Dutch solar software has a deadline. The salderingsregeling ends on 1 January 2027, with termination approved by the Senate in December 2024, and from that date suppliers set export compensation, expected in the region of 5 to 10 cents per kWh against a government floor. Annual netting, the mechanism nearly every Dutch quoting tool is built around, simply stops applying. Residential payback projections move from roughly 7 to 9 years to roughly 12 to 17. Any system being sold today has most of its life on the far side of that change, and most proposals do not say so. This guide covers what the Dutch stack has to do now.
Short version. The best solar software for a Dutch business in 2026 is whichever tool can model the two tariff periods honestly and dispatch a battery against an hourly load profile. Everything else in the stack is ordinary. This one capability is the whole question, because the mechanism the market was built on has a termination date inside the payback period of every system you sell.
This page covers the category as a whole. For the tool-by-tool comparisons see our best solar design software Netherlands and best solar proposal software Netherlands guides.
Model both tariff periods on a real Dutch job
A SurgePV engineer takes one of your addresses, shows savings under saldering to end-2026 and under supplier-set compensation after, and produces the branded proposal from the same record.
Book a Free Demo20 minutes · Bring a real project · No credit card
The Six Categories, And The One That Matters Right Now
| Category | What it does | Status for 2027 |
|---|---|---|
| Design and simulation | Layout, shading, yield, hourly self-consumption | Must add hourly self-consumption and battery dispatch |
| Proposal and quoting | Two-period savings model, honest payback | Needs rebuilding for most teams |
| CRM and pipeline | Leads, follow-up, conversion | Unaffected |
| Project execution | Scheduling, install, handover | Unaffected |
| Monitoring | Performance, service, warranty | Unaffected |
| Compliance | Grid connection and installation standards | Unaffected |
What Is Genuinely Netherlands-Specific Right Now
The termination date sits inside the payback period. This is the crux. A system installed in 2026 with a projected payback beyond 2027 spends most of its economic life under rules that do not exist yet in most quoting tools. Presenting a single payback figure calculated on saldering is not optimistic, it is describing a scheme that ends partway through.
Terugleverkosten already bite. Several supplier tariffs apply charges to customers who feed back, and under those tariffs export is already negative-value. That matters for two reasons. It means some customers should be advised to raise self-consumption today rather than in 2027, and it means the “export is worthless” conversation is not hypothetical, which makes it easier to have.
The expected 5 to 10 cent band with a floor. Suppliers will set the rate, so it will vary, and the government floor prevents negative compensation. For modelling this means a range rather than a number, and a proposal should show sensitivity across it rather than picking one.
Hourly self-consumption becomes the only meaningful metric. Annual generation and annual consumption can match perfectly while the household exports every midday and imports every evening. Under saldering that was fine. After 2027 it is the difference between a good system and a disappointing one.
Where Dutch Teams Overbuy And Underbuy
Underbought: hourly self-consumption modelling. The defining gap. Most Dutch quoting has never needed it, because annual netting made timing irrelevant. Tools bought on that basis are about to be structurally inadequate.
Underbought: battery dispatch simulation. The natural response to the change is storage, and selling storage credibly requires showing what it shifts rather than asserting a benefit.
Underbought: two-period proposal modelling. Very few tools can show the customer a saldering period and a post-saldering period in one document, and that is now the honest shape of a Dutch proposal.
Overbought: nothing much, in fairness. Dutch teams tend to run lean stacks. The problem here is not overspend, it is that the core tool is about to stop describing reality.
Show what a battery converts, don't assert it
SurgePV dispatches storage against the hourly load and generation profile, so a Dutch customer can see exactly how much export becomes avoided import after saldering ends.
Book a Free Demo20 minutes · Bring a real project · No credit card
The Platforms Dutch Businesses Should Evaluate
1. SurgePV, the integrated core
Design and proposals from one record, with 8,760-hour simulation, hourly self-consumption analysis, battery dispatch modelling, two-period tariff handling for the saldering transition and 8,760-hour module-level shading. White-label proposals with e-signature in 9 languages including Dutch. $1,299 to $1,899 per user per year.
