Ekotrope RATER Review 2026: Pricing, Pros, Cons, Alternatives

Start here if Ekotrope RATER is on your shortlist

Ekotrope RATER earns its money with Rating and provider organisations of roughly 2 to 50 people doing high-volume new residential construction HERS ratings, ENERGY STAR and DOE ZERH certification, and utility program submissions, where the same shop both models the homes and manages the field inspections. If that's you, it does the job. The sections below are the parts worth checking before you sign. But the fit is narrower than the marketing suggests, and the price isn't the whole cost.

The vendor publishes no price. But every number below was verified on 7 August 2026 and comes from a named third party that says which.

Who should be shortlisting Ekotrope RATER

It fits Rating and provider organisations of roughly 2 to 50 people doing high-volume new residential construction HERS ratings, ENERGY STAR and DOE ZERH certification, and utility program submissions, where the same shop both models the homes and manages the field inspections. That's the half most reviews print. Here's the other half, which is the one worth your time.

Don't buy it if you're An HVAC contractor of 3 to 20 who needs Manual J load calculations, Manual S equipment selection and Manual D duct design to size and sell a replacement system. Ekotrope RATER is a HERS and code-compliance engine, not a load-calculation tool. It models a whole house against ANSI/RESNET/ICC 301 and IECC baselines and produces an index, a compliance result and a certificate. But it doesn't produce the ACCA Manual J room-by-room load sheet a mechanical permit or an equipment proposal needs, and its report menu is entirely code and program reports. So buying it to size equipment means buying the wrong category, then buying a load-calc tool anyway. Look at Wrightsoft Right-Suite Universal instead.

Don't buy it if you're A custom home builder of 5 to 50 who wants to bring HERS certification in-house and stop paying a rater per home. The certificate is credentialed, not licensed. Ekotrope's own general-licence page states that 'Certificates for HERS, ENERGY STAR, and DOE Zero Energy Ready Homes require a HERS Rater credential', and a Builder role in the app is explicitly restricted: it 'Cannot submit to utility programs. Limited batch functionality.' So a builder can buy a licence, model homes, and still not produce the document the program requires. And the path to in-house certification runs through credentialing a person and linking to a Provider organisation, which is a hiring and accreditation project rather than a software purchase. Look at A contracted HERS rater working under an accredited Provider, with an Ekotrope Builder-role seat only if you want visibility into the models instead.

Don't buy it if you're An architect, designer or engineer who only needs a Total UA or prescriptive IECC permit report a few times a year. Paying for RATER to do this is buying a rating engine to run a calculator. Ekotrope sells the calculator separately and gives it away: 'Ekotrope Code is free to use — no commitment', with 'No credit card required', and the vendor answers the substitution question itself: 'Is Ekotrope CODE a REScheck alternative? Yes. Ekotrope CODE calculates the same Total UA / Total TC pathway that REScheck calculates.' And the free product covers IECC 2006 through 2024 plus state amendments. Look at Ekotrope CODE (free), or the RATER Lite general licence if you also need to model rated homes alongside a rater instead.

Pricing: what Ekotrope RATER publishes and what it doesn't

There's no published price for Ekotrope RATER. The pricing page asks you to get in touch, so every figure below comes from somewhere other than the vendor, and each one says where.

The vendor's own wording is this, and nothing more: "Ekotrope publishes a page literally headed 'Ekotrope Pricing Comparison' that contains no prices. The table sets out what the Lite and Standard RATER licences can each produce, report by report, with a project limit of 20 on Lite and Unlimited on Standard, and not one dollar figure anywhere on it. There is no /pricing route on the site (https://www.ekotrope.com/pricing returns 404), no /plans route, and every conversion path on every product page is 'CONTACT US' or 'SCHEDULE A DEMO'. The one exception is Ekotrope CODE, the free companion calculator, which is the only Ekotrope product with a published price of any kind." So treat every third-party page printing tier names and figures for Ekotrope RATER with careful suspicion. Those numbers are not on the vendor's site today, and a roundup that reprints them is telling you what Ekotrope RATER used to charge somebody else.

