A StrikeRisk alternative
Furse StrikeRisk is established desktop software with a long record in the UK and the markets that follow British practice. This page sets out what ABB publishes about it, what a browser based tool on the 2024 edition changes, and where StrikeRisk remains the right choice.
StrikeRisk is good software. The reason engineers look for an alternative is usually the edition of the standard behind it, not the quality of the arithmetic.
Furse StrikeRisk, published by ABB, is desktop software for the IEC and EN 62305-2 risk assessment, sold in the UK since at least 2018 on the evidence of ABB's own data sheet. It handles multi zone structures, multiple connected services and multiple remote structures, and produces detailed reports. None of that is in question here.
What has changed underneath it is the standard. IEC 62305-2 reached its third edition in 2024, and that edition altered the method rather than tidying the text. This page sets out what ABB publishes about StrikeRisk, marks clearly what we could not verify, explains what a browser tool on the current edition changes, and is honest about where StrikeRisk remains the better answer.
What we could read, and what we could not
Being precise about this matters, because a comparison page that overstates a competitor's limitations is worth less than no page at all. Everything we state about StrikeRisk comes from ABB's own published data sheet for StrikeRisk version 6.0, a document carrying an ABB document code and a 2018 copyright, hosted on ABB's own document library.
We were not able to load ABB's live product page for StrikeRisk despite several attempts, so three things are genuinely unknown to us and we will not assert them either way: whether a release newer than version 6.0 exists, whether any current release covers the 2024 third edition, and whether supported operating systems have been updated since the 2018 document, which lists Windows 8.1 and earlier. The data sheet also makes no mention of periodic inspection records, but absence from one document is not evidence of absence from the product, so we treat that as unknown too.
If StrikeRisk has moved to the third edition since that data sheet was written, the central argument on this page no longer applies, and we would rather you check with ABB than take our word for it.
Two different shapes of tool
These are honest descriptions of two designs, not a scorecard. Each suits a different way of working.
Installed, licensed, self-contained
Windows software installed per workstation with a licence dongle, in single user and network licence tiers. It runs without an internet connection and keeps project files where you put them, which suits a single engineer and satisfies IT policies that do not permit browser tools. The version 6.0 data sheet targets the second edition family of the standard, with templates for several national forms of it, and a free 15 day trial.
Browser based, one shared version
Runs in a browser with nothing installed, computing on IEC 62305-2:2024. Because the calculation lives in one place, every engineer on a team is on the same version of it, and a colleague or reviewer can reach the same project without a file changing hands. It requires an internet connection, which is a real constraint in some environments. It is sold per seat per month, 49 US dollars for Professional and 79 for Enterprise with a ten seat minimum, with a 14 day free trial.
Why the edition is the real question
The second edition and the third are not two printings of the same method. The third edition replaced lightning flash density with ground strike point density as the density input, brought injury to people and loss from fire together into a single risk R, introduced a separate frequency of damage F for the availability of internal systems, and gave formal recognition to thunderstorm warning systems. The result is that the same building, with the same inputs, can produce a different verdict on each edition.
That is why an edition mismatch is not a paperwork problem. If a specification names IEC 62305-2:2024 or EN IEC 62305-2:2024 and the report is headed with a 2012 designation, a reviewer is entitled to reject it, and the calculation genuinely is a different calculation. The full list of what moved is in what changed in IEC 62305:2024.
The reverse case is just as real and gets less attention. If your project is specified to a second edition national standard, a third edition tool is the wrong tool, and StrikeRisk targeting that edition directly is a point in its favour rather than against it. Match the tool to the standard the project names, in either direction.
Four things a cloud tool changes
Stated as what Lumex does. Where we do not know whether StrikeRisk does the same, we say so instead of implying it does not.
Current edition, centrally
Lumex computes on IEC 62305-2:2024. Because it runs in one place, an edition update reaches everyone at once rather than through a per machine upgrade, so two engineers in the same firm cannot quietly be on different versions of the method.
Full coefficient trace
Any figure in the calculation can be opened to show the clause, equation or table it came from, so a query about one coefficient has an answer better than a final number. We do not know what StrikeRisk shows here, having only its data sheet, so treat this as what we offer rather than a comparison.
Several people, one project
A colleague or a reviewer opens the same assessment rather than receiving a copy of a file. StrikeRisk does offer multi user network licences, so it is not a single seat product; the difference is between shared installations and one shared project.
Report and inspection record
A branded report for the assessment plus a periodic inspection record under IEC 62305-3. StrikeRisk's data sheet describes a detailed reporting and exporting facility, so reporting is clearly covered there; what we cannot say is whether it also covers inspection records.
When you should stay on StrikeRisk
If your projects are specified to a second edition national standard, StrikeRisk aims at that directly and switching would work against you. If your organisation's security policy rules out browser based tools, a locally installed and locally licensed product is the only shape that fits, and no amount of feature comparison changes that. If you have licences, an embedded workflow and a body of existing projects, the cost of moving is real and may not be repaid.
And there is the plain matter of commercial shape. A per seat monthly subscription is a different proposition from the workstation and network licences ABB lists, which matters if your organisation prefers to buy software outright rather than subscribe. Lumex is also a considerably newer product than StrikeRisk, which ABB has been publishing since at least 2018 on the evidence of its own data sheet. We would rather write that down than talk around it.
Whatever you choose, check the tolerable risk
Ask any tool you are evaluating whether you can set the tolerable risk RT yourself, and whether the report records the value used. Clause 7.3 NOTE 1 of IEC 62305-2:2024 gives RT = 1×10-5 per year as a representative value of tolerable risk and allows another value once the case has been investigated in detail, and printed p.12 lets national or local regulation fix RT, the tolerable frequency of damage FT and the Annex A, B, C and E rules and parameter values.
So a tool that bakes the representative figure in as a constant will produce the wrong verdict on any project where a regulator or specification names a different one. This is not a point against StrikeRisk, whose behaviour here we have not tested. It is a question worth putting to every vendor on your shortlist, including us.
For the method itself, see the IEC 62305-2 risk method. To see how the wider field lines up, see lightning risk assessment software compared, or the DEHN tools. Designing the physical system rather than choosing a tool? See lightning protection system design.
Questions answered
What is Furse StrikeRisk?
Which edition of IEC 62305 does StrikeRisk use?
Why look for a StrikeRisk alternative?
How much does StrikeRisk cost?
Is there a free trial of StrikeRisk?
When is StrikeRisk still the better choice?
What does Lumex do differently?
Lumex computes the IEC 62305-2 method and shows the working. It does not certify a structure. You may not issue or submit a Lumex output until a competent person, qualified where the structure is located, has reviewed the inputs and the result and signed it.
The tolerable risk in IEC 62305-2 is not a fixed constant. Clause 7.3 NOTE 1 gives RT = 1×10-5 per year as a representative value of tolerable risk and adds that another value may be set once the case has been investigated in detail. Printed p.12 then lets national or local regulations fix RT, the tolerable frequency of damage FT, and the Annex A, B, C and E calculation rules and parameter values. Every Lumex assessment states the jurisdiction it was computed under and the values that applied.