Design tools for live tenders, training that brings new hires up to one methodology, and vendor-neutral consulting on a test bay — plus a straight answer on when simulation software is required.
TransformerPath engineering tools use analytical and closed-form methods for preliminary design, tender sizing and engineering checks. They are not a substitute for a general-purpose finite-element package — arbitrary 3D geometry, coupled electromagnetic–thermal–structural physics, local eddy and stray loss in tank and clamping steel, hot-spot prediction from a meshed model. Where that is required, a package such as Ansys or COMSOL is the right tool.
The calculator does solve one part of it properly. It carries a 2D axisymmetric magnetostatic solve of the leakage field in the core window. It needs no CAD import, because the winding geometry is already parametric — you get the flux plot, the leakage reactance computed from stored energy rather than from an empirical fringing factor, and the axial force distribution along the winding, which is the quantity closed-form methods handle worst and the one that governs winding collapse when ampere-turns are unbalanced by a tap.
Because the question comes up constantly, TransformerPath publishes a vendor-neutral directory of the tools that do solve it, grouped by the job they do rather than by vendor. It covers the commercial packages (Ansys Maxwell, COMSOL, Simcenter MAGNET and Flux, Opera/CST, JMAG, EMWorks) and the free and open-source options — for 2D axisymmetric work, which covers most leakage-field, short-circuit-force and electrostatic-stress problems, FEMM is genuinely capable. TransformerPath sells none of them and takes no commission.
TransformerPath engineering tools sit upstream of that, at the sizing and documentation stages where FEM is slow and overkill. Classical closed-form methods give useful preliminary estimates for tender sizing and costing; accuracy depends materially on transformer type, geometry, design assumptions and the quantity being calculated. They are not a substitute for FEM where the failure mode is local rather than average. We wrote up exactly where that boundary sits →
Four things, and they are useful in a different order depending on whether your bottleneck is design capacity, engineer ramp-up or test-bay reporting.
Rating, voltages, vector group and target impedance in; a first-cut design out, in seconds. Distribution (oil), power (oil) and cast-resin (dry) modes.
The fastest practical win for a factory: standardise what your test bay hands a customer, with no new hardware.
Bring new design and test engineers up to speed on one consistent methodology instead of whoever happened to train them.
Scoped per project, quoted against your product range and target markets. We are vendor-neutral — we don't sell hardware, we spec what you actually need.
The full comparison, with the reasoning behind each column, is in the table below.
| What you need to do | Right tool | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Size a unit for a tender, fast | TransformerPath calculator | Seconds per iteration — a useful preliminary estimate; accuracy depends on type, geometry and assumptions. FEM is far too slow at this stage. |
| Sanity-check a supplier's or a junior engineer's numbers | TransformerPath calculator | Independent closed-form second opinion on losses, impedance and regulation. |
| Produce a buyer-ready routine test report | Test report generator | Formatting and consistency problem, not a physics problem. |
| Train new design or test engineers | Masterclass + Design Engineer Track | One methodology, engineer-reviewed capstones, written feedback per level. |
| Spec or digitalise a test bay | Consulting engagement | Vendor-neutral scoping against your product range and target standards. |
| Map leakage flux in concentric windings; get axial force per section | TransformerPath field solve | 2D axisymmetric, built from the design you just entered. Runs in about a second. |
| Local stray loss in tank, clamps or flitch plates | 3D FEM — not us | Genuinely 3D and outside an axisymmetric model. See the software directory. |
| Predict a winding hot spot from geometry | Coupled FEM/CFD — not us | Our thermal output is a sizing estimate, not a local hot-spot solve. |
| Prove short-circuit withstand for a type test | FEM + physical test — not us | Our force and thermal figures are analytical estimates, not certification evidence. |
Engineer is an annual subscription; Professional and Enterprise remain single payments for 12 months. No per-seat setup on any of them. Consulting is scoped and quoted per project.
| Plan | Price (USD/year) | Seats | Best for |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engineer | $199 | 1 | One engineer building their foundation |
| Professional | $599 | 1 | Priority capstone review, early access to new tools |
| Enterprise | $1,999 | up to 10 | An engineering department on one shared access link — the usual starting point for a manufacturer |
Larger seat counts, multi-site rollouts, and invoicing in USD or EUR are handled through corporate training. Access is stored in the browser it was purchased from, so a team plan is a shared link rather than individual logins — if your IT policy requires per-user accounts and SSO, tell us and we'll be straight about whether we're a fit. Full detail on pricing.
Tell us your product range and what you're trying to solve, and we'll come back with something concrete rather than a brochure. Send a design you already know and we'll come back with what our tools make of it, in writing.