Best Optimization and Solver Software: 2026 Comparison

Best Optimization and Solver Software: 2026 Comparison

Optimization software finds the best decision under constraints, and it comes in three layers: optimization solver engines that do the math, modeling languages and environments that express the problem, and spreadsheet front ends that put both inside Excel. Solver engines include Gurobi, IBM CPLEX, FICO Xpress, HiGHS, and Google OR-Tools. Modeling layers include AMPL, GAMS, AIMMS, Pyomo, JuMP, and Analytica Optimizer, while Excel Solver, Analytic Solver, and What’sBest! make up the spreadsheet class.

Analysts rarely start by choosing a solver. A least-cost plan, a schedule, or an allocation must become decision variables, an objective, and constraints before any engine can run, and the way a team writes that formulation decides how easily others can review, change, and reuse the model. Optimization sits next to decision analysis software, which compares a short list of options, whereas optimization searches a space of options too large to list by hand.

This comparison serves power and utility planners and operations analysts first, then supply chain, finance, water, and academic research teams. It reviews fourteen products across three classes, plus three more solvers in one closing paragraph, and it uses optimization in the mathematical programming sense only, so website, PC, and machine learning tuning tools fall outside it.

This review checks every feature and price against public vendor pages in the review month, and every price is a starting point for a vendor quote.

Optimization software compared: features and pricing

The comparison splits into two tables, one for problem types and interfaces and one for free versions and published prices, since vendors update the two on different schedules.

Feature matrix

The table below treats each product as linear programming software and beyond, listing its maker, layer, and interface alongside six capability columns, with a check mark where current vendor documentation confirms the capability. Free, academic, and open-source license terms appear in the pricing table that follows.

Product Layer and interface LP MILP QP / conic NLP Optimization under uncertainty Plug-in solvers
Gurobi Optimizer Gurobi Optimization Solver engine APIs, including Python âś“ âś“ âś“ Listed without detail Not documented Not applicable
IBM CPLEX IBM Solver engine with OPL and CP Optimizer OPL language, IDE âś“ âś“ MIQCP and SOCP Not documented Not documented Not applicable
FICO Xpress FICO Solver engine with Mosel and Insight Mosel language, Insight dashboards âś“ âś“ âś“ âś“ Including global MINLP Not documented Not applicable
HiGHS Open-source project Solver engine C, C#, FORTRAN, Julia, Python âś“ âś“ QP Not documented Not documented Not applicable
Google OR-Tools Google Solver toolkit C++, Python, C#, Java âś“ âś“ Not documented Not documented Not documented Wraps commercial and open-source solvers
AMPL AMPL Modeling language Algebraic language, Python, C++, Java, C#, R Via solver Via solver Via solver Via solver Not documented âś“
GAMS GAMS Modeling language Algebraic language, GAMSPy Via solver Via solver Via solver Via solver Stochastic models listed âś“
AIMMS AIMMS Modeling and application platform AIMMS Developer Not documented Not documented Not documented Not documented Not documented Gurobi and CPLEX named
Pyomo Open-source project Modeling language Python Via solver Via solver Not documented Via solver Not documented âś“
JuMP Open-source project Modeling language Julia Via solver Via solver Conic and semidefinite Via solver Not documented âś“
Analytica Optimizer Lumina Decision Systems Modeling environment Visual influence diagram âś“ âś“ QP and SOCP âś“ âś“ Stochastic optimization with chance variables âś“
Excel Solver Microsoft and Frontline Systems Spreadsheet Excel dialog âś“ Integer constraints Not documented âś“ Not documented Not documented
Analytic Solver Frontline Systems Spreadsheet add-in Excel desktop, Excel for the web âś“ âś“ âś“ âś“ With Analytic Solver Simulation âś“
What’sBest! LINDO Systems Spreadsheet add-in Excel âś“ âś“ âś“ âś“ With global add-on Stochastic add-on Not documented

The columns marked not documented reflect current public documentation as of October 2026 rather than a confirmed absence, and “via solver” means the modeling layer passes the problem class to whichever installed engine supports it. Solver engines handle uncertainty through the modeling layer above them, which formulates the stochastic model as a larger deterministic one.

Editions and pricing

The second table covers free versions and current pricing for the same products.

Product Free or academic version Price
Gurobi Optimizer Free academic license, 30-day trial, size-limited non-commercial license Quote-based, billed annually, no figures published
IBM CPLEX Community Edition, 1,000 variables and 1,000 constraints Developer Subscription from $320 per authorized user per month; deployment by quote
FICO Xpress Community, Academic, and Evaluation licenses Quote-based, no figures published
HiGHS Open source, MIT license Free
Google OR-Tools Open source Free
AMPL Community Edition with open-source solvers; academic license AMPL system from $300 per month and solvers from $105 per month, billed annually; Gurobi and Xpress by quote
GAMS Demo license (5 months), Community license, GAMSPy Academic, 30-day evaluation Professional license quote-based
AIMMS Free Academic and Free Community licenses, terms not published Not published
Pyomo Open source Free; solver licenses extra
JuMP Open source Free; solver licenses extra
Analytica Optimizer 30-day Optimizer trial; free edition excludes optimization $4,000 per year; add-on engines priced separately
Excel Solver Free add-in Free with Excel
Analytic Solver 15-day trial From $90 per month (Excel tier) to $375 per month (Optimization tier); Large Scale from $1,400 per month
What’sBest! Free evaluation license on request $495 to $4,995, perpetual, single user, plus add-ons

Prices reflect public vendor pages as of October 2026. Where a vendor lists a range or a monthly rate, the table shows the vendor’s own figures, and the profiles below give the terms behind each one.

How these tools were evaluated

This review assessed each product against five criteria drawn from its own public documentation rather than from marketing claims: the layer it occupies, the problem classes it solves, the interface it offers, its license and price terms, and its documented size limits. Where current vendor documentation did not confirm a capability, this article states that fact rather than asserting an absence. The review makes no speed claims, because independent public benchmarks no longer compare the largest commercial engines.

Selection guide: matching the tool to the optimization problem

Teams that face a crowded field of optimization tools usually ask which one to try first, and the table below matches seven common problem shapes to the products that fit them.

If your problem looks like this Consider Because
A small model already in Excel Excel Solver first, then Analytic Solver or What’sBest! The built-in Solver stops at 200 variables, and the upgrades raise the limit without leaving the workbook
A large MILP inside production code Gurobi, CPLEX, or Xpress These commercial engines target large mixed-integer models and ship APIs for embedding
An open-source requirement or a tight budget HiGHS, OR-Tools, or SCIP through Pyomo or JuMP Each costs nothing and connects to Python or Julia workflows
Scheduling or routing with many logical constraints OR-Tools CP-SAT or CPLEX CP Optimizer Constraint programming expresses logical rules that linear formulations handle awkwardly
Algebraic models maintained across many scenarios AMPL, GAMS, or AIMMS These layers separate model, data, and solver, so one formulation runs on several engines
Optimization that stakeholders must review, including uncertain inputs Analytica Optimizer Influence diagram nodes make decisions, constraints, and chance variables visible without code
Conic or portfolio problems MOSEK or Gurobi Both document conic or quadratic support

Whichever row fits, the same order of decisions applies: pick how to write the problem first, then pick an engine that fits the problem class and size.

Core capabilities in optimization software

The subsections below define the vocabulary this article uses, independent of any vendor’s terminology.

What mathematical optimization is

Mathematical optimization finds the values of decision variables that minimize or maximize an objective while satisfying constraints. An optimization problem has three elements: the decision variables a team controls, the objective that scores a solution, and the constraints that limit it.

Solver, modeling language, and modeling environment

A solver is the engine that searches for an optimal solution, a modeling language is a notation for writing the problem, and a modeling environment adds a visual or application layer around that notation. The NEOS Guide to Optimization draws the same line between solver software and modeling software. The layers combine freely, so you can run a model written in AMPL or Pyomo on Gurobi, HiGHS, or another engine.

Linear programming and LP solvers

Linear programming optimizes a linear objective subject to linear constraints, and solvers typically use simplex or barrier (interior-point) methods. LP is the most mature problem class, and a free linear programming solver such as HiGHS covers small and mid-size models well.

Mixed-integer programming and branch-and-bound

Mixed-integer linear programming (MILP) adds integer or binary variables to a linear program, which lets a model express yes-or-no choices such as whether to start a generator. A MILP solver, also called a MIP solver or mixed integer programming solver, explores those choices with branch-and-bound, cutting planes, and presolve. Solve time varies sharply with model structure, so an integer linear programming solver may need hours on a poorly formulated model.

Quadratic and conic programming

Quadratic programming allows a quadratic objective, such as portfolio variance, and conic programming generalizes it with second-order, exponential, power, and semidefinite cones. Convex versions solve reliably, and these classes appear in portfolio construction and in conic relaxations of power flow.