And we aren't going to print a per-month number we can't open a vendor page and read. What exists instead is third-party reporting, dated, from people who saw real contracts. Read it as a range rather than as a quote you can hold anyone to.

Ekotrope RATER is not sold by the seat. Billing runs on prepaid HERS Rating Credits consumed per energy model, invoiced monthly, and the vendor describes the mechanic itself: a Rating Credit is burned 'on the first time an energy model is either registered with RESNET or the qualifying report is downloaded or emailed and the user indicates the energy model will be registered with RESNET in the future', and 'we will report on Rating Credit usage from the past month and bill the regular monthly fee (Credit Fee divided by 12 monthly payments)'. Seats do exist but they are a permissions construct, not a price construct: every user carries one standalone role (Rating, Training, Builder, Lite, or UA Rating) plus optional layered roles (Provider Admin, User Admin, QA, Library Curator, Project Curator, Direct RESNET Submitter). Organisations are also two-tier, Provider and Rater, and a Rater organisation cannot download or email reports for a project at all until it clicks 'Share with Provider'.

There is a discount for paying annually up front: Not published, and the shape of the billing makes the usual annual-versus-monthly question the wrong one. There is no month-to-month plan to discount against. Rating Credits are bought as a block and then drawn down, with the vendor billing 'the regular monthly fee (Credit Fee divided by 12 monthly payments)', so the commitment is already annualised before any discount conversation starts. The genuine volume lever is the credit block size, and no rate card for it exists on the public site. And an annual prepay discount tells you an annual commitment exists, which is worth knowing before anyone mentions a term length out loud.

The Ekotrope RATER costs that show up later

Payment processing. Not applicable, and this matters when comparing Ekotrope against field-service platforms. Ekotrope RATER takes no homeowner or builder payments and carries no card processing rate, because its outputs are HERS certificates, IECC compliance reports, QA checklists and registry submissions rather than invoices. Money flows the other way: Ekotrope invoices the rating company monthly for Rating Credit usage and Energy Code Report credits.

Implementation and onboarding. No implementation fee is published for a rating company, but a rate exists for utility program administrators and it is Time and Materials rather than fixed. Ekotrope runs one-week sprints and quotes each change request in hours: '0-2 hrs: 1-2 weeks', '2-4 hrs: 2-3 weeks', '4-10 hrs: 4-6 weeks', and '>10 hrs: Custom timeline', all measured from T&M approval to go-live. Rush work carries a published uplift: 'If approved, Ekotrope can complete the changes for an increased T&M fee, which is about a 20% increase for each hourly rate.' The hourly rate itself is withheld, and the article says to email ProgramSupport@Ekotrope.com for it.

Minimum term. Not stated as a term of months, but the credit mechanic imposes one in practice. Ekotrope bills a Rating Credit block as 'Credit Fee divided by 12 monthly payments', which is a twelve-month commitment described as a payment schedule. There is a second, sharper commitment for anyone outside the direct-provider path: 'Direct RESNET Providers are not required to sign an order form but 3rd party providers will be.'

Getting out. There's no readable contract to check. Ekotrope publishes no terms of service, no MSA and no EULA anywhere on ekotrope.com (I probed /terms, /terms-of-service, /terms-and-conditions, /legal and /privacy-policy and every one returned 404, and the site footer links only to Contact Us and Help). And the single binding document the support site points to, 'the full terms and conditions of a Premium Code Report Order', is a published Google Doc that returns HTTP 401 and demands a Google sign-in. So ask Ekotrope in writing for the actual Order Form and Master Agreement PDFs before signing, and ask three specific questions: what happens to unused Rating Credits if you leave mid-term, whether unused credits expire, and whether credits are refundable or forfeited.

Auto-renewal. So ask whether the Rating Credit block auto-renews at the end of the twelve payments, what notice period cancels it, and whether the credit rate is locked for the renewal term or repriced. And get the answer on the order form, not in an email.

