The best solar proposal software in Singapore is judged by a reader most proposal platforms were never built for. In the United States or the United Kingdom, the document lands in a homeowner’s inbox and competes on clarity and warmth. In Singapore, it lands in a procurement inbox. It is read by a facilities manager, a finance controller, a sustainability lead compiling Scope 2 numbers, or a public-sector evaluation panel scoring submissions against a rubric. That reader does not want a savings bar chart. They want a generation model they can audit, a tariff basis they can check against their own SP Group bill, a clear statement of who owns the asset for twenty years, and increasingly a line on renewable energy certificates and carbon exposure. Across the ten platforms benched below, the one that produces that document without three exports and a manual merge is SurgePV at roughly SGD 1,730 per user per year on the 5-User Team plan.
Direct answer. The best solar proposal software in Singapore for 2026 is SurgePV, at about SGD 1,730 (US$1,299) per user per year on the 5-User Team plan. It produces procurement-grade documents from the same model that generated the design: SP Group interconnection profiles, EMA settlement logic, repeatable multi-site output for SolarNova style tenders, 8,760-hour tropical shading behind every yield figure, and generation data structured for REC and carbon reporting. PandaDoc is the cheapest sensible answer for a team that only needs tender assembly and e-signature.
This ranking is for Singapore EPCs, rooftop developers, consultants bidding public tenders, and corporate sales teams selling rooftop leases and PPAs into industrial estates. Every platform is scored on tender-readiness, EMA and SP Group depth, sustainability reporting support, engineering credibility and cost per finished proposal in Singapore dollars. Where a tool is weak, it says so, including the tool that places first. The engineering companion to this page is our best solar design software in Singapore ranking, which covers multi-plane HDB layouts, diffuse irradiance and floating solar rather than the document.
Why the Singapore Proposal Audience Changes the Document
Singapore has almost no residential solar market in the sense that other countries mean it. Around four in five people live in HDB flats, where the roof belongs to the town council or to HDB itself and gets aggregated into a national tender rather than sold door to door. Landed property exists but is a rounding error in installed capacity. What remains is commercial and industrial rooftops in Jurong, Tuas and the business parks, logistics and data-centre facilities, reservoir-scale floating arrays, and the public-sector rooftop programme. Every one of those has a procurement process in front of it.
That single fact reorders what proposal software has to do. Presentation polish, which dominates the US residential category, is close to worthless when a submission is scored against a published evaluation matrix. Repeatability matters enormously, because a tender may cover forty blocks and the panel wants forty consistent generation estimates produced the same way. Auditability matters, because a technical adviser will ask what irradiance dataset, what soiling assumption and what degradation curve produced the number. And a signature block matters, because the person signing is a company, not a couple at a kitchen table.
Bring one of your own sites to a free SurgePV demo. We will build the 3D roof from a satellite address, run the 8,760-hour shading simulation, and hand you the SLD, BOQ and branded proposal on the call.
Book a free SurgePV demo → Compare pricingEMA, SP Group and What Belongs in the Document
Two bodies, two obligations. The Energy Market Authority sets the licensing and market framework: whether a generator must register, how exported energy is settled, and which intermediary arrangement applies given installed capacity and consumer class. SP Group, as the transmission and distribution licensee, approves and executes the physical connection, the meter change and the turn-on. A proposal that models the settlement correctly but says nothing about the SP Group application queue is quoting a commissioning date it cannot hold, and a procurement officer who has run a solar project before will notice.
Contestable and non-contestable matters. How a site buys electricity changes what your proposal is competing against. A contestable consumer on a retailer contract has a different displaced rate from a site on the regulated tariff, and that displaced rate is the entire basis of the savings claim. Proposal software with one national electricity price cannot produce a defensible number for a large industrial client. State the assumed rate, state its source, and let the client’s finance team check it against their own bill. Our net metering glossary entry covers why export settlement and self-consumption need to be shown separately rather than blended.