Nonlinear programming: local versus global

Nonlinear programming handles nonlinear objectives or constraints, and a local solver returns a solution optimal only near its starting point. A global solver searches the entire feasible region and can prove no better solution exists, usually at a higher cost. Knitro, Xpress, and Excel Solver’s GRG Nonlinear method offer nonlinear solvers, and the right choice depends on whether the model is convex.

Constraint programming

Constraint programming models a problem with logical and combinatorial rules, such as no two jobs on one machine at once, and a constraint programming solver searches by propagating those rules. Google OR-Tools CP-SAT and IBM CP Optimizer are two examples, and they often suit scheduling and assignment problems.

Optimization under uncertainty: stochastic and robust

Stochastic optimization makes decisions when some inputs follow probability distributions, while robust optimization protects a decision against the worst case within a set of plausible inputs. Both enlarge the model or multiply the number of solves, and many tools pair sampling with a search, as the comparison of Monte Carlo simulation software describes. Analytica Optimizer, Analytic Solver with Simulation, and What’sBest! with its Stochastic add-on document stochastic capability.

Formulation, presolve, and solve time

A formulation is the choice of variables, constraints, and objective that represent a problem, and presolve is the solver step that simplifies the model before the search begins. Two formulations of the same problem can differ by orders of magnitude in solve time, so formulation quality often matters more than which top-tier engine runs it. Sensitivity analysis software then helps a team check how an optimal solution changes when inputs shift.

Reading independent benchmarks

Independent benchmarks run solvers on shared test sets, and Mittelmann’s independent solver benchmarks at Arizona State University are the best-known public reference. The site states that IBM and FICO demanded the removal of their results, that Gurobi withdrew in August 2024, and that MindOpt followed on December 24, 2024. The benchmarks therefore no longer compare the three largest commercial MIP solvers, so vendor speed claims for CPLEX, Gurobi, and Xpress call for tests on a team’s own models.

Licensing models

Optimization products ship under commercial, academic, open-source, cloud, and token-based floating licenses. Commercial engines usually sell by quote, many vendors give degree-granting institutions a free academic license, and open-source engines such as HiGHS and SCIP cost nothing.

Metaheuristics and simulation-optimization

Metaheuristics such as genetic algorithms search for good solutions without proving optimality, and simulation-optimization searches over simulation model settings. They serve as a fallback when a problem resists mathematical programming, and OptQuest and the Evolutionary Solver engine belong here.

Solver engines

The five products in this class are optimization solver engines that do the math; each takes a problem from a modeling layer or an API and returns a solution.

Gurobi Optimizer

Gurobi Optimization develops Gurobi Optimizer, a commercial solver that its product page lists as handling linear programming (LP), mixed integer programming (MIP), quadratic programming (QP), combinatorial, nonlinear, conic, and multi-objective problems. Developers reach it through APIs, including a widely used Python API, and its global optimization for non-convex quadratic problems can prove a solution is the global optimum.

Best for: teams that run large MIP or quadratic models inside production code and can budget for an annual subscription.

Key strengths:

  • One engine covers LP, MIP, QP, conic, nonlinear, and multi-objective problems
  • A Python API places models inside applications and data pipelines
  • Global optimization for non-convex quadratic problems can prove a global optimum
  • Named-user, compute server, cloud, and web license service options fit laptops, servers, and containers
  • A free academic license and a 30-day commercial trial support evaluation

Limitations:

  • Commercial licenses are quote-based and billed annually, with no figures published
  • The size-limited license that ships with gurobipy caps models at 2,000 variables and 2,000 linear constraints and excludes commercial use
  • The product page lists nonlinear support without further detail as of October 2026

Price: Quote-based and billed annually, with no figures published, as of October 2026, per vendor website. Free academic license and 30-day trial.

Verdict: Gurobi fits teams that embed large mixed-integer or quadratic models in applications and accept subscription pricing. Buyers with nonlinear models should test that capability on their own formulations.

Website: gurobi.com

IBM CPLEX

IBM develops ILOG CPLEX Optimization Studio, a package that bundles the CPLEX solver, the CP Optimizer constraint programming engine, the Optimization Programming Language (OPL), and an IDE. The CPLEX solver runs LP, MIP, mixed-integer quadratically constrained (MIQCP), and second-order cone (SOCP) models, and CP Optimizer handles constraint-based scheduling.

Best for: teams that want mathematical programming and constraint scheduling from one IBM package, or that already maintain OPL models.

Key strengths:

  • One package combines a mathematical programming solver, a constraint programming engine, and a modeling language
  • OPL declares sets, arrays, and tuples with linear and nonlinear constraints
  • CP Optimizer models scheduling with interval variables and cumulative functions
  • The IDE supports debugging, profiling, and JavaScript scripting
  • A free Community Edition runs on Windows, Linux, and macOS within its size cap

Limitations:

  • The Community Edition limits models to 1,000 variables and 1,000 constraints
  • The Developer Subscription serves development and does not cover large-scale deployment
  • The product page lists LP, MIP, MIQCP, and SOCP and does not list nonlinear programming as of October 2026

Price: Developer Subscription from $320 per authorized user per month, as of October 2026, per vendor website. Community Edition free; deployment options by quote.

Verdict: CPLEX fits teams that combine mathematical programming with constraint scheduling under one vendor. Teams with nonlinear models should confirm support before committing.

Website: ibm.com

FICO Xpress Optimization

FICO develops FICO Xpress Optimization, a platform that pairs the Xpress solver with Mosel, an algebraic modeling language, and Insight, an environment for dashboards and scenario analysis. The solver lists LP, MIP, (MI)QP, (MI)QCQP, (MI)SOCP, constraint programming, nonlinear programming, and global MINLP problem types.

Best for: teams that want problem coverage from LP through global MINLP from one vendor, with a dashboard layer for business users.

Key strengths:

  • The solver spans linear, mixed-integer, quadratic, conic, constraint programming, nonlinear, and global MINLP problems
  • Mosel provides a modeling language built for Xpress
  • Insight turns optimization models into dashboards for scenario analysis
  • Free Community, Academic, and Evaluation licenses support testing
  • AMPL and Analytica Optimizer both list Xpress as a supported engine

Limitations:

  • FICO publishes no prices for commercial licenses
  • The product page does not state the size limits of the Community License as of October 2026
  • Mosel is FICO’s own language, so Mosel models do not run on other vendors’ solvers without rewriting

Price: Not published; commercial licensing is quote-based, as of October 2026, per vendor website.

Verdict: Xpress fits teams that need broad problem coverage and a business dashboard from one vendor. Teams that need published pricing or portable models should weigh HiGHS or a vendor-neutral modeling language.

Website: fico.com

HiGHS

HiGHS is an open-source solver for large-scale sparse linear programming (LP), mixed-integer programming (MIP), and quadratic programming (QP) models, released under the MIT license. It provides serial and parallel solvers with interfaces to C, C#, FORTRAN, Julia, and Python.

Best for: teams that need a free LP, MILP, or QP solver inside Python or Julia workflows.

Key strengths:

  • The permissive MIT license places few restrictions on use
  • One solver covers LP, MIP, and QP
  • Serial and parallel solvers run on large sparse models
  • Interfaces cover C, C#, FORTRAN, Julia, and Python
  • JuMP and SciPy offer HiGHS, so it drops into common modeling workflows

Limitations:

  • The homepage lists no nonlinear or conic problem types as of October 2026
  • HiGHS has no modeling language of its own, so models arrive through its interfaces or a modeling layer
  • Commercial support terms are not documented on the homepage as of October 2026

Price: Free under the MIT license, as of October 2026, per vendor website.

Verdict: HiGHS fits teams that want a free engine for linear, mixed-integer, and quadratic models. Teams with nonlinear or conic models should look at Knitro, MOSEK, or the commercial engines.

Website: highs.dev

Google OR-Tools

Google develops OR-Tools, an open-source software suite for vehicle routing, flows, integer and linear programming, and constraint programming. Its overview states that the CP-SAT solver has taken top honors at the international constraint programming competition every year since 2013. The suite also connects to commercial solvers such as CPLEX, Gurobi, and FICO Xpress and to open-source solvers such as SCIP, GLPK, and Google’s GLOP.

Best for: teams that solve scheduling, assignment, and routing problems with many logical constraints and want an open-source toolkit.

Key strengths:

  • CP-SAT handles scheduling and combinatorial problems with logical constraints
  • A vehicle routing library targets delivery and dispatch problems
  • One interface connects to commercial and open-source linear and integer solvers
  • C++, Python, C#, and Java interfaces fit most development stacks
  • Open-source distribution carries no license fee

Limitations:

  • The overview does not list nonlinear programming as a feature as of October 2026
  • Constraint programming uses a different formulation style than algebraic LP and MILP
  • The commercial solvers that OR-Tools wraps still require separate vendor licenses

Price: Free and open source, as of October 2026, per vendor website.