Modules sold separately. , , , . And an add-on you need in week one is part of what Ekotrope RATER costs, so the number to compare is the configuration you'd really run.

Third-party services you will also pay for. , , . These are not on Ekotrope RATER's invoice, and they are still part of what this decision costs you every month.

"Third-party reporting puts Ekotrope RATER at $50 per user/month (ITQlick's own derived 'Starting price' field; figure confirmed present in raw HTML with curl+grep before recording), reported 2026 (page is titled 'Ekotrope Worth It in 2026? | ITQlick'; no dated revision is shown)."

ITQlick publishes 'starts at $50 per user/month' for Ekotrope. Treat this as a derived estimate rather than a vendor figure, and treat it with real suspicion, because the same listing files Ekotrope under 'Inventory Management' software, ranks it '#111 of 221' in that category, and offers 'Ekotrope vs SalesBinder', 'Ekotrope vs Toolhound' and 'Ekotrope vs eStockCard' as its top alternatives. A HERS energy modelling engine has been classified as a stockroom tool, so the pricing attached to that classification carries no weight. It is also the wrong shape: Ekotrope does not bill per user at all, it bills per Rating Credit. (own))

Everything that is not the Ekotrope RATER subscription

The subscription is the part everyone quotes. These are the lines that land afterwards, and the ones we could not find are named as unpublished rather than left blank.

Sold separately. , , , . Price the configuration you'll really run, because an add-on you need on day one is part of the price.

Third-party services you'll also pay for. , , . None of these are on Ekotrope RATER's invoice, and all of them are part of what this decision costs every month.

The five workflows you pay for

Feature totals are noise. So a shop in this category lives or dies on five things, and those are the five to grade, and each one below carries the evidence it's graded on.

One hourly simulation engine drives HERS, ERI, IECC compliance and program certification from a single cloud building model You build the house once in a browser and Ekotrope derives the HERS Index, the ERI, and compliance results against whichever standard you select, then generates the matching report set. The report menu spans Total UA, I-codes, ERI and Performance on the code side, and HERS, ENERGY STAR 3.1, 3.2 and Multifamily, ZERH, utility program, LEED and NGBS on the program side. And state and locally amended codes are maintained by the vendor rather than by you, and the Standard licence tier carries '25+' amended codes against a blank cell on Lite. Because it runs in the browser, there's no Windows requirement and no per-machine install, which is the structural difference against the desktop incumbent.

ONSITE collects inspection data offline against the specific home and syncs photos straight into the energy model The field app is pre-populated from the energy model rather than from a blank form, which is the part that removes double entry. Forms are customised per home so an inspector sees only the data points that home needs, photos attach to the model itself for later QA, and the app works with no signal and syncs when it gets one. And the vendor takes the maintenance burden rather than handing you a form builder. So one named customer puts the saving at 20 to 30 minutes per inspection.

QA Track puts the RESNET QA checklist inside the energy model and submits to RESNET's own database in one click This is the module that makes Ekotrope sticky for Provider organisations rather than for individual raters. It tracks File QA, Field QA and Pre-Drywall QA counts automatically as homes register with RESNET, surfaces an estimated score and error check in a side panel before submission, and pushes the completed checklist straight into RESNET's Kibana database using the same integration the official RESNET QA App uses. Raters see review status (under review, needs revision, passed, failed) rather than waiting on email. And it's a paid Premium feature, and the File Storage sub-feature inside it caps at 100 MB per project.

REM/Rate XML imports, and the vendor documents six specific ways that import breaks before it documents the happy path Ekotrope converts REM/Rate XML files into Ekotrope projects, and the support article covering it is a list of failure modes rather than a list of steps. Zip codes must be valid and must match the climate zone of the REM weather site. And the Official Rater only maps across if the RTIN field is filled in AND a user with that same RTIN already exists inside your organisation, which means a Provider importing an external rater's files will lose the rater assignment entirely. Fenestration area must be less than gross wall area, which REM doesn't enforce. Window orientation of 'None' isn't supported. And every conditioning unit must be linked to a distribution system that uses it for the load it carries.