The programme layer. SolarNova aggregates public-sector rooftop demand across HDB blocks and government buildings into large tenders, and public procurement in Singapore runs through a formal e-procurement process with published evaluation criteria. Bidding that well means producing dozens of consistent site-level estimates, a common technical annex, and a commercial submission that matches the requested format exactly. This is a document-assembly problem as much as a design problem, and it is the axis on which residential-first platforms fail hardest.
RECs, carbon and corporate reporting. This is the fastest-moving part of a Singapore proposal. Corporate buyers increasingly need the solar project to produce something their sustainability report can use: attributable generation for Scope 2 market-based reporting, a position on whether renewable energy certificates are retained by the host or sold by the developer, and an estimated avoided-emissions figure. Singapore’s carbon tax, administered through the National Environment Agency, has risen sharply from its introductory level and applies to large emitters, which makes on-site generation a tax conversation as well as an energy one. A proposal that leaves REC ownership ambiguous will come back from legal, and a proposal that quantifies avoided emissions with a stated grid emission factor gets forwarded to the sustainability team instead of dying in procurement.
📘 Regulation note
In Singapore the licensing and market rules come from the Energy Market Authority, while the physical connection, metering and turn-on run through SP Group as the transmission and distribution licensee. Registration obligations and export settlement depend on installed capacity and whether the site is a contestable or non-contestable consumer, with intermediary schemes covering smaller embedded generators. Confirm current thresholds and scheme eligibility before committing an export basis to a client proposal or a tender submission.
The 5-Point Singapore Proposal Bench
The frame used to rank every platform below. Each axis scores 1 to 10 for a maximum of 50, and you can run it during a trial.
- Tender and procurement readiness. Repeatable multi-site output, consistent site-level generation estimates, exportable technical annex, document version control, ability to match a prescribed submission format.
- EMA and SP Group depth. Settlement logic by consumer class, contestable versus regulated tariff handling, connection timeline visibility, metering and application awareness.
- Sustainability reporting support. Attributable generation data, REC ownership statement, avoided-emissions calculation with a stated grid emission factor, output a sustainability lead can lift into a report.
- Engineering credibility. Hourly tropical simulation with a proper diffuse split, module-level shading on obstruction-dense industrial roofs, stated degradation and soiling assumptions, P50 and P90 figures.
- Cost per finished proposal in SGD. Licence plus every required add-on, divided by realistic monthly volume, remembering that Singapore volumes are low and deal sizes are large.
Axis 5 behaves differently here than in a residential market. A Singapore team may send fifteen proposals a month, not two hundred, but a single industrial rooftop lease can run to several megawatts. Cost per proposal is almost irrelevant compared with the cost of losing one tender on a document that did not answer the evaluation criteria.
Top 10 Solar Proposal Software Platforms in Singapore Compared
Pricing is 2026 published or reseller-quoted, converted at roughly SGD 1.33 to the US dollar. Planning figures, not quotations.
