Evaluate layout variants by LCOE, search inverter and battery by NPV and close the P90 debt in Heliosolve; use the chosen variant as the reference for terrain and pile detail in PVcase.
- Energy cross-check. Compare PVcase’s production with Heliosolve’s for the same plant, with the same weather file and equipment. If they differ, Heliosolve’s loss tree shows which stage.
- Files. Heliosolve exports the layout as DXF, KML/KMZ and LandXML, and the cable schedule and electrical-scope bill of materials as CSV. We have not tested importing those files into PVcase.
What does each cost?
Public prices as of 2026-09-14. Not added up or converted.
| Product | Tier | Seats | Billing | Public price | Trial |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PVcase | Ground Mount | Not specified in the listing | Annual | $12,999.00/year as listed on the Autodesk Marketplace (verified 2026-09-17), plus an AutoCAD licence, whose price we do not quote here | Free 2-week trial, per the listing |
| Heliosolve | Starter | 1 | Monthly | $590/month · 25 MWp per plant | Not published |
| Heliosolve | Professional | 3 | Monthly or annual | $1,490/month or $14,900/year · 150 MWp per plant | Not published |
| Heliosolve | Enterprise | — | Monthly | from $2,500/month | Not published |
Scope differs: PVcase’s price is for Ground Mount; PVcase’s documentation describes three linked products, and we have not collected the price of the others.
What are Heliosolve’s limits?
- Validation against measurement at one plant: NIST Ground Array, −1.1% in annual energy against 371 MWh measured.
- Soiling: in desert climates with transported dust, Heliosolve’s result is indicative.
- No track record with banks and small team.
- Not offered today: bifacial rear-side ray tracing or terrain-following rows with piles; PVcase has documented capabilities there that Heliosolve does not offer.
- Does not import layouts from other tools: it imports the site boundary as KML/KMZ.
Frequently asked questions
Does Heliosolve need AutoCAD? No. The CAD runs in the browser, and the layout can be exported as DXF.
Does PVcase size project debt? As of 2026-09-14 we found no public documentation of debt sizing in PVcase.
Which one models bifacial better? PVcase documents front and rear ray tracing with torque tubes. Heliosolve does not offer that method in its interface today, so PVcase has that documented advantage.
How does each handle soiling? PVcase documents a constant loss, 1% by default. Heliosolve calculates it from particulates and rain, and also accepts a constant loss if you prefer to set it. See soiling.
Can I use my own modules and inverters in Heliosolve?
Yes: CEC catalogue, JSON files or manual parameters for modules, and .OND import for inverters.
Review and corrections
Last reviewed: 2026-09-14 (PVcase help centre; part of it was read through search engine excerpts because it did not load directly). If anything is wrong, follow the corrections policy: first response within 48 hours on business days. History: changelog.
See also: how to choose solar farm design software · Heliosolve and PVsyst · Heliosolve and RatedPower.
Want to see your project with its P90 and the debt it supports? Request a second opinion.
PVsyst, RatedPower, PVcase, SolarFarmer, Solargis, PlantPredict, HelioScope and SAM are trademarks of their respective owners. Heliosolve is not affiliated with, endorsed by or sponsored by any of them. Product names are used only to identify the products compared.