Program logic changes run as Time and Materials sprints with published lead times and a roughly 20% rush uplift For utility program administrators rather than raters, Ekotrope operates a formal change-request process with an email intake, a Monday sprint review, a T&M estimate, and a published relationship between estimated hours and calendar turnaround. Adding a QA check or surfacing a field in the API sits in the 1 to 4 hour band. Updating incentive rates while preserving old rates, or updating a reference home, sits above 4 hours. And the vendor reserves the right to refuse: 'the Ekotrope team may say no to certain requests.'

Ekotrope RATER per trade, not per company size

Where your data goes when it leaves Ekotrope RATER

QuickBooks connects, on every plan. Xero, Sage, FreshBooks or any other accounting package connects, on every plan. Your costs map through cost codes, so test yours against your own chart of accounts before you commit. A code your books don't recognise is how a labour charge quietly lands somewhere useless.

Past those, the road ends. Integrations directory (named software partners), Accounting and job costing (any vendor), CRM (named), Public developer documentation do not connect. So if your books run on an ERP rather than the platforms named above, weigh that before anything else.

Beyond accounting it connects to RESNET National Registry (Direct registration of projects to the RESNET registry from inside the energy model, which is what enables confirmed (non-projected) reports. But Provider Admins control it, and individual raters need the Direct RESNET Submitter role granted by a Provider Admin to register using the provider's credentials, otherwise they click 'Submit for QA' and wait for the Provider.), RESNET Kibana QA database (One-button submission of completed HERS QA checklists from inside the energy model, using the same Kibana integration the official RESNET QA App uses. QA counts for File, Field and Pre-Drywall QA track automatically as homes register.), ICF-administered utility programs and the OIT (Program submission tools embedded directly in RATER for ICF-administered utility programs, plus documented submission paths for Mass Save, Duke HERO rebate, AEP/TNMP Texas, DTE/Consumers and NHSaves.), REM/Rate (XML import) (One-way conversion of REM/Rate XML files into Ekotrope projects, with six documented failure modes covering zip codes, climate zones, RTIN mapping, fenestration area, window orientation and equipment-to-distribution-system links. A companion article covers importing a REM/Rate component library.), Ekotrope ONSITE and Inspection Sync (ONSITE is the first-party field app that syncs inspection data and photos into the energy model. Inspection Sync is the API that lets a third-party inspection app do the same thing, including mechanical equipment model-number matching, after which the standard API registers the project with RESNET and the Reports API sends the reports.). A public API exists: A real REST API exists across three surfaces (Standard API for project and model CRUD plus RESNET registration, Reports API for generating and delivering reports, Inspection Sync for field data), and it is permission-gated rather than self-serve. Access is granted by Ekotrope support on request: 'you will need the API role added to your Ekotrope account to successfully make any API calls. Please email support@ekotrope.com if you are interested in using the API.' No public developer portal, no pricing for the role, and no published rate limits. The fee FAQ also notes that the Reports API had to change shape to accommodate billing: 'Requests to generate a new Report Job using the Reports API will require an additional data field indicating if the energy model will be registered with RESNET.'

Ekotrope RATER support, onboarding and the hours

Ekotrope RATER contracts, and getting out

Nobody reads this section before they buy, and it's the one that costs money afterwards. Four terms decide what leaving looks like.

Minimum term. Not stated as a term of months, but the credit mechanic imposes one in practice. Ekotrope bills a Rating Credit block as 'Credit Fee divided by 12 monthly payments', which is a twelve-month commitment described as a payment schedule. There is a second, sharper commitment for anyone outside the direct-provider path: 'Direct RESNET Providers are not required to sign an order form but 3rd party providers will be.'

Auto-renewal. No renewal clause is published anywhere reachable, for the same reason as early termination: the vendor has no public terms page at all. So ask whether the Rating Credit block auto-renews at the end of the twelve payments, what notice period cancels it, and whether the credit rate is locked for the renewal term or repriced. And get the answer on the order form, not in an email.