| # | Platform | Indicative SGD price | Key capability | Best for |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | SurgePV | SGD 1,730/user/yr (5-user team) | Multi-site tender output, SP Group profiles, 8,760-hr tropical shading, REC-ready generation data | EPCs and developers bidding C&I and public tenders |
| 2 | Aurora Solar | USD $135/user/mo Basic, $220 Premium, billed annually (~SGD 2,155 to SGD 3,510/yr) | Highest presentation polish and design automation | Groups with an existing Aurora standard |
| 3 | PandaDoc | ~SGD 800/user/yr | Tender assembly, version control, audit-trail e-signature | Teams whose design comes from elsewhere |
| 4 | OpenSolar | Free core platform; API Access and Connectors chargeable from 16 Apr 2026, rates not published | Free quoting for landed and small commercial | New entrants and very small teams |
| 5 | ARKA 360 | India list price only (₹46,000 to ₹1,00,000/yr plus GST); Singapore pricing not publicly listed | Quick 3D proposal at a low seat price | Small installers doing light commercial |
| 6 | The Solar Labs | Sits under Arka360; no separate published price | Fast throughput on repeatable rooftop jobs | Teams running an imported Asian sales motion |
| 7 | Enact | USD $279/mo for 2 users on annual (~SGD 4,455/yr for the pair) | Lifetime savings and financing narrative | Sellers leading on payment structure |
| 8 | Pylon | Per project: USD $4.00 Standard, $10.00 Pro (~SGD 5.30 to SGD 13.30) | Quoting joined to hardware procurement | Installers reconciling quotes to stock |
| 9 | Sunbase | From USD $59/user/mo (~SGD 940/yr); higher tiers not published | Pipeline, routing and follow-up discipline | Firms with a design tool and no sales process |
| 10 | QuickEstimate | ~SGD 550/user/yr | Solar quoting plus structured follow-up | Sales-led firms buying design elsewhere |
Two things worth noticing. Only the first entry carries Singapore regulatory content natively, so every other option leaves a spreadsheet between your engineer and your client. And the presence of a general-purpose document platform at number three is deliberate: in a procurement market, disciplined document assembly is a genuine competitor to a solar-specific proposal engine for teams that already outsource design.
1. SurgePV
What it does best. SurgePV is the only platform here that produces a procurement-grade document out of the same model that produced the design, which removes the re-entry step where most tender errors are born. For a SolarNova style bid across a block cluster, site-level generation estimates are produced consistently rather than one designer’s assumptions differing from another’s, and the technical annex, single-line diagram and bill of quantities all trace back to one simulation. Tariff modelling carries SP Group profiles and EMA settlement logic by consumer class instead of a single national rate, and self-consumption is shown separately from export, which is what an industrial client with a daytime load profile actually needs to see.
Behind the numbers sits an 8,760-hour module-level simulation using equatorial hourly weather with a correct diffuse and direct split, which matters more in Singapore than anywhere: two layouts that look identical on a monthly average can diverge by several percent once cloud behaviour is modelled hour by hour. P50 and P90 outputs come as standard rather than as a premium tier, and generation data exports in a structure a sustainability lead can use for Scope 2 market-based reporting and avoided-emissions calculations. The proposal builder supports white-label branding, an interactive web version and e-signature, and the generation and financial tool exposes degradation, soiling and escalation assumptions on the page rather than burying them in a default.
Pricing. About SGD 1,730 (US$1,299) per user per year on the 5-User Team plan, roughly SGD 8,650 for five seats. Free trial, no card.
Who it suits. Singapore EPCs and rooftop developers bidding public and private C&I work, consultants producing technical annexes, and teams that need one licence covering engineering and the client-facing document.
Honest weaknesses. There is no native REC registry integration, so certificate issuance and retirement tracking still happen in a separate system; the platform gives you the generation data, not the certificate workflow. Floating solar, which is a real slice of Singapore’s pipeline, is modelled as a fixed-tilt plane without water-cooling gain, mooring or wave-driven tilt variance, so reservoir-scale proposals need a specialist model alongside. It is not a CRM, so tender deadline tracking, bid team task management and follow-up live elsewhere. Public procurement submissions have prescribed formats that no proposal tool matches out of the box, so expect to export and reassemble for the formal bid. And a two-person landed-property outfit is paying for capability it will never open. We use SurgePV on our own solar EPC design work, so run the bench yourself rather than taking this ranking at face value.
2. Aurora Solar
What it does best. The most polished customer-facing document in the category, with mature design automation, good storage modelling and a workflow refined against enormous residential volume. When a proposal is read by a person rather than scored by a panel, Aurora is hard to beat on impression.
