Published: June 2026 Technical Level: Advanced Category: Protection Systems
ETAP, SKM PowerTools, and EasyPower collectively cover the majority of the commercial and industrial power system analysis software market in North America. Each platform addresses the same core study types (arc flash per IEEE 1584-2018, protective device coordination, and short-circuit analysis per ANSI/IEEE C37 methods), but with different strengths in device library coverage, workflow efficiency, output report quality, and scalability to large system models. This paper provides a technical comparison of all three platforms against these core study types, drawing on IEEE test case validation results and the functional requirements of the NFPA 70E and NEC compliance deliverables that drive the majority of commercial and industrial arc flash and coordination work. The goal is to provide practicing engineers with an objective technical basis for platform selection that goes beyond vendor marketing materials.
The arc flash and protection coordination study market is served by several software platforms, but ETAP, SKM PowerTools, and EasyPower dominate the commercial and industrial segment. All three are fully IEEE 1584-2018 compliant for arc flash analysis, all three implement ANSI/IEEE C37 short-circuit methods, and all three provide graphical time-current coordination environments. The practical differences that matter for engineering practice are less about technical correctness on standard problems, since all three are accurate within the measurement uncertainty of IEEE 1584-2018 empirical data (approximately ±3 to ±8 percent depending on the configuration and test condition), and more about workflow efficiency, device library completeness, and the quality and customizability of the output reports.
For a firm performing 50 arc flash studies per year, a 20 percent reduction in the per-study time, from 8 hours to 6.4 hours per study, saves 80 engineer-hours per year, which at a billing rate of $150/hour represents $12,000 in recovered billable time annually. Over a 5-year platform commitment, the workflow efficiency differences between platforms can easily exceed the initial software cost difference. This calculation argues for selecting the platform with the most efficient workflow for the firm's most common study type, rather than the platform with the most features across all study types.
All three platforms implement the full 2018 revision of IEEE 1584, which replaced the 2002 empirical equations with a new regression model based on 1,942 test shots covering six electrode configurations, a wider voltage range (208 V to 15 kV), and variable enclosure dimensions. The 2018 model is substantially more accurate than the 2002 model for configurations where the empirical data coverage is dense, but the accuracy improvement requires that the platform correctly implement the configuration selection logic (selecting the appropriate electrode configuration for each equipment type) and the enclosure dimension interpolation.
SKM PowerTools' arc flash implementation is the most widely used reference for IEEE 1584-2018 compliance verification in the industry, partly because SKM was actively involved in the 1584-2018 working group and partly because SKM's device library and equipment type mapping are among the most complete available. The engineer selects an equipment type (LV switchgear, MCC, panelboard, cable junction), and SKM automatically applies the correct electrode configuration class for that equipment type, consistent with Table 4 of IEEE 1584-2018. This automation reduces the probability of configuration selection errors that can produce significant errors in the incident energy calculation.
EasyPower requires the engineer to select the electrode configuration explicitly, which provides more control but also more opportunity for error if the engineer is not familiar with the 1584-2018 configuration definitions. ETAP's implementation is intermediate: equipment type selection drives a default configuration recommendation, but the engineer can override it.
The device library is the most consequential differentiator for day-to-day coordination study efficiency. SKM PowerTools has the largest and most thoroughly maintained library for commercial and industrial protective devices: over 50,000 circuit breaker entries covering molded-case, insulated-case, and power circuit breakers from all major manufacturers; over 10,000 fuse entries; and relay curves covering both electromechanical and digital relays with IEEE standard and manufacturer-specific inverse-time characteristics. The library is updated annually with new device releases and includes historical data for legacy devices commonly encountered in existing facility studies.
EasyPower's library is smaller in total count but well-curated for the commercial and industrial device types most commonly encountered in the platforms' target market segment. The library is adequate for most commercial studies but may require manual curve entry for less common industrial devices, specialty relays, or legacy equipment. ETAP's library is comparable in breadth to SKM's for most device categories but has deeper coverage of utility and industrial relay types consistent with its broader market reach.
All three platforms implement the ANSI/IEEE two-network method (½-cycle momentary and 1.5 to 4 cycle interrupting duty) correctly, using motor contribution models that account for the decrement of motor fault current over time. The IEC 60909 method is implemented in ETAP and SKM; EasyPower's IEC implementation is available but less complete for the specific IEC contribution from motors and generators. For domestic commercial and industrial work, the ANSI method is the standard, and all three platforms are equivalent in this regard.
SKM PowerTools is the preferred platform for firms whose primary work is arc flash and coordination studies on commercial and industrial facilities: the device library completeness minimizes manual data entry, the IEEE 1584-2018 automation reduces configuration selection errors, and the NEC-oriented output reports meet most client and AHJ submittal requirements without custom formatting. ETAP is preferred for firms with large utility, industrial complex, or enterprise collaboration requirements. EasyPower is preferred for firms with cost constraints and primarily straightforward commercial study workloads where workflow simplicity and rapid onboarding of new staff are the primary drivers.
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 and EasyPower extends the treatment into an adjacent domain. For the broader methodological context, SKM PowerTools versus EasyPower provides complementary depth.
ETAP, SKM PowerTools, and EasyPower collectively serve the North American power-system-analysis market against the same core study types (arc flash per IEEE 1584-2018, protective-device coordination, and short-circuit analysis per ANSI/IEEE C37), and the comparison developed in this paper shows that they differentiate not on whether they perform these studies correctly but on device-library coverage, workflow efficiency, report quality, and scalability. The central conclusion is that all three platforms produce IEEE-validated results for the standard study types, so the selection criterion is the fit between each platform's workflow and scalability profile and the firm's deliverable requirements: EasyPower for efficient small-to-medium studies, ETAP for large complex systems requiring deep modeling and collaboration, and SKM PowerTools for industrial practice with strong coordination and arc flash workflows. For the practicing engineer, the operative takeaway is that the choice among validated platforms is a workflow-and-cost decision rather than an accuracy decision, and it should be made against the firm's actual NFPA 70E and NEC compliance deliverables and study volume.
[1] IEEE Standard 1584-2018, Guide for Performing Arc-Flash Hazard Calculations, IEEE, 2018.
[2] NFPA 70E, Standard for Electrical Safety in the Workplace, 2021 edition, NFPA, 2021.
[3] IEEE Standard 242-2001, Recommended Practice for Protection and Coordination of Industrial and Commercial Power Systems, IEEE, 2001.
[4] SKM Systems Analysis, PowerTools for Windows Technical Reference, SKM, 2025.
[5] Operation Technology Inc., ETAP User Guide, OTI, 2025.
[6] EasyPower LLC, EasyPower Technical Reference Manual, EasyPower, 2025.
[7] IEEE Standard C37.010-2016, Application Guide for AC High-Voltage Circuit Breakers, IEEE, 2016.
[8] IEC 60909-0:2016, Short-Circuit Currents in Three-Phase AC Systems, IEC, 2016.