I2C VS OPC (OPC UA)
As of 30 October 2026, OPC (OPC UA) is named by 350 companies and I2C by 1,146; I2C skews to companies under 200 people (53% vs 23%), OPC (OPC UA) to companies over 1,000 (57% vs 24%).
As of 30 October 2026 · refreshed daily · counts move as websites, DNS and career sites are re-read.
The website-and-DNS footprint is not comparable between a marketing suite and a CRM: I2C's script and mail records show on hundreds of thousands of small sites, OPC (OPC UA) rarely leaves a trace outside its own apps. Compare on the job-posting numbers; use the footprint for reach.
- I2C: 2–200 employees
- 53%
- OPC (OPC UA): 2–200 employees
- 23%
- I2C: 1,000+ employees
- 24%
- OPC (OPC UA): 1,000+ employees
- 57%
- Postings per company, 90 days
- 3.6 · 3.1
- Website or DNS footprint
- 0 · 0
Who chooses which
Share of each tool's companies in every segment. "Leans" marks a gap of more than two points.
| Segment | I2C | share | OPC (OPC UA) | share | Leans |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Self-employed | 11 | 1% | 1 | 0% | even |
| 2-10 employees | 120 | 10% | 10 | 3% | I2C |
| 11-50 employees | 210 | 18% | 21 | 6% | I2C |
| 51-200 employees | 277 | 24% | 50 | 14% | I2C |
| 201-500 employees | 167 | 15% | 37 | 11% | I2C |
| 501-1000 employees | 81 | 7% | 33 | 9% | OPC (OPC UA) |
| 1001-5000 employees | 129 | 11% | 75 | 21% | OPC (OPC UA) |
| 5001-10000 employees | 43 | 4% | 33 | 9% | OPC (OPC UA) |
| 10,001+ employees | 108 | 9% | 90 | 26% | OPC (OPC UA) |
| Segment | I2C | share | OPC (OPC UA) | share | Leans |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Manufacturing & industry | 570 | 50% | 124 | 35% | I2C |
| Technology & software | 265 | 23% | 46 | 13% | I2C |
| Business & finance services | 110 | 10% | 42 | 12% | OPC (OPC UA) |
| Automotive | 39 | 3% | 15 | 4% | even |
| Commerce & trade | 38 | 3% | 13 | 4% | even |
| Utilities & infrastructure | 28 | 2% | 54 | 15% | OPC (OPC UA) |
| Public, community & associations | 22 | 2% | 6 | 2% | even |
| Consumer services & leisure | 18 | 2% | 4 | 1% | even |
| Property & construction | 15 | 1% | 33 | 9% | OPC (OPC UA) |
| Media & content | 14 | 1% | 4 | 1% | even |
| Transport, logistics & rental | 13 | 1% | 5 | 1% | even |
| Health care | 9 | 1% | – | – | outside top 12 |
| Agriculture & forestry | – | – | 2 | 1% | outside top 12 |
| Segment | I2C | share | OPC (OPC UA) | share | Leans |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| United States | 700 | 61% | 191 | 55% | I2C |
| Germany | 70 | 6% | 23 | 7% | even |
| United Kingdom | 63 | 5% | 28 | 8% | OPC (OPC UA) |
| India | 36 | 3% | 5 | 1% | even |
| France | 33 | 3% | 23 | 7% | OPC (OPC UA) |
| Canada | 30 | 3% | 12 | 3% | even |
| Netherlands | 18 | 2% | 8 | 2% | even |
| Sweden | 16 | 1% | 4 | 1% | even |
| Italy | 15 | 1% | 5 | 1% | even |
| Spain | 13 | 1% | 4 | 1% | even |
| Poland | 12 | 1% | – | – | outside top 12 |
| Australia | 11 | 1% | – | – | outside top 12 |
| Switzerland | – | – | 6 | 2% | outside top 12 |
| Austria | – | – | 5 | 1% | outside top 12 |
| Segment | I2C | share | OPC (OPC UA) | share | Leans |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Software engineering | 2,655 | 46% | 77 | 6% | I2C |
| Engineering (non-software) | 2,315 | 40% | 588 | 43% | OPC (OPC UA) |
| IT operations & business systems | 112 | 2% | 158 | 11% | OPC (OPC UA) |
| Sales | 48 | 1% | 24 | 2% | even |
| Quality, safety & environment | 34 | 1% | 6 | 0% | even |
| Data & AI | 17 | 0% | 14 | 1% | even |
| Design & UX | 15 | 0% | – | – | outside top 12 |
| Skilled trades and field service | 13 | 0% | 63 | 5% | OPC (OPC UA) |
| Product, program & project management | 11 | 0% | 55 | 4% | OPC (OPC UA) |
| Finance & accounting | 10 | 0% | – | – | outside top 12 |
| Customer service & success | 6 | 0% | 8 | 1% | even |
| Unclassified | 4 | 0% | – | – | outside top 12 |
| Construction and civil | – | – | 30 | 2% | outside top 12 |
| Administration & office | – | – | 6 | 0% | outside top 12 |
| General management & consulting | – | – | 6 | 0% | outside top 12 |
The companies behind each column
Companies using I2C →
Companies using OPC (OPC UA) →
iot platforms protocols ranked →
Quote the sentence with the date and the link. The numbers change daily; the link always shows the current ones.
OPC (OPC UA) is named by 350 companies in job postings and I2C by 1,146; 0 name both. (Breaknorm, 30 October 2026, https://breaknorm.co/compare/i2c-vs-opc)
Read from the source, not self-reported
Every number on this page can be traced to a page we crawled or a posting we read. Full methodology →
- Job postingsRead hourly from career sites. A tool counts when the employer's own text names it as the team's system; both tools can count for one company.
- Website and DNSScripts and embeds on the company's pages, plus SPF, DKIM, MX and CNAME records of its domain that point at the vendor.
- SegmentsCountry, size and industry from the company profile built from its website.
- Not a reviewNo ratings, prices or feature claims. For those, read the vendors.
I2C vs OPC (OPC UA): questions
Which is more used, I2C or OPC (OPC UA)?
By companies naming it in their own job postings, I2C (1,146) over OPC (OPC UA) (350). By website-and-DNS footprint, OPC (OPC UA) (0 vs 0), because its scripts and mail records sit on many small company sites.
Who chooses I2C?
53% of I2C companies have 2 to 200 employees, against 23% for OPC (OPC UA). 24% of I2C companies have over 1,000 employees, against 57% for OPC (OPC UA).
Do companies run both?
0 companies name both in their postings, usually I2C in marketing and OPC (OPC UA) in sales, or during a migration.
Where do these numbers come from?
From the employer's own text in job postings read hourly from career sites, and from scripts found on company websites in our crawl. No vendor data, no surveys.
Get either list your way
The same data as a search, over MCP and the API, as bulk files, or pushed to you as it changes.
Every company on either tool,
with the person who owns it
Filter on I2C or OPC (OPC UA). Start free, no card.