Scaling flexibility gets expensive when every new asset type, market, or TSO becomes a new integration project and when “change” turns into permanent platform maintenance. Most teams end up choosing one of three paths: build a VPP+EMS, buy a single-vendor end-to-end stack, or run an interoperable operating layer that connects what you already have.
WITH FUSEBOX OS, YOU CAN
Get to first MW faster and lower total cost of ownership as you scale.
This page compares the three models on time, cost, and ongoing operational burden, so you can choose the architecture that scales.
Live in
0
European countries
0
TSO
integrations
0
+ assets
& 300+ MW per deployment
0
+ years
in flexibility operations
In 30 minutes: map your current stack + target markets and outline the fastest path to first MW live.
The three paths to flexibility at scale
Energy operations get costly when expansion equals rework: new TSOs, new products, new OEMs, new compliance requirements, each adding engineering load and operational complexity.
The right architecture reduces not only CAPEX and OPEX, but also the ongoing development and change burden that follows you for years.
TCO comparison at a glance
| Build your own (VPP+EMS) | Single-vendor end-to-end stack | Interoperable Fusebox OS | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Feature depth | Anything you build | Often broad, but depth varies; extensions can be constrained | Modular building blocks; configure/extend via APIs and integrations |
| Time to production | 9–30 months (depends on complexity) | 4–12 months (vendor + integration lead time) | Weeks–months (depending on integrations + rollout) |
| CAPEX (Year 1) | €1.2–€17M (lean → complex) | €0.3–€2.5M (implementation + customization + internal program) | €0.05–€0.6M typical onboarding + integrations (+ optional controller rollout) |
| OPEX (annual) | €0.8–€4.5M/yr (team + cloud + compliance) | €0.8–€3.0M/yr (license/fees + internal ops + change requests) | Subscription (quote) + ~1–3 FTE internal ops (lower platform burden) |
| Dev / change burden | Permanent high (markets/OEMs change = your backlog) | Medium (roadmap + paid CRs; vendor cadence) | Low–medium (config + API extensions, less core maintenance) |
| Interoperability | Whatever you invest in (expensive to keep broad) | Often limited/gated outside ecosystem | Designed for interoperability (open interfaces + modularity) |
| Lock-in | Low vendor lock-in, high internal lock-in (custom stack + key-person risk) | High (data model, controllers, roadmap, pricing power) | Lower (modular + open interfaces; swap components vs rebuild) |
What the ranges typically include
Why interoperability reduces TCO
TCO isn’t only license vs build cost. The hidden multiplier is how often you need to change, new TSOs, new products, new asset types, new partners, new reporting and compliance.
Architectures designed for change (open interfaces + modularity) reduce long-term burden and preserve optionality. With an interoperable operating layer, you can:
- Avoid re-platforming when strategy or markets change (swap components instead of rebuilding).
- Reduce permanent backlog pressure by standardizing repeatable workflows and extending via integrations instead of core rewrites.
- Limit lock-in risk by keeping your stack modular and open.
How to estimate your TCO quickly
Use these inputs to benchmark your own ranges against the table:
(Time-to-production and cost ranges vary primarily with complexity, integrations, and rollout scope.)
Get the full TCO comparison
Want a version tailored to your stack and markets? We’ll share the full comparison and map your fastest path to first MW live.