EtherCAT alternatives
As of 4 November 2026, 39 iot platforms protocols are named by companies instead of EtherCAT: Modbus by 2,067 companies, CAN bus by 1,760, SPI by 1,559.
As of 4 November 2026 · refreshed daily · counts move as websites, DNS and career sites are re-read.
- EtherCAT, companies in postings
- 378
- Most used alternative
- Modbus · 2,067
- Fastest hiring, 90 days
- Modbus
- Alternatives ranked
- 39
- Catalogue
- T-1.0.1-prov
iot platforms protocols companies choose instead of EtherCAT
Companies naming each tool in their own postings, and postings in the last 90 days. Bars are relative to the category leader.
| # | Alternative | Companies | companies | vs EtherCAT | postings, 90 d | Compare |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | ModbusModbus Organization | 2,067 | 547% | 5,698 | EtherCAT vs Modbus → | |
| 2 | CAN busISO | 1,760 | 466% | 5,610 | EtherCAT vs CAN bus → | |
| 3 | SPIMotorola | 1,559 | 412% | 4,935 | EtherCAT vs SPI → | |
| 4 | I2CNXP | 1,515 | 401% | 4,820 | EtherCAT vs I2C → | |
| 5 | UART(industry standard) | 1,237 | 327% | 3,224 | EtherCAT vs UART → | |
| 6 | MQTTOASIS | 1,201 | 318% | 2,656 | EtherCAT vs MQTT → | |
| 7 | EtherNet/IPODVA | 1,048 | 277% | 2,374 | EtherCAT vs EtherNet/IP → | |
| 8 | OPC UAOPC Foundation | 935 | 247% | 2,090 | EtherCAT vs OPC UA → | |
| 9 | PROFINETPROFIBUS & PROFINET International | 914 | 242% | 2,036 | EtherCAT vs PROFINET → | |
| 10 | PROFIBUSPROFIBUS & PROFINET International | 701 | 185% | 1,645 | EtherCAT vs PROFIBUS → | |
| 11 | BACnetASHRAE | 598 | 158% | 1,743 | EtherCAT vs BACnet → | |
| 12 | USBUSB Implementers Forum | 597 | 158% | 1,786 | EtherCAT vs USB → | |
| 13 | Bluetooth Low EnergyBluetooth SIG | 473 | 125% | 934 | EtherCAT vs Bluetooth Low Energy → | |
| 14 | RS-485TIA | 464 | 123% | 1,001 | EtherCAT vs RS-485 → | |
| 15 | OPC (OPC UA)OPC Foundation | 451 | 119% | 1,193 | EtherCAT vs OPC (OPC UA) → | |
| 16 | RS-232EIA | 446 | 118% | 1,038 | EtherCAT vs RS-232 → | |
| 17 | KNXKNX Association | 401 | 106% | 703 | EtherCAT vs KNX → | |
| 18 | BluetoothBluetooth SIG | 346 | 92% | 659 | EtherCAT vs Bluetooth → | |
| 19 | IEC 61850IEC | 324 | 86% | 1,126 | EtherCAT vs IEC 61850 → | |
| 20 | DNP3IEEE | 321 | 85% | 895 | EtherCAT vs DNP3 → | |
| 21 | DeviceNetODVA | 285 | 75% | 598 | EtherCAT vs DeviceNet → | |
| 22 | DDS (Data Distribution Service)Object Management Group | 280 | 74% | 663 | EtherCAT vs DDS (Data Distribution Service) → | |
| 23 | LIN BusLIN Consortium | 266 | 70% | 1,210 | EtherCAT vs LIN Bus → | |
| 24 | CAN FDBosch | 181 | 48% | 545 | EtherCAT vs CAN FD → | |
| 25 | RS-422TIA/EIA | 180 | 48% | 607 | EtherCAT vs RS-422 → | |
| 26 | SAE J1939SAE International | 179 | 47% | 468 | EtherCAT vs SAE J1939 → | |
| 27 | ZigbeeConnectivity Standards Alliance | 179 | 47% | 427 | EtherCAT vs Zigbee → | |
| 28 | 175 | 46% | 552 | EtherCAT vs UDS (ISO 14229) → | ||
| 29 | 168 | 44% | 380 | EtherCAT vs GPIO → | ||
| 30 | CANopenCAN in Automation | 162 | 43% | 293 | EtherCAT vs CANopen → | |
| 31 | NFCNFC Forum | 147 | 39% | 366 | EtherCAT vs NFC → | |
| 32 | DMX512USITT | 122 | 32% | 150 | soon | |
| 33 | LonWorksEchelon | 115 | 30% | 403 | soon | |
| 34 | ARINCSAE ITT | 114 | 30% | 492 | soon | |
| 35 | EcoStruxureSchneider Electric | 109 | 29% | 339 | soon | |
| 36 | LoRaWANLoRa Alliance | 108 | 29% | 185 | soon | |
| 37 | Azure IoT HubMicrosoft | 100 | 26% | 162 | soon | |
| 38 | DALIDiiA | 99 | 26% | 154 | soon | |
| 39 | HART ProtocolFieldComm Group | 99 | 26% | 265 | soon |
Filter on any of them, or on EtherCAT users who also name an alternative, and open the person who owns the stack.
Start free, no card. The first 20 are above; e-mails are verified at the mail server when you open them.
Quote the sentence with the date and the link. The numbers change daily; the link always shows the current ones.
39 iot platforms protocols are named by companies instead of EtherCAT: Modbus by 2,067 companies, CAN bus by 1,760, SPI by 1,559, measured from their own job postings. (Breaknorm, 4 November 2026, https://breaknorm.co/tools/ethercat/alternatives)
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 →
- RankingCompanies whose own postings name the tool as the team's system, from the Breaknorm technology catalogue T-1.0.1-prov. Editions are folded into their parent product.
- 90-day postingsOpen postings first seen or posted in the last 90 days that name the tool.
- Not includedRatings, prices, feature claims, sponsored positions.
EtherCAT alternatives: questions
What is the most used alternative to EtherCAT?
Modbus: 2,067 companies name it in their own job postings, against 378 for EtherCAT.
How is this list ranked?
By the number of companies whose own postings name the tool as the team's system (Breaknorm technology catalogue T-1.0.1-prov), then by postings in the last 90 days. No ratings, no vendor input, no sponsored positions.
Does this say which is better?
No. It says who uses what, by company size, industry and country, so you can see which tools companies like yours choose. For features and prices, read the vendors.
Can I get the companies on any of these?
Yes: click the tool, see the first 20 companies, and sign up for the full list with verified e-mails. Counting is free.
Get these companies 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 EtherCAT
or on what replaces it
Connect the MCP server, filter on any tool. Start free, no card.