Verdict: OR-Tools fits teams with scheduling, rostering, or routing problems and a developer-led workflow. Teams that want an algebraic modeling language or nonlinear solvers should look at the modeling layers below.

Website: developers.google.com/optimization

Three more solvers target problem classes that the five above cover less directly. MOSEK solves linear, conic, semidefinite, convex quadratic, and mixed-integer problems but not nonconvex ones; Artelys Knitro targets nonlinear and mixed-integer nonlinear problems, and SCIP solves MIP and MINLP problems as a constraint integer programming framework under the Apache 2.0 license from version 8.0.3. Analytica’s page on the solver engines that plug into Analytica Optimizer lists MOSEK, Knitro, XPRESS, and Gurobi among its plug-in options.

Modeling languages and modeling environments

The six products in this class sit above the engines: they let a team write the problem in algebraic notation, code, or a visual diagram and then hand it to a solver. Their prices and licenses are separate from the engines they call.

AMPL

AMPL describes itself as an optimization platform whose purpose-built modeling language separates model logic from data and solver configuration. The AMPL MP interface connects models to commercial solvers such as Gurobi, CPLEX, Xpress, COPT, MOSEK, and Artelys Knitro, as well as open-source solvers such as HiGHS, SCIP, IPOPT, and CBC. Interfaces cover Python, C++, Java, C#, and R.

Best for: teams that maintain algebraic models across many scenarios and want a choice of solvers behind one model.

Key strengths:

  • A purpose-built algebraic language keeps model logic, data, and solver settings apart
  • One model connects to many commercial and open-source solvers
  • Python, C++, Java, C#, and R interfaces fit programmatic workflows
  • Data integrations include pandas, PostgreSQL, MySQL, and Databricks
  • The vendor publishes solver add-on prices, so buyers can estimate total cost

Limitations:

  • Commercial solvers cost extra, for example, CPLEX and Knitro at $400 per month each
  • The free Community Edition includes open-source solvers only
  • AMPL sets Gurobi and Xpress prices by need, with no figure published
  • AMPL is a modeling layer, so it needs at least one solver to run

Price: AMPL starts at $300 per month, and solvers start at $105 per month, billed annually, as of October 2026, per vendor website. Free Community Edition and academic license.

Verdict: AMPL fits teams that standardize on an algebraic language and want solver choice. Teams on a tight budget should plan around the Community Edition’s open-source solvers.

Website: ampl.com

GAMS

GAMS describes its modeling system as an algebraic modeling language for optimization and equilibrium problems, covering linear, nonlinear, discrete, stochastic, and equilibrium models. GAMSPy provides a Python-native interface, and MIRO creates interactive decision applications from optimization models. GAMSPy Academic licenses include commercial solvers such as CPLEX, CONOPT, MOSEK, COPT, and PATH, and free solvers such as HiGHS, SCIP, SHOT, and IPOPT.

Best for: research and planning teams that model optimization and equilibrium problems and want a web interface for non-technical users.

Key strengths:

  • An algebraic language covers optimization and equilibrium models
  • GAMSPy offers a Python-native route to the same models
  • MIRO turns models into interactive web applications
  • The academic license bundles many commercial and free solvers
  • A free demo license ships with every distribution

Limitations:

  • Professional licenses are quote-based, with no figures published
  • The demo license expires after five months and caps LP, RMIP, and MIP models at 2,000 variables and 2,000 constraints
  • The Community license serves academic, non-commercial, non-production use and expires after 12 months

Price: Professional license by quotation, as a one-time payment plus annual maintenance or a yearly subscription, as of October 2026, per vendor website. Free demo, Community, and GAMSPy Academic licenses.

Verdict: GAMS fits academic and planning teams that need equilibrium modeling and a solver bundle. Commercial buyers should request a quotation early, because the free licenses exclude production use.

Website: gams.com

AIMMS

AIMMS describes itself as an AI-augmented decision platform for supply chain optimization and decision intelligence. Its products include SC Navigator, which offers ready-to-use supply chain design and planning applications, and Optimization Tooling, which lets users build custom applications in the AIMMS Developer environment. The overview names Gurobi and IBM ILOG CPLEX as solver integrations.

Best for: supply chain teams that want packaged planning applications plus a developer environment for custom models.

Key strengths:

  • SC Navigator covers network design, production planning, sales and operations planning, and transportation planning
  • Further application areas include workforce scheduling, warehouse slotting, sourcing, and carbon footprint optimization
  • AIMMS Developer builds custom optimization applications
  • A SaaS delivery model, with deployment inside existing infrastructure described on its IT security page
  • Free Academic and Free Community licenses support learning and testing

Limitations:

  • The pricing page publishes no figures or free-license terms as of October 2026
  • The overview does not name formulation types such as LP or MIP
  • The overview names Gurobi and CPLEX only, so open-source solver support is not documented there

Price: Not published, as of October 2026, per the vendor website; the pricing page names Free Academic and Free Community licenses without terms.

Verdict: AIMMS fits supply chain organizations that want ready-made planning applications. Power and utility teams should confirm formulation support with the vendor, because the overview centers on supply chain use cases.

Website: aimms.com

Pyomo and JuMP

Pyomo is an open-source optimization modeling language for Python, and its homepage lists linear, nonlinear, and mixed-integer programming capabilities. JuMP is a modeling language for mathematical optimization in Julia, and its homepage says it can formulate and solve linear, integer, conic, semidefinite, and constrained nonlinear programs. Both separate the model from the solver.

Best for: teams that program in Python or Julia and want free modeling layers that run on the solver they already own.

Key strengths:

  • Pyomo brings LP, NLP, and MIP modeling to Python code
  • JuMP covers linear, integer, conic, semidefinite, and nonlinear models in Julia
  • Both are open source, so a team pays no license fee for the modeling layer
  • Models live in ordinary code, so version control and testing tools apply
  • HiGHS lists JuMP among the modeling systems that offer it

Limitations:

  • Both require programming in Python or Julia
  • Neither includes a solver, so a team installs at least one engine separately
  • The Pyomo homepage names no license and no solvers as of October 2026

Price: Free and open source, as of October 2026, per vendor websites; solver licenses cost extra.

Verdict: Pyomo and JuMP fit developer-led teams that want a free modeling layer and solver choice. Teams that prefer a workflow without code should compare AMPL, GAMS, or Analytica Optimizer.

Website: pyomo.org and jump.dev

Analytica Optimizer

Lumina Decision Systems develops Analytica Optimizer, the optimization edition of Analytica, which includes all Developer edition features plus solver engines. A user builds the model as an influence diagram in which node shapes and colors distinguish decision variables, objectives, constraints, and chance variables, and Intelligent Arrays carry scenarios and time through the same formulation. Analytica Optimizer belongs to the modeling-environment class, so it expresses the problem visually and passes it to a solver rather than competing with Gurobi or CPLEX as an engine.

The edition selects the solver automatically and covers LP, MIP, QP, and NLP programs. Lumina licensed optimization and solver technology from Frontline Systems when it introduced Optimizer, according to a 2005 press release, and Analytica’s engines page still refers readers to Frontline’s solver.com, so readers should weigh that relationship alongside the Analytic Solver review below.

Best for: teams whose optimization models stakeholders or regulators must review and that combine decisions with uncertain inputs.

Key strengths:

  • Influence diagram nodes show decisions, objectives, constraints, and chance variables, so reviewers read the formulation without code
  • Automatic solver selection spans LP, MIP, QP, and NLP programs
  • Intelligent Arrays carry scenario and time dimensions through one formulation
  • Chance variables with probability distributions support stochastic optimization alongside Monte Carlo simulation
  • Plug-in engines such as Gurobi and Knitro raise capacity without changing the formulation

Limitations:

  • Standard engines solve LP and quadratic problems up to 8,000 variables (2,000 integer), conic problems up to 2,000 variables, and nonlinear, global, and nonsmooth problems up to 500 variables
  • Plug-in engines are separate paid add-ons, for example, $10,775 for the Gurobi Solver Engine and $4,795 for KNITRO
  • The free edition excludes optimization, so evaluation requires the 30-day Optimizer trial
  • Analytica does not target embedded production use, and teams fluent in AMPL, GAMS, or Python modeling may prefer those layers

Price: Analytica pricing lists the Optimizer edition at $4,000 per year, with Developer at $2,000 and Professional at $1,000, as of October 2026, per vendor website. Add-on solver engines carry separate prices.

Verdict: Analytica Optimizer fits teams that need a reviewable, diagram-based optimization model with uncertainty built in. Teams that need the fastest solves on very large mixed-integer models should pair a commercial engine with a code-based modeling layer instead.

Website: analytica.com

Spreadsheet optimization tools

The three products in this class bring optimization into Excel, and the Excel Solver add-in is the baseline that the other two upgrade. This class matters most to readers who search for an Excel Solver alternative after a model outgrows the built-in limits.