Early termination. There's no readable contract to check. Ekotrope publishes no terms of service, no MSA and no EULA anywhere on ekotrope.com (I probed /terms, /terms-of-service, /terms-and-conditions, /legal and /privacy-policy and every one returned 404, and the site footer links only to Contact Us and Help). And the single binding document the support site points to, 'the full terms and conditions of a Premium Code Report Order', is a published Google Doc that returns HTTP 401 and demands a Google sign-in. So ask Ekotrope in writing for the actual Order Form and Master Agreement PDFs before signing, and ask three specific questions: what happens to unused Rating Credits if you leave mid-term, whether unused credits expire, and whether credits are refundable or forfeited.

Payment processing. Not applicable, and this matters when comparing Ekotrope against field-service platforms. Ekotrope RATER takes no homeowner or builder payments and carries no card processing rate, because its outputs are HERS certificates, IECC compliance reports, QA checklists and registry submissions rather than invoices. Money flows the other way: Ekotrope invoices the rating company monthly for Rating Credit usage and Energy Code Report credits.

What Ekotrope RATER users report

How Ekotrope RATER compares

Four or five products a shop looking at Ekotrope RATER would also be looking at. Each row carries what the vendor publishes, plus what it does better and worse.

AXIS / APEX (Pivotal Energy Solutions). Being the only RESNET-accredited option in this category with a public price page you can read without a sales call. The PROVIDER tier adds $7 per home plus a $750 to $1,500 setup fee and includes certification workflow, field and file QA workflow, EPA host quarterly reporting, 100Gb storage and sampling support. And if you want to know your cost per home before signing, this is the only vendor here that lets you. But APEX is the newer and far less entrenched accredited engine. Ekotrope claims nearly 80% of all HERS ratings and all 10 of the largest rating companies, so utility program integrations, provider tooling and rater familiarity all skew Ekotrope's way. And Pivotal is also a workflow platform first and a rating engine second.

REM/Rate. Being the two-decade incumbent whose model files and library conventions many Providers and utility programs were built around. It runs locally, so a rater with no connectivity still has a working tool, and it's what most training programs still teach alongside Ekotrope. But Windows-only desktop with no Mac build, no public API, and licensing restricted to accredited Providers so a contractor can't buy it directly. And its XML export is a paid per-address item, which is a harsher version of Ekotrope's request-gated export.

EnergyGauge USA (Coded Energy). Florida. EnergyGauge grew out of the Florida Solar Energy Center and is the traditional choice for Florida code compliance work, where Ekotrope maintains a dedicated Florida Code Compliance page precisely because the market is contested. But Publishing anything at all. Both energygauge.com and codedenergy.com are single-page JavaScript applications whose order pages render no prices to a raw fetch, and the JS bundle contains no dollar figures either. And RESNET lists the accredited version as 8.2.00 under Coded Energy of Thornton, CA.

HouseRater. Standardising the workflow layer across modelling, QA and submission rather than being the modelling engine itself. It pitches directly at the failure Ekotrope's Provider/Rater split creates: 'Inconsistent rater output', 'Frequent correction cycles', 'Rework and repeated submissions', 'Limited visibility across projects'. But Scale and evidence. RESNET lists it at v3.4.1.1 with 'Previous Versions: n/a', meaning this is its first accredited version. And its /pricing route returns HTTP 404 and its /usage route returns HTTP 404, so there's nothing to compare on cost.

Wrightsoft Right-Suite Universal. The job Ekotrope doesn't do. Right-Suite Universal produces ACCA Manual J loads, Manual S equipment selection and Manual D duct design, which is what an HVAC contractor needs for a mechanical permit and an equipment proposal. It publishes its prices ($900 USA residential, $925 Canada, $1,125 combined, verified in raw HTML). But It isn't a RESNET-accredited rating tool and can't produce a HERS Index, an ERI, an ENERGY STAR certificate or a RESNET registry submission. So a rating company can't run its business on it.

