Best Solar Proposal Software New Zealand: 2026 Guide

There is no such thing as the New Zealand solar buyback rate. Published rates run from around 5 cents per kWh at the low end among the major retailers to 17 cents flat on plans such as Meridian Solar Plan and Octopus Flexi, with peaks reaching around 24 cents on Meridian’s winter peak and up to 40 cents on Octopus OctopusPeaker in winter. Since 1 July 2026 the four largest retailers, holding roughly 87 percent of connections, must also offer a plan where the rate varies through the day. A proposal carrying one export number is not simplifying, it is guessing, and the guess can be wrong by a factor of several. This guide compares the platforms New Zealand installers should shortlist.

Short version. The best solar proposal software for New Zealand installers in 2026 is SurgePV, because it models retailer plans as hourly profiles, prices battery dispatch against them, and generates the customer document from the same design record. PVsyst is the bankable simulation reference with no proposal layer. Aurora assumes US net metering, which New Zealand does not operate.

For the design-side comparison see our best solar design software New Zealand guide, and the global solar proposal software ranking for the category without the local lens.

The Headline Rate Is Usually Unreachable

The gap between the advertised rate and the achievable rate is the central honesty problem in New Zealand quoting today, and it grew rather than shrank when time-varying plans became mandatory for the majors.

A proposal that resolves this properly does three things: it shows exported volume by time of day, it applies the rate applicable to each period, and it states the effective average rate achieved. That last number is the honest one, and it is frequently a long way below the advertised peak.

The commercial upside is significant. A customer holding your document, showing an effective achieved rate, can immediately see that a competitor’s quote applying the peak rate to total export is not credible.

Recommend The Plan, Not Just The Hardware

With no government-mandated feed-in tariff, every rate is a commercial term set by the retailer, and the spread between plans available to a single household can be worth more than any equipment decision on the table.

Modelling the same system on two or three plans is straightforward with the right tool and it is among the most valuable things a proposal can contain. It also has a useful property: it is advice that costs you nothing and demonstrably serves the customer, which builds the credibility you need for the parts of the document that do sell something.

There is a caveat to state plainly. Because these are commercial terms, they can change, and a customer who switches plans for a good export rate may find it revised. That is a reason to disclose the risk, not to withhold the recommendation.

Disclose The Rate Risk

A twenty-year projection built on a current peak rate is making an assumption about a number that nobody has guaranteed. The rule introduced in July 2026 sets the shape of time-varying pricing and explicitly not its level, and there is no floor.

The straightforward treatment is a sensitivity line: here is the projection at today’s rate, here is the same projection if export rates fall materially. Two columns, no drama.

That framing has a second benefit. It makes visible that self-consumption value is insulated from rate risk while export revenue is not, because a kilowatt-hour the household uses avoids retail import regardless of what the retailer does with buyback. That is a genuine argument for prioritising self-consumption, and it lands better when it emerges from a sensitivity table than when it is asserted.

Storage Belongs In The Main Comparison

On a time-varying plan the battery is not an upsell, it is the thing that makes the plan work. Without it the household exports into the trough and buys its evening energy at retail, which is worse than a decent flat plan.

That means storage should appear as a priced option in the primary comparison rather than as an appendix, and the comparison should show the mechanism rather than only the total. A customer who can see midday surplus being held and released into the evening understands what they are buying.

Keep the ordering honest, though. A kilowatt-hour consumed directly by the household avoids the retail import price, which on most plans exceeds any export rate available. So the battery’s highest-value job is covering the household’s own evening demand, and exporting into the peak is what it should do with whatever remains. A proposal that leads with peak-export arbitrage and neglects avoided import has the priorities backwards, even though the arbitrage story is more exciting.

The Six Platforms New Zealand Installers Should Evaluate

1. SurgePV, the integrated pick

Retailer plans modelled as hourly export profiles, battery dispatch priced against both load and export rate, effective achieved rate reporting, plan comparison for the same system, AS/NZS standards library shared with Australian work, and white-label proposals with e-signature generated from the same design record. $1,299 to $1,899 per user per year.

2. PVsyst

Bankable simulation for large commercial and ground-mount work, frequently named by lenders. No proposal layer and no retailer plan logic. See our PVsyst alternative review.

3. PV*SOL

Capable residential modelling with solid self-consumption and storage tooling. Desktop-based, partial proposal capability. Our PV*SOL alternative guide covers the trade-offs.

4. OpenSolar

Free, quick, and widely used in trans-Tasman residential work with a presentable customer document. No hourly export price modelling. See our OpenSolar alternative comparison.

5. Aurora Solar

Capable residential design and proposals built around US net metering, which New Zealand does not operate. See our Aurora Solar alternative comparison.

6. Spreadsheets plus a yield tool

The default in smaller practices, and the most likely place one flat buyback rate is standing in for an hourly profile.

New Zealand Solar Proposal Software Comparison

Worked Example: The Advertised Rate Versus The Achieved Rate

An illustrative calculation, not a specific customer project. Inputs: 6 kW array, household with modest daytime and strong evening consumption, on a time-varying plan whose advertised winter peak is high and whose midday rate is low.

The first column is the quote a competitor produces from a plan comparison website and a spreadsheet. It is wrong in a specific and checkable way, and its error runs in the customer’s disfavour once the first year’s statements arrive.

The second column is honest and looks worse. That is the commercial problem, and the third column is the answer to it. Storage does not merely improve the return, it is what makes the advertised peak rate reachable at all, and framing it that way is both accurate and considerably more compelling than presenting a battery as an efficiency upgrade.

Who Should Choose What

• Choose SurgePV if you need hourly retailer profiles, achieved-rate reporting and plan comparison in the same document.
• Choose PVsyst where a lender names it on commercial or ground-mount work, paired with separate quoting.
• Choose PV*SOL if your team is desktop-based and does detailed residential modelling.

After signing, pipeline and follow-up sit in a CRM. QuickEstimate takes the handoff from SurgePV by API.

The Bottom Line

New Zealand quoting fails on a rate the customer will never actually receive.

• Report the effective achieved rate. The advertised peak falls in hours when the array generates nothing.
• Model the plan, and recommend a better one where it exists. The spread between plans can beat any hardware decision.
• Put storage in the main comparison. On a time-varying plan it is what makes the peak rate reachable at all.