Excel Solver

Microsoft ships Solver as an Excel add-in that Frontline Systems developed, and it offers the Simplex LP, GRG Nonlinear, and Evolutionary methods. Frontline’s listing for the free Solver add-in states limits of 200 decision variables and 100 constraints in addition to bounds on the variables, and the Excel for the web version caps solving time at 30 seconds.

Best for: analysts with a small model already in Excel who need a quick LP, nonlinear, or integer solution.

Key strengths:

  • The Solver add-in is free and familiar to most Excel users
  • Objective, variables, and constraints sit in ordinary worksheet cells
  • The add-in supports bounds and integer constraints
  • Three methods cover linear, nonlinear, and evolutionary search
  • A free Excel for the web version brings Solver to the browser

Limitations:

  • The documented limits are 200 decision variables and 100 constraints in addition to variable bounds
  • The Excel for the web version caps solving time at 30 seconds
  • Frontline directs users with larger or stochastic models to its enhanced Solvers

Price: Free with Excel, as of October 2026, per the Microsoft AppSource listing.

Verdict: Excel Solver fits small models that already live in a workbook. Teams that reach 200 variables or need stochastic models should look at What’sBest! from LINDO or at Analytic Solver.

Website: appsource.microsoft.com

Analytic Solver

Frontline Systems sells Analytic Solver as a tiered family of Excel upgrades, and the Optimization tier, formerly Premium Solver Platform, lists five built-in engines and eight optional plug-in engines. Frontline states that the tier solves linear models 40 times larger and nonlinear models five times larger than Excel Solver. The product runs in Excel desktop and Excel for the web.

Best for: Excel users whose models outgrew Excel Solver and who want larger models, more engines, and an upgrade path to uncertainty.

Key strengths:

  • A tier ladder lets a team buy only the model size it needs
  • Built-in LP/Quadratic, SOCP Barrier, Interval Global, and Evolutionary engines extend what Excel Solver covers
  • Optional plug-in engines include Gurobi, Xpress, MOSEK, KNITRO, and OptQuest
  • Combined with Analytic Solver Simulation, the product adds stochastic programming and robust optimization
  • Models can publish to Excel Online or Google Sheets

Limitations:

  • The Optimization tier lists only limited simulation trials, and Frontline lists the full simulation tiers on a separate page
  • Add-on large-scale engines cost more than the base tiers, for example $1,575 to $2,025 per month for the Gurobi engine
  • Another Frontline page lists the combined Optimization plus Simulation license at $5,000 for one year, so buyers should confirm which tier they need

Price: Monthly billing at $90 for Analytic Solver Excel, $180 for Excel Upgrade, $375 for Optimization, and from $1,400 for Large Scale, as of October 2026, per vendor website; annual billing saves 42 to 44 percent. A 15-day free trial is available.

Verdict: Analytic Solver fits Excel-based teams that need larger models and plug-in engines without leaving the workbook. Buyers who need uncertainty should price the Simulation tier together with Optimization.

Website: solver.com

What’sBest!

LINDO Systems develops What’sBest!, an Excel add-in whose product page lists nonlinear (convex and nonconvex or global) and integer optimization along with linear, quadratic, quadratically constrained, second-order cone, semidefinite, and stochastic models. The current release is version 20. LINDO Systems also sells LINGO, an optimization modeling product, and the LINDO API for programmers.

Best for: Excel users who want a published perpetual price list and optional add-ons for nonlinear, global, conic, or stochastic models.

Key strengths:

  • One add-in covers linear, integer, nonlinear, and global optimization
  • Four editions, from Commercial to Extended, carry published perpetual single-user prices
  • Add-ons include Barrier, Nonlinear, Nonlinear & Global, Stochastic, and Barrier & Conic
  • A 60-day money-back guarantee covers LINDO products
  • A free evaluation license is available through sales

Limitations:

  • Base prices exclude add-ons, for example, Nonlinear & Global at $300 to $3,000 depending on the edition
  • The store lists capacity limits only in an image, so buyers must confirm sizes with LINDO
  • The store lists Windows versions only
  • The evaluation license caps capacity and requires contacting sales

Price: Perpetual, single-user base prices are $495 for Commercial, $995 for Professional, $2,995 for Industrial, and $4,995 for Extended as of October 2026, per the vendor website, with add-ons extra.

Verdict: What’sBest! fits Excel users who prefer a one-time purchase with clear add-on options. Buyers should confirm the capacity of each edition before choosing, because the store does not state it in the text.

Website: lindo.com

Adjacent categories worth knowing

Three neighboring categories share the word optimization without answering the same question. Simulation-optimization tools such as AnyLogic, which the review of system dynamics simulation software covers, @RISK’s RiskOptimizer, and OptQuest search over simulations rather than solve a mathematical program. Energy system and production-cost models such as PLEXOS, AURORA, and PyPSA embed solvers inside a sector-specific model, so they use the engines reviewed here rather than replace them.

Machine learning hyperparameter optimization, such as Optuna, shares the term but not the method, so this comparison excludes it.

Optimization in the power and utility sector

Six recurring problems in energy and power call for mathematical optimization, since each asks for the least-cost or most reliable decision under physical and operating constraints.

Decision problem Typical formulation Tool class
Unit commitment and economic dispatch MILP with binary on-off decisions for each generator MILP solver engine through a modeling layer
Capacity expansion and integrated resource planning Large LP or MILP across years and scenarios Modeling language or environment with scenario arrays
Transmission expansion MILP with network constraints MILP solver engine
Optimal power flow Nonlinear program, often with conic or linear relaxations NLP, conic, or LP solver
Hydro and storage scheduling LP or MILP across time periods with reservoir and state-of-charge limits LP or MILP solver, with stochastic variants for inflow
DER and microgrid dispatch LP or MILP with a two-stage structure Commercial or open-source MILP solver

Capacity expansion and integrated resource planning compare many scenarios across decades, which suits array-based modeling layers. Lumina’s energy and utility applications page lists integrated resource planning among its demand side management topics. A published study on microgrid dispatch, Lee and colleagues in Energies, compared CPLEX and Gurobi with the open-source GLPK and CBC and found that all four reached the same minimal operating costs.

The same study reports that the modeling package, not the solver, accounted for most of the elapsed time, and that direct APIs ran much faster for CPLEX and Gurobi. The same methods apply outside utilities.

  • Supply chain and manufacturing: network design, production planning, and routing
  • Finance and portfolio construction: allocation under risk and cost constraints
  • Water allocation: reservoir operation and supply scheduling across users
  • Healthcare scheduling: staff rostering and operating room planning

Across all ten situations, the same test applies: optimization software earns its place wherever a decision must be the best one that satisfies physical, financial, or operational constraints.

Is this comparison objective?

A team that includes staff of Lumina Decision Systems, the maker of Analytica, researched and wrote this comparison, and readers should weigh that affiliation against the following safeguards.

  • This article reviews Analytica Optimizer as one of fourteen products, in its natural class alongside AMPL and GAMS, rather than presenting it separately
  • This article checked every competitor limitation against public vendor documentation before inclusion
  • This article includes no limitation that a vendor could reasonably dispute as factually inaccurate
  • Readers who find an inaccuracy in any review, including the Analytica review, can contact Lumina Decision Systems through the official contact page at lumina.com

These safeguards narrow the risk of bias but do not remove the underlying affiliation, so readers evaluating a purchase should weigh this article alongside independent sources as well. Lumina also licensed solver technology from Frontline Systems, whose Analytic Solver this article reviews, and readers should weigh that commercial relationship in the same way.

Frequently asked questions

What is optimization software?

Optimization software finds the best values for a set of decisions under constraints, a field called mathematical optimization. Every optimization problem has three elements: decision variables, an objective to minimize or maximize, and constraints that limit the choices. The software is split into solver engines, modeling languages and environments, and spreadsheet add-ins.

What is the difference between a solver and a modeling language?

A solver is the engine that searches for an optimal solution, while a modeling language is the notation a team uses to write the problem. AMPL, GAMS, Pyomo, and JuMP are modeling layers, and Gurobi, CPLEX, Xpress, and HiGHS are solvers that run what the layer produces. The pairing lets a team change engines without rewriting the model.

Is Gurobi better than CPLEX?

Neither engine wins on every problem, and a CPLEX vs Gurobi answer depends on the problem class, model size, and formulation. Independent public benchmarks cannot settle the question because Mittelmann’s site says IBM and FICO demanded the removal of their results, and Gurobi withdrew in August 2024. The reliable method is to test both on your own models, using the free academic, community, or trial licenses each vendor offers.

What is the best free or open-source optimization solver?