Pricing. Aurora publishes US dollar prices: Basic US$135 per user per month billed annually and Premium US$220, so about SGD 2,155 and SGD 3,510 per user per year at SGD 1.33 to the dollar. Five Premium seats are US$13,200 a year and five Basic seats US$8,100. LIDAR modelling, bankable shade reports and battery modelling sit on Premium, and plan sets are a separately priced service rather than a plan inclusion.
Who it suits. Regional groups with an Aurora standard, templates and training already in place.
Honest limitations. Its strengths are aimed at the market Singapore does not have. There is no EMA or SP Group layer, no REC or carbon output, and no multi-site tender workflow, so a forty-block submission means forty manual repetitions. LIDAR roof capture has limited Singapore coverage and often degrades to manual tracing. On price the gap is narrower than it looks: Aurora Basic is about a quarter more per seat than SurgePV’s team plan, Premium roughly double it, and worth saying plainly, Aurora Basic at US$1,620 a year undercuts a SurgePV Individual seat at US$1,899. See our Aurora Solar alternative breakdown.
3. PandaDoc
What it does best. PandaDoc is not solar software, and that is exactly why it earns a place in a procurement market. It assembles a long document from reusable blocks, enforces version control so two people cannot send different pricing, tracks who opened which section, and provides an e-signature audit trail that a corporate legal team accepts without discussion. For a developer whose designs come from a consultant and whose real problem is producing a consistent forty-page submission on deadline, it solves the actual bottleneck.
Pricing. Around SGD 800 per user per year on the business tier.
Who it suits. Bid teams and developers who outsource design and need document discipline, and anyone who has ever sent a tender with last quarter’s pricing table in it.
Honest limitations. It knows nothing about solar. Every yield figure, tariff assumption, emission factor and technical annex arrives from somewhere else, which means the accuracy of your proposal depends entirely on the process around it. It cannot catch an error, only reproduce it faithfully across every document you send.
Get the engineering reviewed before the bid closes. If a submission rests on a plant-heavy industrial roof or a marginal structural case, have the drawings checked before the number is locked. Our team reviews Southeast Asian rooftop designs alongside our rooftop detailed engineering service. Talk to our engineers →
4. OpenSolar
What it does best. A free core design and proposal product funded by hardware referral margin, with usable templates, e-signature and a low barrier to entry. For a new Singapore entrant doing landed-property and small commercial work, it removes the software line item entirely.
Pricing. The core platform is free, for any number of users. OpenSolar has said that API Access, charged per project on creation, and Connectors, charged as a flat monthly fee, become chargeable from 16 April 2026, but it has not published those rates and they vary by geography. So a four-seat Singapore team pays nothing today and cannot yet be quoted a 2026 add-on figure. Nothing else on this list is cheaper.
Who it suits. Very small teams and new entrants.
Honest limitations. The free tier strains on multi-plane industrial roofs, there is no EMA or SP Group content, no REC or carbon output, and no multi-site tender workflow. The referral economics also nudge specification toward partner hardware, which is awkward when a tender scores on technical merit. Our OpenSolar alternative comparison covers where teams move.
5. ARKA 360
What it does best. A fast path from address to a presentable 3D proposal at a seat price small Singapore installers can absorb, with tariff inputs flexible enough to be forced into a local shape.
Pricing. Arka360 publishes plan prices for India only: Lite ₹46,000, Basic ₹70,000 and Premium ₹1,00,000 per year, all plus 18 percent GST, with a ₹10,000 one-time onboarding fee. It publishes no Singapore price, so budget from a quote rather than from a converted Indian figure.
Who it suits. Small installers doing landed property and light commercial work who want a credible visual without an Aurora seat.
Honest limitations. No Singapore regulatory content, no sustainability reporting output, thin commercial financial structures, and simulation depth lighter than the engineering-led platforms. On an obstruction-dense Jurong roof, that gap shows up in the yield figure.
6. The Solar Labs
What it does best. High throughput on repeatable rooftop jobs, with quick layout and proposal generation that lets a new salesperson produce a competent document immediately. Teams running an imported Indian or wider Asian sales motion often already know it.