Who should not buy Ekotrope RATER

Don't buy Ekotrope RATER if you're An HVAC contractor of 3 to 20 who needs Manual J load calculations, Manual S equipment selection and Manual D duct design to size and sell a replacement system. Ekotrope RATER is a HERS and code-compliance engine, not a load-calculation tool. It models a whole house against ANSI/RESNET/ICC 301 and IECC baselines and produces an index, a compliance result and a certificate. But it doesn't produce the ACCA Manual J room-by-room load sheet a mechanical permit or an equipment proposal needs, and its report menu is entirely code and program reports. So buying it to size equipment means buying the wrong category, then buying a load-calc tool anyway. Look at Wrightsoft Right-Suite Universal instead.

Don't buy Ekotrope RATER if you're A custom home builder of 5 to 50 who wants to bring HERS certification in-house and stop paying a rater per home. The certificate is credentialed, not licensed. Ekotrope's own general-licence page states that 'Certificates for HERS, ENERGY STAR, and DOE Zero Energy Ready Homes require a HERS Rater credential', and a Builder role in the app is explicitly restricted: it 'Cannot submit to utility programs. Limited batch functionality.' So a builder can buy a licence, model homes, and still not produce the document the program requires. And the path to in-house certification runs through credentialing a person and linking to a Provider organisation, which is a hiring and accreditation project rather than a software purchase. Look at A contracted HERS rater working under an accredited Provider, with an Ekotrope Builder-role seat only if you want visibility into the models instead.

Don't buy Ekotrope RATER if you're An architect, designer or engineer who only needs a Total UA or prescriptive IECC permit report a few times a year. Paying for RATER to do this is buying a rating engine to run a calculator. Ekotrope sells the calculator separately and gives it away: 'Ekotrope Code is free to use — no commitment', with 'No credit card required', and the vendor answers the substitution question itself: 'Is Ekotrope CODE a REScheck alternative? Yes. Ekotrope CODE calculates the same Total UA / Total TC pathway that REScheck calculates.' And the free product covers IECC 2006 through 2024 plus state amendments. Look at Ekotrope CODE (free), or the RATER Lite general licence if you also need to model rated homes alongside a rater instead.

The verdict, by shop size

Rating and provider organisations of 2 to 50 doing high-volume new residential construction in utility-program territory

Yes, and this is the shape the product is built for. This is the band the product was built for and it's genuinely the category default: nearly 80% of all HERS ratings, over 220 rating companies including all 10 of the largest, and roughly a quarter of the industry using QA Track for RESNET quality assurance. The cloud model removes the Windows-desktop tax, embedded utility program submission removes a whole re-keying step, and ONSITE plus Inspection Sync close the field-to-model loop that everyone else leaves open. But the conditions are commercial rather than technical: get the Rating Credit rate and the Energy Code Report fee in writing, get XML export enabled before you sign, and get the Premium Code Report Order terms as a PDF because the linked Google Doc won't open. This band runs 2 to 50 on the crew, doing residential work, and that's the profile the recommendation is written for.

Solo HERS raters and two-person rating shops working under someone else's Provider

Only under conditions, and they are worth being honest about. The software is fine at this size and the account model is the problem. A Rater organisation can't download or email a single report until it clicks 'Share with Provider', and confirmed reports need a registry round trip that only a Provider or a Direct RESNET Submitter can perform. So that puts your delivery time inside someone else's queue. And take it only if your Provider will grant you the Direct RESNET Submitter role in writing, and only after you have a credit rate that makes sense at your volume, because a credit block sized for a 220-rating shop is the wrong purchase for a 40-rating one. This band runs 1 to 2 on the crew, doing residential work, and that's the profile the recommendation is written for.