HiGHS covers LP, MIP, and QP under the MIT license, SCIP covers MIP and MINLP under Apache 2.0, and OR-Tools covers constraint programming and routing. Commercial engines also offer free routes: Gurobi’s academic license, the CPLEX Community Edition, and the Xpress Community License, making Gurobi alternatives easy to test. Analytica Optimizer offers a 30-day Optimizer trial because its free edition excludes optimization.

When does Excel Solver stop being enough?

Excel Solver stops at 200 decision variables and 100 constraints, plus variable bounds, and Excel for the web caps solving time at 30 seconds. A model that reaches those limits, needs more engines, or includes uncertainty calls for an Excel Solver alternative such as What’sBest! or Analytic Solver. Teams that outgrow Excel altogether can move to a modeling language and a solver engine.

Linear vs nonlinear vs mixed-integer: which do I need?

Linear programming fits problems where every relationship is proportional, nonlinear programming fits curved relationships such as power flow, and mixed-integer programming fits yes-or-no decisions such as starting a generator. Many real models combine them, which is why solvers list several problem classes. Start with the simplest class that represents the problem accurately, because simpler classes solve faster and more reliably.

How do you optimize decisions under uncertainty?

Stochastic optimization makes decisions when some inputs follow probability distributions, while robust optimization protects a decision against the worst case within a set of plausible inputs. Analytica Optimizer supports chance variables with probability distributions, Analytic Solver adds stochastic programming and robust optimization with its Simulation tier, and What’sBest! sells a Stochastic add-on.

Which optimization tools are used in the power and utility sector?

The Energies microgrid study used CPLEX, Gurobi, GLPK, and CBC for dispatch problems, and energy system models such as PLEXOS, AURORA, and PyPSA embed solvers within sector-specific models. Unit commitment and capacity expansion use MILP engines, and optimal power flow uses nonlinear or conic solvers. Current vendor documentation reviewed here does not name utility customers for the products in this comparison.

How should a team evaluate a solver before buying?

Build two or three representative models, run them on each candidate engine, and record solve time, solution quality, and ease of integration. Most vendors offer a free path to do this: a Gurobi trial, the CPLEX Community Edition, an Xpress Evaluation License, a 30-day GAMS evaluation, or a 15-day Analytic Solver trial. The NEOS Server also lets teams test models on several solvers before buying.

Best Risk Analysis Software: 2026 Comparison

Risk analysis software puts numbers on risk: the probability and size of cost overruns, delays, failures, and losses, and the contingency or mitigation spending that each one warrants. This comparison covers quantitative risk analysis tools, which differ from governance, risk, and compliance (GRC) platforms that manage risk registers and controls. The quantitative tools fall into three classes: model-based platforms such as Analytica and GoldSim, spreadsheet add-ins such as @RISK, Analytic Solver, and ModelRisk, and project schedule and cost tools such as Safran Risk, Deltek Acumen Risk, RiskyProject, and Full Monte.

A register of high, medium, and low scores cannot say how likely a project is to finish within budget, and it cannot say how much expected loss a mitigation project removes. Quantitative risk analysis replaces those scores with probability distributions, so a team can state a confidence level and size contingency or mitigation spending against it. The method treats risk and uncertainty as modeled quantities rather than labels, and the line between qualitative and quantitative analysis runs through the rest of this comparison.

This comparison targets power and utility risk, capital planning, and asset management teams primarily. It also serves project controls, finance, engineering, environment, and health analysts, and it helps readers identify the best risk analysis software for a specific job, judged on method, schedule integration, and price. It reviews nine products across three classes, plus two legacy tools named for context.

This review checks every feature and price against public vendor pages in the review month, and every figure is a starting point for a vendor quote rather than a final cost.

Risk analysis software compared: features and pricing

The comparison splits into two tables, one for modeling capability and one for free-tier terms and price, since the two follow different verification cycles.

Feature matrix

The table below lists each product’s maker, type, and platform alongside six capability columns, with a check mark where current vendor documentation confirms the capability. Free-tier terms appear in the pricing table that follows.

Product Type and platform Monte Carlo Decision trees / value of info Schedule risk (P6 / MS Project) Risk events / register link Correlation Sensitivity / tornado
Analytica Lumina Decision Systems Model-based platform Windows, web via ACP âś“ âś“ Value of information; decision trees not documented Not documented Not documented âś“ âś“
GoldSim GoldSim Technology Group Model-based platform Windows âś“ Not documented Not documented Discrete events for failures and accidents; register link not documented âś“ Monte Carlo sensitivity; tornado not documented
@RISK Lumivero Excel add-in Windows (Excel desktop) âś“ Via PrecisionTree in DecisionTools Suite âś“ Not documented âś“ Including copulas âś“
Analytic Solver Frontline Systems Excel add-in Windows, Mac, Excel for the web âś“ âś“ Decision trees; value of information not documented Not documented Not documented âś“ âś“ Tornado not named
ModelRisk Vose Software Excel add-in Windows âś“ Separate Vose product Separate Vose product Separate Vose product âś“ 14 copulas âś“
Safran Risk Safran Software Solutions Schedule tool SaaS via reseller âś“ Not documented âś“ âś“ âś“ âś“
Acumen Risk Deltek Schedule tool Not documented âś“ Not documented âś“ âś“ Not documented âś“ Tornado not named
RiskyProject Intaver Institute Schedule tool Windows, MS Project add-in âś“ Not documented âś“ âś“ âś“ âś“ Tornado not named
Full Monte Barbecana Schedule tool Inside MS Project or P6 âś“ Not documented âś“ Not documented âś“ Per third-party review Not documented

The columns marked not documented reflect current public documentation as of October 2026 rather than a confirmed absence, and ModelRisk’s decision tree, risk register, and schedule functions sit in separate Vose products.

Editions and pricing

The second table covers free versions and current pricing for the same nine products.

Product Free version Price
Analytica Free edition, up to 101 objects, no time limit Professional $1,000 per year; Developer $2,000; Optimizer $4,000
GoldSim GoldSim Player (runs existing models) and a free Academic license Desktop $5,600 including one year of maintenance; one-year lease $2,750; academic researcher lease $1,050 per year
@RISK Free trial From approximately $2,225 per user per year (Professional)
Analytic Solver 15-day free trial From approximately $250 per year; Analytic Solver Pro $3,120 per year on Frontline’s price page
ModelRisk 15-day trial, then a free Basic edition with reduced features Up to €1,550 per user per year
Safran Risk Free trial per third-party directory Not publicly disclosed, quote-based
Acumen Risk Not documented Not publicly disclosed, quote-based
RiskyProject 30-day trial Lite $685 per year; Professional $979 per year; Enterprise on request
Full Monte Free trial From approximately $1,195 per Capterra listing

Prices reflect public vendor pages and third-party software directories as of October 2026. Where a vendor page and a directory differ, the table shows both, and Analytica’s editions follow the current pricing page.

How these tools were evaluated

This review assessed each product against five criteria drawn from its own public documentation rather than from marketing claims: the job the tool does, probabilistic capability, decision support, schedule integration with Primavera P6 and Microsoft Project, and pricing as the vendor publishes or lists it. Probabilistic capability means Monte Carlo simulation, correlation handling, and rare-event sampling, while decision support means decision trees and value of information. Where current vendor documentation did not confirm a capability, this article states that current documentation does not confirm the capability rather than asserting its absence, so each limitation rests on public documentation that a vendor can check.

Selection guide: matching the tool to the risk problem

The right tool depends on which job you need done, and the table below matches seven common situations to the risk analysis tools that fit them.

If your situation needs this Consider Because
A model already in Excel that needs probability added @RISK, Analytic Solver, or ModelRisk Each adds distributions and simulation inside the existing workbook without a rebuild
Risk across many assets, regions, or time periods that a spreadsheet struggles to hold Analytica Intelligent Arrays carry those dimensions through one model
Dynamic engineering or environmental systems that evolve over time GoldSim or Analytica Both simulate time-evolving systems under uncertainty
Cost and schedule risk on a P6 or MS Project plan Safran Risk, Deltek Acumen Risk, RiskyProject, Full Monte, or the @RISK schedule module Each runs the simulation on the plan itself or imports it directly
Rare, high-consequence events such as pipeline rupture or wildfire ignition Analytica or GoldSim Both document importance sampling
Deciding which mitigation to fund first Analytica It documents value of information, and its models can rank projects by risk-spend efficiency
Compliance tracking and risk registers A GRC platform, covered under adjacent categories These platforms manage registers and controls rather than quantitative models

Whichever row fits, the same logic carries through this article: a spreadsheet add-in suits a team that already works in Excel, a project tool suits a team that already works in a schedule, and a model-based platform suits a team that needs the risk model itself to be transparent and reusable.

Core capabilities in risk analysis software

The subsections below define the vocabulary this article uses, independent of any single vendor’s terminology.