Pricing. The Solar Labs brand sits under Arka360 and carries no separately published price list, so pricing follows the Arka360 quote for your region.
Who it suits. Volume-oriented teams doing straightforward commercial rooftops.
Honest limitations. The tariff and incentive content is built for Indian net metering rather than EMA settlement, so the financial model needs rebuilding. No REC or carbon reporting output and no tender-format support. It fits its home market better, as our best solar proposal software in India ranking shows.
7. Enact
What it does best. Narrative around lifetime savings and financing. If your close depends on presenting a monthly payment against a current electricity spend, the storytelling tooling is genuinely useful.
Pricing. US$279 a month for 2 users on an annual commitment, or US$299 billed monthly, so roughly SGD 4,455 a year for the pair. Commercial projects are capped at 10 a month. Asset Management and enterprise tiers are not publicly listed.
Who it suits. Sellers leading with financed structures on small commercial deals.
Honest limitations. Singapore finance product coverage is thin, EMA settlement is not modelled, the design engine will not replace a proper shading study, and a procurement panel is unmoved by savings storytelling. See the Enact alternative comparison.
8. Pylon
What it does best. Quoting joined to hardware procurement, so the bill of materials you quoted is the one you order at a price you have already seen. That is real time recovered for installers who reconcile quotes against distributor stock every week.
Pricing. Pylon is not a seat licence. It charges per project: US$4.00 on Standard and US$10.00 on Pro, with no monthly minimum, which is about SGD 5.30 and SGD 13.30. eSignature is US$0.80 a project, payments cost 2.50 percent a transaction, and the separate Solar CRM add-on starts at US$49 per user per month. For a low-volume Singapore team that model is dramatically cheaper than any per-seat product here, ours included.
Who it suits. Installers who want quoting and buying in one system.
Honest limitations. Design depth is modest, the procurement benefit depends on local supplier coverage, and there is no tender workflow or sustainability output. See our Pylon alternative page.
9. Sunbase
What it does best. Pipeline, lead routing, follow-up and reporting, with proposal generation attached. If deals are dying from silence rather than from document quality, that ordering is right.
Pricing. Sunbase publishes an entry point of US$59 per user per month, about SGD 940 a year, and does not publish its higher tiers.
Who it suits. Firms that already have a design tool and lack sales process.
Honest limitations. The weakest engineering credibility on this list and no Singapore compliance content. It assumes the design and the technical annex are produced elsewhere.
10. QuickEstimate
What it does best. Purpose-built solar quoting and follow-up rather than a generic CRM adapted to solar, so the quote, revision history, follow-up sequence and reminders live together at a price that suits a small team.
Pricing. Around SGD 550 per user per year.
Who it suits. Sales-led firms with an external design source that need quoting discipline.
Honest limitations. No simulation, no interconnection logic, no carbon or REC output, and no tender assembly. Its proposal generator is quick and light, which is the point and also the ceiling.
What a Procurement-Grade Singapore Proposal Contains
A document that survives evaluation carries eight things, and most templates carry four. The generation estimate with its irradiance source, soiling assumption and degradation curve stated. P50 and P90 rather than a single confident number. The displaced tariff basis, named and sourced, separated into self-consumption and export. The commercial structure: outright purchase, rooftop lease or PPA, with term, escalation and buyout. The connection path, including the SP Group application and metering steps that set the commissioning date. A structural and access position for the roof, because on an industrial building that is what stops the project, not the electrical design. A REC and carbon position stating who keeps the environmental attributes and what avoided emissions the client may claim. And an operations and maintenance scope with a stated response time, because a facilities manager is buying twenty years of someone answering the phone.
