Katapult Pro vs Technosylva (2026): Pricing, Features & Verdict

Why choose Katapult Pro

• Higher Cost score (6/10 vs 3/10)
• Higher Ease of Use score (7/10 vs 5/10)

Why choose Technosylva

• Higher Analytics score (9/10 vs 6/10)
• Higher Scalability score (8/10 vs 7/10)
• Better fit for energy companies (8/10 vs 6/10)

Katapult Pro

Pros

• Pricing is published, contracts are month to month, and there is no cancellation penalty, which is rare among pole engineering tools.
• Read-only users are free, so stakeholders can review data without paying for a license.
• Field crews can collect pole photos and heights without entering the power space, and photos are matched to poles automatically.
• Clearance violation detection and pole loading are built in, with SPIDAcalc export included.
• Joint use workflows track FCC shot clock deadlines for utilities.

Cons

• O-Calc Pro export costs an extra $231 a month.
• Joint Use Management and Site License pricing are not published.
• The one-time setup fee of $1,815, plus optional equipment the site lists at $3,200 to $3,450, raises the cost of getting started.
• Reviewers say results depend on clean, consistent input data, and clearance checks can feel worksheet-like for edge cases.
• It is focused on pole attachment work and does not offer general CMMS features such as work orders or spare parts.

Technosylva

Pros

• Uses about 27 years of fire data and modeling, which the CEO presents as an edge over newer venture-backed wildfire startups.
• FireSight scores individual assets by both ignition likelihood and consequence, such as acres burned and buildings destroyed, which supports WMP filings and hardening decisions.
• Gives hourly asset-level fire-risk forecasts up to five days ahead to support PSPS and crew pre-positioning decisions.
• Major utilities (PG&E, SCE, SDG&E, Xcel) and CAL FIRE use it, and CAL FIRE analysts used it during the Park Fire.
• Partnerships with AiDASH (vegetation) and Pano AI (camera detection) connect its risk models with field and sensor intelligence.

Cons

• No public pricing, and EPRI flags cost as a barrier for smaller utilities and co-ops.
• There are almost no independent user reviews on G2, Capterra or community forums, so its claims are hard to verify.
• It is a risk modeling platform, not an asset maintenance system: no work orders, inspection forms or asset registry were documented.
• No public API documentation or security attestation such as SOC 2 could be found.
• The Pano AI integration was still being validated with select customers in early 2026 before wider release.