Qualitative versus quantitative risk analysis

Qualitative risk analysis ranks risks with descriptive scores such as high, medium, and low, while quantitative risk analysis estimates probability and impact as numbers and distributions. Quantitative risk assessment answers questions that a score cannot, such as the chance that a project exceeds its budget. Most teams screen qualitatively first and quantify the risks that matter most.

Risk registers and probability-impact scoring

A risk register lists each identified risk with an owner, a probability score, an impact score, and a planned response. The scoring multiplies two coarse ratings, so very different risks can share a rank, and the scores cannot add up across a portfolio. Registers organize the work well, but they do not produce the distribution of outcomes that a confidence level requires.

Estimating uncertainty versus modeling discrete risk events

Estimating uncertainty places a range or distribution on a quantity already in the plan, such as a unit cost or an activity duration. Modeling a discrete risk event adds something that may or may not happen, such as an outage or a permit denial, with its own probability and consequence. Most project and utility models need both.

Monte Carlo simulation for risk

Monte Carlo simulation estimates the distribution of an outcome by recalculating a model thousands of times with inputs drawn from their probability distributions. Monte Carlo risk analysis turns those runs into the probability of exceeding a budget, missing a date, or passing a loss threshold. The comparison of Monte Carlo simulation software reviews sampling methods in depth, and Analytica’s Monte Carlo simulation page explains the method itself.

Correlation and dependent risks

Correlation measures how strongly two uncertain inputs move together, and dependent risks change their outcomes when another risk occurs. Ignoring either narrows the simulated range, because independent draws let high and low values cancel each other out. Fuel cost and power price, or two pipeline segments exposed to the same weather, show the effect clearly.

P50, P80, and P90 confidence levels and contingency

P50, P80, and P90 are percentiles of a simulated outcome: a P80 cost is the amount that the simulation does not exceed in 80 percent of runs. Contingency equals the gap between the base estimate and the chosen percentile, so a P80 budget carries more contingency than a P50 budget. GAO’s cost estimating guide explains that a point estimate carries no stated level of confidence until a quantitative risk and uncertainty analysis attaches a range to it. Analytica, for example, accepts P10, P50, and P90 estimates directly, and cost risk analysis applies the same percentile logic to a whole project budget.

Schedule risk analysis and criticality on the critical path

Schedule risk analysis simulates a project plan with uncertain activity durations to estimate the probability of finishing by a given date. The criticality index reports how often each activity lands on the critical path across the runs, which can differ from the single critical path in the base plan.

Decision trees and expected value

A decision tree maps sequential choices and uncertain outcomes, and expected value weights each outcome by its probability to compare the choices. Trees suit discrete decisions, such as funding an inspection before a repair, and the comparison of decision analysis software covers the tools that specialize in them.

Value of information

Value of information measures how much a decision improves, on average, if the decision maker learns an uncertain quantity before choosing. The expected value of perfect information sets an upper bound on what any study or measurement could be worth, which helps a team rank the uncertainties worth reducing.

Sensitivity and tornado charts

A tornado chart ranks uncertain inputs by how much each one moves an output, with the widest bar at the top. It shows which assumptions deserve better data before anyone acts on the result, and the review of sensitivity analysis software covers one-way, two-way, and global methods.

Tail risk and rare catastrophic events

Tail risk is the chance of a rare, high-consequence outcome, such as a pipeline rupture or a wildfire ignition, that plain random sampling seldom produces. Importance sampling oversamples the extreme region of an input and reweights the results to remove the bias, which gives a stable estimate of a small probability from far fewer runs.

Risk-spend efficiency

Risk-spend efficiency, or RSE, divides the risk reduction that a mitigation project delivers by its cost, so a utility can rank projects by risk removed per dollar. California regulators introduced the metric in an earlier safety model assessment proceeding, and current risk assessment filings report benefit-cost ratios instead. Analytica’s webinar on how California utilities use risk-spend efficiency explains the framework.

Model-based quantitative risk platforms

The two products in this class are risk modeling software that represents how risks drive outcomes, rather than software that adds probability to a finished spreadsheet or a project plan. Both serve as probabilistic risk assessment software, carrying uncertainty through a full model across assets, scenarios, or time periods.

Analytica

Lumina Decision Systems develops Analytica, a decision modeling platform built around influence diagrams, in which each variable, risk event, and decision appears as a node that a reviewer can trace. Every quantity can carry a probability distribution, so Monte Carlo simulation propagates uncertainty from inputs to outputs without an add-in. Intelligent Arrays carry dimensions such as asset, region, scenario, and time through one model, which lets an analyst quantify risk across a portfolio that a single spreadsheet struggles to hold.

Analytica documents Latin hypercube sampling, Sobol sampling, importance sampling, and expected value of information analysis, and the Analytica Cloud Platform publishes a finished model to stakeholders as a web interface. It is not a risk register or a project schedule tool, so it suits quantitative models of how risks drive outcomes rather than compliance tracking or plan-based schedule risk.

Best for: analysts who need a transparent quantitative model of risk across assets, regions, and time, including rare events and the value of reducing uncertainty.

Key strengths:

  • Influence diagrams show how each risk and decision connects to the outcome, which supports regulator and board review
  • Intelligent Arrays hold risk across assets, regions, scenarios, and time periods in one model
  • Monte Carlo simulation runs natively, with Median and Random Latin hypercube sampling and Sobol sampling
  • Importance sampling targets rare events, and value of information analysis ranks the uncertainties worth reducing
  • A permanently free edition supports models up to 101 objects

Limitations:

  • Does not include a risk register or governance workflow
  • Current documentation does not confirm Primavera P6 or Microsoft Project schedule import as of October 2026
  • Requires learning an influence diagram approach, a switching cost for teams that work only in Excel
  • The free edition caps a model at 101 objects, so larger models need a paid edition

Price: Free edition at $0 with up to 101 objects and no time limit. Analytica pricing lists Professional at $1,000 per year, Developer at $2,000, and Optimizer at $4,000, as of October 2026, per vendor website; Analytica Cloud Platform group plans start at $2,000 per year.

Verdict: Analytica fits teams that need a transparent, model-based quantification of risk across many assets, regions, or time periods, including rare events and mitigation ranking. Teams whose main need is schedule risk analysis on a P6 or MS Project plan, or a risk register, should look to the project tools and GRC platforms covered below.

Website: analytica.com

GoldSim

GoldSim Technology Group develops GoldSim, a dynamic simulation platform that runs inside a Monte Carlo framework, so every run samples the uncertain inputs and then evolves the system through time. It layers discrete events such as accidents and failures onto continuously varying quantities, which suits probabilistic risk assessment of engineered and environmental systems. Datacor acquired the company in March 2026.

Importance sampling applies to events as well as parameters, so a modeler can raise the rate of rare failures artificially and correct the results afterward. The comparison of system dynamics software reviews the same product from a stock-and-flow perspective.

Best for: engineering and environmental risk teams that need failure events, rare-event sampling, and time-evolving behavior inside one probabilistic simulation.

Key strengths:

  • Monte Carlo sampling runs inside the dynamic engine, so every run reflects system behavior through time
  • Discrete events model accidents and failures layered onto continuous processes
  • Importance sampling applies to events as well as parameters
  • Reliability elements in the paid RL Professional module model function and action failures
  • The free GoldSim Player runs existing models, and a free Academic license supports teaching

Limitations:

  • Current documentation does not confirm Primavera P6 or Microsoft Project schedule import as of October 2026
  • Current documentation does not confirm tornado-chart output by name, decision trees, or value of information as labeled features
  • Windows-only desktop modeling environment, with no risk register

Price: Desktop license at $5,600 including one year of maintenance, one-year lease at $2,750, and academic researcher lease at $1,050 per year, as of October 2026, per the vendor price list effective January 2025; confirm current terms following the March 2026 Datacor acquisition. GoldSim Player and the Academic license are free.

Verdict: GoldSim fits engineering and environmental teams that need time-evolving behavior, failure events, and rare-event sampling inside one simulation. Teams that need a board-readable influence diagram, value of information analysis, or schedule risk on a project plan should weigh Analytica or the project tools instead.

Website: goldsim.com

Spreadsheet risk add-ins

The three products in this class add probability to an Excel model that already exists, which makes them Monte Carlo risk analysis software for teams that do not want to rebuild a model. This site’s comparison of Monte Carlo simulation software covers sampling methods and the wider add-in field in more depth, so the profiles below stay short.

@RISK

Lumivero, formerly Palisade, develops @RISK, an Excel add-in that adds Monte Carlo simulation to an existing workbook, with more than 90 distributions, correlations including copulas, and tornado charts. A Schedule Risk Analysis feature imports Microsoft Project and Primavera P6 files and reports critical indices. Lumivero bundles @RISK with PrecisionTree and other tools in DecisionTools Suite.

Best for: teams that already model in Excel and need probability, correlation, and schedule risk added to the same workbook.