Rainfall does Singapore proposals one quiet favour. Frequent heavy rain washes panels, so annual soiling loss typically sits between 1 and 3 percent rather than the double digits seen in dusty markets. Teams that import a Gulf or northern Indian template carry an inflated soiling figure, understate yield and lose competitive tenders on price without ever knowing why. Our best solar design software in UAE guide covers the opposite failure mode for teams working across both regions.
Proposal Mistakes That Lose Singapore Tenders
-
1
Sending a residential document to a procurement panel. A savings bar chart and a lifestyle photograph score nothing against an evaluation matrix. Answer the criteria in the order they were published.
-
2
Leaving REC ownership unstated. If the document does not say who keeps the environmental attributes, legal will ask and the sustainability lead will assume the answer that suits them. Both cost you time you did not budget.
-
3
Quoting one national electricity rate. A contestable consumer on a retailer contract has a different displaced rate from a regulated-tariff site. Name the rate and its source so the client's finance team can verify it.
-
4
Promising a commissioning date that ignores SP Group. EMA sets the rules, SP Group runs the connection and the meter change. A programme built without that queue slips in front of the client who scored you on it.
-
5
Producing forty site estimates forty different ways. On a multi-block tender, inconsistency between sites reads as carelessness even when every individual number is defensible. Repeatability is a scoring criterion in disguise.
⚠️ Watch out
In a procurement market the expensive mistake is rarely a wrong number. It is an unanswered question, because an evaluator cannot award points for something you did not write down.
Should a Singapore Team Standardise on One Platform?
- ✓ You bid multi-site or public-sector tenders
- ✓ Engineering and the client document come from one team
- ✓ Clients ask for REC and carbon positions
- ✓ Your deals routinely pass 500 kWp
- ✗ A consultant produces every design you send
- ✗ You bid reservoir-scale floating work (add a specialist)
- ✗ You do landed property only
- ✗ Your bottleneck is document assembly, not modelling
Verdict. SurgePV is the right default for a Singapore EPC or developer bidding C&I and public tenders, because the document and the engineering come from one model and the SP Group and EMA layers are bundled. PandaDoc plus an external design consultant is a genuinely rational alternative for a bid team whose problem is assembly rather than modelling. Aurora is correct only where a group standard already forces it, and the residential-first tools on this list are solving a problem Singapore does not really have.
How Heaven Green Energy Helps
We deliver EPC projects in India and provide design support on Southeast Asian rooftop work, and the same stack carries both. If you are standardising a Singapore proposal workflow, start here.
- Solar design software pillar guide for how the category divides before you shortlist.
- Best solar design software in Singapore for the engineering side, including multi-plane HDB layouts and floating solar.
- Solar proposal software for the global ranking without the Singapore layer.
- Best solar proposal software in the UK and in the USA for the same tools under different rulebooks.
- Commercial solar and industrial solar for how these documents perform on live C&I projects.
- QBits string sizing calculator for a quick check before a technical annex is submitted.
Reference points worth bookmarking: the Energy Market Authority for licensing and settlement, SP Group for connection and metering, the National Environment Agency for carbon tax scope, and the IEA and IRENA for regional deployment benchmarks. Choosing the best solar proposal software in Singapore comes down to a single question: does the document answer what a procurement officer was told to score, in a form they can audit, without your team rebuilding it by hand for every site. The performance ratio glossary entry covers the metric tenders argue about most once the bid is won.
Compare Other Markets and Tool Categories
- Best solar the full software stack in Singapore
- Best solar proposal software in Malaysia
- Best solar proposal software in the Philippines
- Best solar proposal software in Australia
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the best solar proposal software in Singapore in 2026?
SurgePV ranks first for Singapore EPCs and developers, at about SGD 1,730 per user per year on the 5-User Team plan. It produces procurement-grade documents from the same model that generated the design, carries SP Group interconnection profiles and EMA settlement logic, runs 8,760-hour tropical shading behind every yield figure, and exports generation data usable for REC and carbon reporting. For a bid team that outsources design and only needs document assembly, PandaDoc at around SGD 800 per user per year is the rational alternative.