Architects, designers and engineers who need occasional IECC or Total UA permit reports

Only under conditions, and they are worth being honest about. Start with the free product and only escalate if it fails you. Ekotrope CODE is free with no credit card and covers IECC 2006 through 2024 plus state amendments, and the vendor states it calculates the same Total UA / Total TC pathway as REScheck. So move up to a RATER Lite or Standard general licence only when you need to model rated homes alongside a HERS rater or need LEED and NGBS reports. And remember the ceiling on the way up: Lite caps at 20 projects, and no general licence produces a HERS, ENERGY STAR or ZERH certificate without a credentialed rater. This band runs 1 to 25 on the crew, doing residential work, and that's the profile the recommendation is written for.

HVAC contractors of 3 to 20 buying software to size and sell replacement systems

No. Wrong category entirely. Ekotrope RATER produces HERS Indices, ERIs, code-compliance results and program certificates. But it doesn't produce an ACCA Manual J room-by-room load sheet, Manual S equipment selection or Manual D duct design, and none of those appear anywhere in its report menu. A replacement-system quote needs a load calculation and a permit-ready report, so buying Ekotrope means paying for a rating engine and then buying a load-calc tool anyway. So buy Wrightsoft Right-Suite Universal at $900 per user per year, or Cool Calc, and leave HERS to a contracted rater. This band runs 3 to 20 on the crew, doing residential and service work, and that's the profile the recommendation is written for.

Production and custom home builders of 5 to 200 wanting to certify their own homes in-house

No. The certificate is credentialed rather than licensed, so software won't get you there. Ekotrope's own general-licence page says certificates for HERS, ENERGY STAR and DOE ZERH require a HERS Rater credential, and the in-app Builder role explicitly 'Cannot submit to utility programs.' A builder seat is worth having for visibility into models your rater is producing and for scenario work on specs, and it isn't a substitute for the rater. So spend the certification budget on a contracted rater and a Provider relationship, and spend the software budget on the sales side. This band runs 5 to 200 on the crew, doing residential work, and that's the profile the recommendation is written for.

Where all of this Ekotrope RATER detail came from

Worth saying plainly: this is desk research on Ekotrope RATER, not a season in the field with it. And what stands behind it is documentary: 31 vendor pages read on 7 August 2026, and a review corpus sorted by what went wrong. And every figure above traces to a page we opened on that date, pricing included.

So: eight quotes on this page, one from Ekotrope vendor site testimonial (Why Ekotrope? page). Reproduced exactly as published, including the stray closing curly quote and the missing opening quote., one from Ekotrope vendor site testimonial (Why Ekotrope? page), one from Ekotrope vendor site testimonial (Integrations page). Reproduced exactly as published, including the doubled opening quote mark in the source markup., one from Ekotrope vendor site testimonial (Integrations page), one from Ekotrope vendor blog case study, written by Ekotrope staff member Patrick Nachlas, one from Ekotrope vendor blog case study, written by Ekotrope staff member Patrick Nachlas. Second half of the same attributed quote block., one from Ekotrope vendor blog post 'True Cost of Ownership™ Success Stories' and one from Ekotrope vendor press blog post. Reproduced verbatim including the double space before 'Ekotrope'..

And https://www.g2.com/products/ekotrope/reviews (HTTP 403), https://www.trustradius.com/products/ekotrope/reviews (HTTP 403), https://www.serchen.com/company/ekotrope (HTTP 403 to both curl and WebFetch), https://sourceforge.net/software/product/Ekotrope/ (HTTP 403), Reddit (blocks automated fetches site-wide; no r/BuildingScience or r/HVAC threads on Ekotrope were reachable) and https://www.capterra.com/p/135290/Ekotrope/ and the Software Advice / GetApp equivalents all returned HTTP 403 to direct curl and were only readable through WebFetch, so raw-HTML verification of the zero-review count was not possible on those three refused automated retrieval for Ekotrope RATER. Forum and social threads are the ones people most want quoted, and they are exactly the ones we cannot verify, so none of them are here.

What that leaves untested: the Ekotrope application itself at https://app.ekotrope.com/ (HTTP 200, login wall; no trial account was created, so nothing inside the product was observed first-hand). And everything above is 31 vendor pages and a review corpus, which is documentary rather than hands-on.