Published: June 2026 Technical Level: Advanced Category: Protection Systems
ETAP (by Operation Technology, Inc.) and EasyPower (by EasyPower LLC) serve overlapping segments of the commercial and industrial power system analysis market with meaningfully different design philosophies: ETAP is an enterprise platform built for large, complex systems with extensive modeling depth and collaboration capabilities, while EasyPower is a streamlined platform optimized for the workflow efficiency requirements of small-to-medium commercial and industrial studies. The choice between them is consequential for engineering firms because it determines the range of studies that can be performed efficiently, the learning curve for new staff, and the total cost of ownership over a multi-year platform commitment. This paper evaluates both platforms against the core study types that define commercial and industrial power system consulting practice: load flow, short-circuit analysis per ANSI/IEEE and IEC methods, protection coordination, arc flash analysis per IEEE 1584-2018, and motor starting. The evaluation is based on published technical documentation, IEEE test case validation results, and the functional requirements of the NEC- and NFPA 70E-driven deliverables that form the bulk of commercial and industrial consulting work.
The selection of a power system analysis platform affects engineering practice in ways that extend beyond the software's technical capabilities. The device library completeness determines how much manual data entry is required for protection coordination studies; incomplete libraries for the specific device types common in the firm's market segment mean that every study involves manual curve entry, which is time-consuming and a source of transcription error. The report generation quality determines how much post-processing time is required to produce deliverables meeting the client's formatting requirements. The licensing model determines the total cost of ownership for a firm with varying workload, particularly if the firm uses the software intermittently rather than daily.
For commercial and industrial consulting firms in the 5 to 50 engineer range (the market segment where ETAP and EasyPower most directly compete), these practical workflow considerations are as important as the platforms' technical depth for steady-state studies, because both platforms provide adequate accuracy for the studies that form the bulk of the work. The differentiators are in the workflow efficiency, the device library coverage for the specific device types common in the firm's market segment, and the arc flash analysis implementation quality.
Both ETAP and EasyPower implement Newton-Raphson balanced three-phase load flow solvers adequate for commercial and industrial systems. ETAP's solver scales to systems with hundreds of thousands of buses (relevant for large utility or industrial complex models), while EasyPower's solver is optimized for systems up to approximately 10,000 buses, covering virtually all commercial and industrial facility applications. For a 500-bus industrial plant model, both platforms produce equivalent results and converge in sub-second computation times on modern hardware.
EasyPower's load flow interface is notable for its one-line diagram integration: the engineer can edit load and source data directly on the one-line diagram graphic, and the load flow results are displayed as color-coded overlays on the same diagram, making it straightforward to identify overloaded cables or undervoltage buses without switching between data entry and results views. ETAP's interface is more powerful but requires more navigation between views to accomplish the same workflow.
Both platforms implement ANSI/IEEE C37 series short-circuit methods (ANSI method for momentary and interrupting duty calculations) and IEC 60909 methods, meeting the requirements for both domestic and international project work. The ANSI method requires separate calculations for the momentary duty (using the ½-cycle network with AC and DC decrement) and the interrupting duty (using the 1.5 to 4 cycle network), and both platforms automate this two-network calculation correctly.
EasyPower's short-circuit module includes a straightforward tabular output that lists the fault current at each bus, the calculated X/R ratio, the applicable multiplying factor, and the resulting ANSI symmetrical and asymmetrical fault currents in a format that is immediately usable for protective device interrupting rating verification. ETAP produces equivalent results with more output formatting options but requires more post-processing to produce the compact tabular format that most AHJ submittals and equipment specifications require.
EasyPower's arc flash module was among the first commercial implementations of the full IEEE 1584-2018 methodology when the standard was published in 2018, and it remains one of the most complete implementations available. The module supports all six electrode configuration classes, continuous-variable enclosure dimensions, the 85 percent arcing current calculation for the low-current instability check, and automatic interpolation for systems between 600 V and 15 kV. The integration between the short-circuit study fault currents and the arc flash calculation is automatic: the engineer runs the short-circuit study, selects the arc flash study, and the calculated fault currents populate the arc flash inputs without manual transfer.
ETAP's IEEE 1584-2018 implementation is comparable in technical completeness to EasyPower's and includes additional features (probabilistic arc flash analysis, integration with the protection coordination study to verify that the clearing times used in the arc flash calculation are consistent with the coordination study settings) that are valuable for large or complex systems where the interaction between arc flash results and coordination settings is important to track. For straightforward commercial or industrial facilities, both implementations are adequate.
For small-to-medium consulting firms (5 to 20 engineers) whose work is primarily commercial and industrial projects in the 100 kW to 10 MW range, EasyPower's lower cost (approximately 60 to 70 percent of ETAP's equivalent module cost), shorter learning curve (1 to 2 weeks to proficiency versus 4 to 6 weeks for ETAP), and streamlined workflow for core study types provide a better return on investment than ETAP for most practices. The exception is firms with significant data center, healthcare, or industrial complex work where the system complexity and client reporting requirements justify ETAP's additional capabilities.
For larger firms with enterprise collaboration requirements (multiple engineers working on the same model simultaneously, integration with project management and document control systems, real-time digital twin applications), ETAP's enterprise architecture provides capabilities that EasyPower does not offer and that justify the higher cost.
The analysis in this paper connects to several companion studies in this library. Readers concerned with the upstream and downstream engineering will find ETAP and SKM PowerTools develops a closely related aspect of the same problem, while ETAP, SKM PowerTools, and EasyPower extends the treatment into an adjacent domain. For the broader methodological context, SKM PowerTools versus EasyPower provides complementary depth.
ETAP and EasyPower embody two coherent and opposing design philosophies (ETAP as an enterprise platform built for large, complex systems with deep modeling and collaboration, EasyPower as a streamlined platform optimized for the workflow efficiency of small-to-medium studies), and the evaluation developed in this paper shows that the right choice is determined by the scale and complexity of a firm's typical study rather than by any single feature comparison. The central conclusion is that for firms whose work is dominated by routine commercial and light-industrial arc flash, coordination, and short-circuit studies, EasyPower's workflow efficiency translates directly into lower cost per study and a shorter learning curve for new staff, while for firms handling large, multi-source, complex industrial systems, ETAP's modeling depth and scalability justify its steeper learning investment. For the practicing engineer, the operative takeaway is that total cost of ownership over a multi-year horizon is governed by the match between platform philosophy and workload, so the selection should be anchored to the firm's actual study mix rather than to the maximum capability either platform can demonstrate.
[1] IEEE Standard C37.010-2016, Application Guide for AC High-Voltage Circuit Breakers, IEEE, 2016.
[2] IEEE Standard 1584-2018, Guide for Performing Arc-Flash Hazard Calculations, IEEE, 2018.
[3] NFPA 70E, Standard for Electrical Safety in the Workplace, 2021 edition, NFPA, 2021.
[4] Operation Technology Inc., ETAP User Guide, OTI, 2025.
[5] EasyPower LLC, EasyPower Technical Reference Manual, EasyPower, 2025.
[6] IEEE Standard 242-2001, Recommended Practice for Protection and Coordination of Industrial and Commercial Power Systems, IEEE, 2001.
[7] IEC 60909-0:2016, Short-Circuit Currents in Three-Phase AC Systems, IEC, 2016.
[8] J. C. Das, Arc Flash Hazard Analysis and Mitigation, IEEE Press/Wiley, 2012.