Why does Singapore solar proposal software need to be commercial-first?
Because the residential market barely exists. Around four in five residents live in HDB flats where the roof is aggregated into a public tender rather than sold door to door, so almost all installed capacity comes from commercial and industrial rooftops, public-sector programmes and floating arrays. The reader is a procurement officer, facilities manager or sustainability lead, and the document has to be auditable rather than persuasive. Residential-first platforms optimise for the wrong reader.
How should RECs be handled in a Singapore solar proposal?
State plainly who retains the environmental attributes. In a rooftop lease or PPA the developer may keep and sell the certificates, in which case the host cannot claim the renewable energy against its own Scope 2 reporting without buying them back. Say which party keeps them, what happens on buyout, and what avoided-emissions figure the client may claim, with the grid emission factor you used. Ambiguity here sends the proposal to legal and stalls it for weeks.
Does the carbon tax affect a solar proposal in Singapore?
For large emitters, yes, and increasingly it appears in the financial case. Singapore’s carbon tax applies to facilities above the reporting threshold and has risen well above its introductory level, so on-site generation reduces both an energy bill and a tax exposure. A proposal aimed at an industrial client should show that second effect separately with a stated assumption, and should note that the tax treatment depends on the facility’s own reporting position rather than on the solar system.
What is the difference between EMA and SP Group for a solar proposal?
The Energy Market Authority sets licensing, generator registration thresholds and how exported energy is settled by consumer class. SP Group, as the transmission and distribution licensee, approves and executes the physical connection, the meter change and the turn-on. A proposal that models settlement correctly but ignores the SP Group application timeline still commits to a commissioning date it cannot hold, which is one of the more common ways a well-priced bid loses credibility during delivery.
How do you write a proposal for a SolarNova style tender?
Answer the published evaluation criteria in the order they appear, produce site-level generation estimates the same way for every block so the panel can compare them, attach one common technical annex rather than repeating it, and keep the commercial submission in exactly the requested format. Repeatability and completeness score higher than presentation. Budget time for reassembling your software output into the prescribed template, because no proposal platform matches a public procurement format natively.
How much does solar proposal software cost in Singapore?
Most vendors bill in US dollars rather than in a Singapore price. QuickEstimate sits near SGD 550 and PandaDoc near SGD 800 per user per year. Sunbase starts at US$59 per user per month, about SGD 940 a year, with higher tiers unpublished. SurgePV is US$1,299 per user per year on the five-seat team plan, about SGD 1,730. Aurora is US$135 per user per month on Basic and US$220 on Premium billed annually, about SGD 2,155 to SGD 3,510 a year. Enact is US$279 a month for two users. Pylon does not sell seats at all, charging US$4.00 or US$10.00 per project. ARKA 360 publishes prices for India only and The Solar Labs sits under the same brand with no separate list, so both need a quote. OpenSolar’s core platform is free, and its 2026 API and Connector rates are not published.
Can free proposal software win commercial work in Singapore?
Rarely. OpenSolar’s free tier handles a landed-property or small commercial quote, but it carries no EMA or SP Group content, no REC or carbon output, no multi-site workflow and limited shading depth on obstruction-dense industrial roofs. Against a competitor submitting an auditable P50 and P90 model with a stated tariff basis, a free-tier document is scored on the gaps it leaves. For occasional small jobs it is fine. For tender pipelines it is not.
Stop paying for four tools. Design it all in one.
SurgePV replaces Aurora + HelioScope + PVsyst + a separate proposal tool in a single license. AI 3D roof in under 60 seconds, bankable 8,760-hour simulation, auto-SLD, BOQ, DXF/DWG export and branded proposals.
Free trial, no credit card · $1,299 per user per year on the 5-User Team planDisclaimer: SurgePV is our own product. It is built by the Heaven Group, the same company as Heaven Green Energy, so treat this as a recommendation from its maker.