2. PV*SOL
Strong European residential and small commercial modelling with capable self-consumption tooling, which puts it in a better position than most for the transition. Desktop-based. Our PV*SOL alternative guide covers the trade-offs.
3. PVsyst
The bankable simulation reference, frequently named by lenders on commercial and ground-mount work. No proposal layer and no Dutch tariff logic. See our PVsyst alternative review.
4. OpenSolar
Free and quick with a presentable customer document. Built around simpler tariff assumptions and light on hourly dispatch. See our OpenSolar alternative comparison.
5. Aurora Solar
Strong residential design built around US net metering. Ironically, US net metering resembles saldering more than what replaces it, so the fit gets worse in 2027 rather than better. See our Aurora Solar alternative comparison.
6. Spreadsheets built on annual netting
The most common Dutch quoting tool and the one with the clearest expiry date.
Netherlands Solar Software Stack Comparison
| Capability | SurgePV | PV*SOL | PVsyst | OpenSolar | Aurora |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Design and simulation | Yes | Yes | Yes | Partial | Yes |
| Proposal from design record | Yes | Partial | No | Yes | Yes |
| Hourly self-consumption | Yes | Yes | Yes | Partial | Yes |
| Battery dispatch modelling | Yes | Yes | Partial | Partial | Yes |
| Two-period tariff modelling | Yes | Manual | Manual | No | No |
| Terugleverkosten handling | Yes | Manual | Manual | No | No |
| Dutch-language proposals | Yes | Partial | No | Partial | No |
Worked Example: The Same System, Quoted Three Ways
An illustrative comparison, not a specific customer project. A residential array installed in 2026 with a projected life well beyond 2027.
| A: quoted on saldering only | B: quoted on post-2027 only | C: two-period model | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Savings shown to end-2026 | Correct | Understated | Correct |
| Savings shown after 2027 | Overstated substantially | Correct | Correct |
| Payback presented | roughly 7 to 9 years | roughly 12 to 17 years | Blended, with the transition visible |
| Battery case | Weak, so not offered | Strong | Shown as a priced option |
| Holds up in 2028? | No | Yes | Yes |
| Wins against a rival quoting A? | n/a | Looks expensive | Explains why A is wrong |
Column A is what most Dutch quotes currently look like and it will be contradicted by the customer’s own bills within eighteen months of the change.
Column B is honest but commercially awkward, because it looks worse than a competitor’s column A quote and gives no explanation for the gap.
Column C is the only version that is both accurate and competitive. It shows the customer why the optimistic quote they are holding from someone else is wrong, and it puts the battery in front of them as the answer rather than as an upsell. Producing it requires a tool that can carry two tariff regimes in one model, which is the specific thing to test for.
Who Should Choose What
- Choose SurgePV if you need two-period tariff modelling, hourly self-consumption and battery dispatch in one document.
- Choose PV*SOL if you are desktop-based, work mainly residential, and value its component depth.
- Choose PVsyst where a lender names it on commercial or ground-mount work, paired with separate quoting.
After signing, pipeline and follow-up sit in a CRM. QuickEstimate takes the handoff from SurgePV by API.
Ready for 1 January 2027
Two-period tariff modelling, hourly self-consumption, battery dispatch, terugleverkosten handling and Dutch-language proposals from $1,299 per user per year.
Book a Free DemoThe Bottom Line
The Dutch market has a dated regulatory cliff and most quoting tools are still on the wrong side of it.
- Model both periods. Saldering to the end of 2026, supplier-set compensation after, with the assumed rate stated.
- Make hourly self-consumption the metric. After 2027 annual kilowatt-hours stop predicting the customer’s bill.
- Put storage in the main comparison. It is where the remaining value is, and asserting the benefit will not close jobs.
Frequently Asked Questions
What changes for Dutch solar software on 1 January 2027?
How much does the end of saldering change residential payback?
What are terugleverkosten and why do they matter?
What should Dutch solar software be able to model after the change?
Should Dutch installers be quoting differently already?
Does storage become essential in the Netherlands?
Which solar software should a Dutch installer start with?
Nirav Dhanani CEO, Qbits Energy
Co-founder & CEO driving Qbits Energy's product strategy and growth across India.