Key strengths:

  • More than 90 distributions, with correlation and copula options
  • Tornado charts, scatter plots, and scenario analysis show which inputs drive the result
  • Schedule Risk Analysis imports Microsoft Project and Primavera P6 files and reports critical indices
  • PrecisionTree in DecisionTools Suite adds decision trees
  • A familiar Excel interface limits retraining

Limitations:

  • Runs on Windows only, inside desktop Excel
  • Proprietary functions reduce portability outside Excel and Lumivero’s own tools
  • Current documentation does not confirm which edition includes Schedule Risk Analysis as of October 2026
  • Current documentation does not confirm a risk register link as of October 2026

Price: From approximately $2,225 per user per year for the Professional edition, as of October 2026, per third-party directories; Lumivero publishes no price on its product page. A free trial is available.

Verdict: @RISK fits Excel-based teams that want simulation, correlation, and schedule import in one add-in. Teams that must share models outside Excel, or model risk across many dimensions, should compare Analytica or ModelRisk.

Website: lumivero.com

Analytic Solver

Frontline Systems, which built the Solver that ships inside Excel, develops Analytic Solver, an Excel add-in that combines Monte Carlo simulation, multi-stage decision trees, and optimization. Users define correlations alongside distributions, simulate over a tree, and run sensitivity analysis that shows how the best decision changes as probabilities and payoffs change. Licenses cover Excel on Windows, Mac, and Excel for the web, one platform at a time.

Best for: teams that want simulation and decision trees in one Excel add-in, particularly when a browser-accessible option matters.

Key strengths:

  • Monte Carlo simulation with correlation support inside Excel
  • Multi-stage decision trees that simulation can run over
  • Sensitivity analysis shows how the best decision changes as probabilities and payoffs change
  • Optimization in the same package supports budget-constrained selection problems
  • A 15-day full-function trial supports evaluation before purchase

Limitations:

  • Current documentation does not confirm Primavera P6 or Microsoft Project schedule import as of October 2026
  • Current documentation does not confirm value of information analysis as a labeled feature
  • Current documentation does not confirm a risk register link as of October 2026

Price: From approximately $250 per year, as of October 2026, per third-party directories; Frontline’s price page lists Analytic Solver Pro at $3,120 for a one-year license, so buyers should confirm the current tier. A 15-day free trial is available.

Verdict: Analytic Solver fits teams that need decision trees and simulation together in Excel, with optimization available when a selection problem appears. Teams focused on schedule risk should look to the project tools below.

Website: solver.com

ModelRisk

Vose Software develops ModelRisk, an Excel add-in for Monte Carlo simulation aimed at professional risk analysts. It offers 136 distributions, 14 copulas for dependence between inputs, 34 time-series models, and nine chart types including tornado and spider plots. Vose sells decision tree, risk register, and schedule risk functions as separate products named ModelChoice, Pelican, and Tamara.

Best for: analysts who need detailed dependence and time-series modeling in Excel, such as correlated fuel and market price risk.

Key strengths:

  • 136 distributions cover a wide range of input shapes
  • 14 copulas model dependence beyond simple correlation
  • 34 time-series models fit price and demand series
  • Nine chart types include tornado, spider, and scatter plots
  • A free Basic edition remains available after the 15-day trial

Limitations:

  • Decision trees, risk registers, and schedule risk sit in separate Vose products rather than in ModelRisk itself
  • The free Basic edition offers reduced features after the trial ends
  • Runs on Windows only, inside Excel

Price: Up to €1,550 per user per year, as of October 2026, per vendor website, with volume and multi-year discounts. A 15-day trial precedes a free Basic edition with reduced features.

Verdict: ModelRisk fits analysts who need advanced dependence and time-series modeling in Excel. Teams that need schedule risk or decision trees within one product should look elsewhere in this article.

Website: vosesoftware.com

Oracle Crystal Ball, one of the earliest Monte Carlo add-ins for Excel, still appears in older workbooks. Third-party software trackers list it as not offered for new sales as of 2026, a status this article could not confirm directly with Oracle, so buyers who start a new analysis should confirm availability before comparing it with the products above.

Project cost and schedule risk analysis software

Project risk analysis software runs Monte Carlo simulation directly on a project plan, so uncertain activity durations and costs produce a probability of finishing on time and within budget. The four tools below cover schedule risk analysis and, in most cases, cost risk analysis on plans built in Primavera P6 or Microsoft Project, and they differ mainly in how they exchange data with the plan.

Safran Risk

Safran Software Solutions, which third-party directories place in Oslo, develops Safran Risk, a project risk analysis tool that combines schedule and cost risk analysis on one platform. It runs Monte Carlo simulations, reports tornado charts and criticality indices, and supports correlation and structured risk registers. The reseller Proadvise lists interoperability with Oracle Primavera P6, Microsoft Project, and Safran Project, and offers delivery as software as a service.

Best for: capital project teams that need integrated cost and schedule risk analysis with a risk register on Primavera P6 or Microsoft Project plans.

Key strengths:

  • Integrated cost and schedule risk analysis on one platform
  • Tornado charts and criticality indices report the drivers of delay and cost exposure
  • Correlation between modeled inputs
  • Structured risk registers that link to the simulation
  • Reseller documentation lists interoperability with Primavera P6 and Microsoft Project

Limitations:

  • Current documentation does not confirm decision trees or value of information as of October 2026
  • Safran Software Solutions does not publicly disclose pricing
  • Current documentation does not confirm direct desktop deployment as of October 2026

Price: Not publicly disclosed, quote-based, as of October 2026; third-party directories list a free trial.

Verdict: Safran Risk fits project controls teams that need integrated cost and schedule risk with a register. Buyers should confirm pricing, deployment, and trial terms with the vendor or a reseller before committing.

Website: Not confirmed at the time of writing; readers should search for the vendor’s current site directly.

Deltek Acumen Risk

Deltek develops Acumen Risk, a project risk module that runs Monte Carlo simulation combining cost and schedule uncertainty in one run. The simulation reports confidence levels and the probability of meeting milestones, and probabilistic critical path reports identify the drivers of delay and cost exposure. An automated risk register scores, prioritizes, and maps risks to activities, and risk-adjusted schedules export to Deltek Open Plan, Oracle Primavera P6, and Microsoft Project.

Best for: teams that need combined cost and schedule simulation with an automated risk register on Primavera P6, Microsoft Project, or Open Plan schedules.

Key strengths:

  • Combined cost and schedule simulation in one run
  • Confidence levels and the probability of meeting milestones
  • Probabilistic critical path reports and sensitivity analyses identify delay and cost drivers
  • An automated risk register links risks to schedule activities
  • Risk-adjusted schedules export to Primavera P6, Microsoft Project, and Open Plan

Limitations:

  • Deltek does not publicly disclose pricing, and its product page offers a demo request
  • Current documentation does not confirm a free trial or deployment model as of October 2026
  • Current documentation does not confirm correlation modeling, decision trees, or value of information as of October 2026

Price: Not publicly disclosed, quote-based, as of October 2026; the vendor page offers a demo request.

Verdict: Acumen Risk fits project controls teams that want cost and schedule risk plus a register in one Deltek environment. Teams that need published pricing or a self-serve trial should confirm availability with Deltek first.

Website: deltek.com

RiskyProject

Intaver Institute develops RiskyProject, project risk management software that performs Monte Carlo schedule risk analysis and integrated cost and schedule risk analysis. It supports correlations between task durations, costs, and risk events, tracks threats, opportunities, and issues in a risk register, and integrates with Microsoft Project and Oracle Primavera. RiskyProject runs as a standalone desktop application or as a Microsoft Project add-in.

Best for: project teams that want schedule and cost risk analysis with a register at a published per-seat price.

Key strengths:

  • Monte Carlo schedule and cost risk analysis in all editions
  • Correlations between task durations, costs, and risk events
  • A risk register tracks threats, opportunities, and issues with probabilities and impacts
  • A Microsoft Project add-in and Primavera integration
  • Probabilistic branching in the Professional and Enterprise editions

Limitations:

  • Current documentation does not name tornado charts as of October 2026
  • The Enterprise edition requires at least five Professional or Lite licenses plus an Enterprise Server, and Intaver prices it on request
  • Current documentation does not confirm decision trees or value of information as of October 2026

Price: Lite $685 per year and Professional $979 per year, as of October 2026, per vendor website; Enterprise priced on request. A 30-day trial is available.

Verdict: RiskyProject fits project teams that want integrated schedule and cost risk with a published per-seat price. Larger programs that need server-based governance should confirm Enterprise terms, which require a quote.

Website: intaver.com

Full Monte

Barbecana develops Full Monte, a schedule risk analysis tool that runs quantitative risk analysis directly within Microsoft Project or Primavera P6 schedules, with no import or export step. Results publish back into the source schedule, which keeps the analysis next to the plan that the project team already maintains. Third-party reviews describe Monte Carlo schedule analysis with correlation between tasks and external events.

Best for: schedulers who prefer to run risk analysis inside the schedule that they already maintain in Microsoft Project or Primavera P6.

Key strengths:

  • Runs inside Microsoft Project or Primavera P6, so no import or export step interrupts the workflow
  • Results publish into the source schedule
  • Third-party reviews describe Monte Carlo schedule analysis
  • Third-party reviews describe correlation between tasks and external events
  • A free trial supports evaluation

Limitations:

  • Current documentation does not confirm cost risk analysis, a risk register, or sensitivity reporting as of October 2026
  • Runs only within Microsoft Project or Primavera P6, with no standalone modeling environment
  • Barbecana does not publish pricing on its product page

Price: From approximately $1,195 per Capterra listing, as of October 2026; the vendor lists no price. A free trial is available.

Verdict: Full Monte fits schedulers who want risk analysis inside the plan they already use. Teams that need a risk register, cost risk, or model-based risk outside the schedule should look to the other classes.

Website: barbecana.com

Oracle Primavera Risk Analysis, which older programs still use, belongs to the same class. Current documentation does not confirm whether Oracle still develops it as of October 2026, so buyers who evaluate new tools should confirm its status with Oracle.

Adjacent categories worth knowing

Three related categories sit near risk analysis software without answering quite the same question. Governance, risk, and compliance platforms such as Archer, LogicManager, Riskonnect, and Resolver manage registers, controls, audits, and compliance workflows rather than probability models. Most searches for risk management software, GRC software, risk assessment software, and risk register software lead to these platforms, and a team can pair a register platform with one of the quantitative tools above.

Engineering quantitative risk and reliability tools form the second category, and they are domain-specific. DNV’s Phast models the consequences of process releases, and Isograph’s Reliability Workbench supports fault tree analysis, so each answers a narrower engineering question than the products in this article. Cyber risk quantification software built on the FAIR model forms the third category, and FAIR risk quantification covers one risk domain rather than general project, asset, or financial risk.

Risk analysis in the power and utility sector

Six recurring problems in energy and power call for quantitative risk analysis rather than a register alone, since each involves uncertain inputs, severe consequences, or both.

Decision problem Why quantification helps
Risk-spend efficiency and mitigation ranking in regulatory filings Regulators expect utilities to justify which mitigation projects to fund, which requires risk reduction per dollar in comparable units
Wildfire ignition and mitigation risk Ignition is rare and the consequence is severe, so tail-risk methods and scenario arrays matter more than average values
Gas pipeline leak and explosion risk Many segments with different failure modes and consequences need portfolio-level ranking of mitigation projects
Cost and schedule risk on generation and transmission builds Capital projects need confidence levels for budget and in-service dates rather than single estimates
Fuel and market price risk Correlated price drivers and changing volatility affect margins and procurement decisions
Resource adequacy and reliability Outages, demand, and weather interact across many time periods and units

In California, CPUC’s risk-based decision-making framework governs how large electric and gas utilities assess and disclose risk in their risk assessment and mitigation phase filings. A later phase of that proceeding replaced the cost-benefit ratio with a benefit-cost ratio, so current filings report benefit-cost ratios rather than risk-spend efficiency, the earlier metric from the safety model assessment framework. The ANAGRAM gas pipeline risk model, a web-based tool that Lumina and the SIPmath Group built for a large gas utility, ranks pipeline mitigation projects by that earlier metric.

The same methods apply outside utilities, where the specific uncertainty changes but the structure of the problem stays the same.

  • Finance: credit, market, and portfolio loss distributions with correlated drivers
  • Healthcare and pharma: clinical trial outcomes, development cost, and portfolio value under uncertainty
  • Environment and climate: exposure, hazard, and adaptation cost estimates with wide uncertainty ranges
  • Transportation: infrastructure project cost, demand, and delay risk

Across all ten situations, the same test applies: quantitative risk analysis software earns its place wherever a decision has to state how likely, how large, and how much contingency or mitigation the outcome warrants.

Is this comparison objective?

A team that includes staff of Lumina Decision Systems, the maker of Analytica, researched and wrote this comparison, and readers should weigh that affiliation against the following safeguards.

  • This article reviews Analytica as one of nine products, in its natural class alongside GoldSim, rather than presenting it separately
  • This article checked every competitor limitation against public vendor documentation before inclusion
  • This article includes no limitation that a vendor could reasonably dispute as factually inaccurate
  • Readers who find an inaccuracy in any review, including the Analytica review, can contact Lumina Decision Systems through the official contact page at lumina.com

These safeguards narrow the risk of bias but do not remove the underlying affiliation, so readers evaluating a purchase should weigh this article alongside independent sources as well.

Frequently asked questions

What is risk analysis software?

Risk analysis software estimates the probability and size of cost overruns, delays, failures, and losses numerically, so a team can decide how much contingency or mitigation spending each one warrants. Some vendors market the same category as risk quantification software. The best fit depends on the job: a model-based platform builds a quantitative model of how risks drive outcomes, a spreadsheet add-in adds probability to an existing Excel model, and a project tool runs cost and schedule risk on a plan.

Qualitative vs quantitative risk analysis: what is the difference?

Qualitative risk analysis ranks risks with descriptive scores such as high, medium, and low, while quantitative risk analysis estimates probability and impact numerically and produces a distribution of outcomes. Quantitative risk assessment can state a confidence level, such as the cost a project stays under in 80 percent of simulated runs, which a score cannot. Most organizations screen qualitatively first and then quantify the risks that matter most.

Is risk management software the same as risk analysis software?

No. Risk management software, including GRC platforms and risk register tools, tracks risks, owners, controls, and compliance tasks, while risk analysis software builds probability models of outcomes. Top risk management tool lists usually name registers and GRC platforms, while short risk analysis lists name a model-based platform, a spreadsheet add-in, and a project schedule tool. A team can use both, with the register supplying the risks that the analysis tool quantifies.

Can Excel do quantitative risk analysis on its own?

Excel can sample random inputs with formulas, but it lacks a managed distribution library, correlation, repeated recalculation, or percentile reporting without manual work. Spreadsheet add-ins supply those features inside the workbook. Models that span many assets, regions, or time periods can outgrow a workbook, which is when a model-based platform becomes relevant.

What do P50, P80, and P90 mean, and how do they set contingency?

P50, P80, and P90 are percentiles of a simulated outcome, so a P80 cost is the amount that the simulation does not exceed in 80 percent of runs. Contingency equals the gap between the base estimate and the chosen percentile, which means a P80 budget carries more contingency than a P50 budget. Project teams choose the percentile according to how much overrun risk the organization accepts.

Which tools do project schedule risk analysis with Primavera P6 or MS Project?

Safran Risk, Deltek Acumen Risk, RiskyProject, and Full Monte support Primavera P6 or Microsoft Project, and @RISK imports Microsoft Project and Primavera P6 schedule files into Excel. Full Monte runs inside the schedule itself, while the other tools exchange data with it. Current documentation does not confirm Analytica’s P6 or MS Project import as of October 2026.

What is the best free risk analysis software?

No single free tool covers every job, so the choice depends on the size and type of the model. Analytica offers a free edition of Analytica with no time limit and up to 101 objects, GoldSim Player runs existing GoldSim models at no cost, and ModelRisk reverts to a free Basic edition with reduced features after its 15-day trial. @RISK, Analytic Solver, RiskyProject, and Full Monte offer free trials, and open-source Python and R libraries can run Monte Carlo simulation but provide code rather than an auditable model interface.

How do you model rare, high-consequence events?

Rare events call for importance sampling, which oversamples the extreme region of an input and reweights the results, because plain Monte Carlo seldom produces a one-in-a-thousand outcome. Analytica and GoldSim both document importance sampling, and GoldSim applies it to events such as failures as well as to parameters. Analytica’s Monte Carlo simulation page describes the weighting approach in more detail.

Which risk analysis tools are used in the power and utility sector?

The ANAGRAM gas pipeline risk model, a web-based tool that Lumina and the SIPmath Group built for a large gas utility, documents risk-spend efficiency ranking of pipeline mitigation projects. GoldSim documents use in environmental and engineering risk assessment, and the project tools address cost and schedule risk on generation and transmission builds. ModelRisk’s time-series models and copulas fit fuel and market price risk by capability, although current documentation does not tie ModelRisk to a named utility case.

Max Henrion

Founder and CEO, Lumina Decision Systems

Max Henrion originated Analytica and has led decision-support work across energy, environment, healthcare, and aerospace. He holds a PhD from Carnegie Mellon University, a Master of Design from the Royal College of Art, and a degree in Natural Sciences from Cambridge University, and is an Adjunct Professor at Carnegie Mellon’s Department of Engineering and Public Policy. He received the 2018 Frank Ramsey Medal from the Decision Analysis Society for lifetime contributions to the field.