PLC Version Control Software Compared: octoplant, AssetCentre, Copia, SDA and More

PLC version control software keeps every version of the programs and configurations in a plant’s controllers, HMIs, robots and drives, compares versions, and records who changed what. The market now holds several distinct kinds of product, from a long-established multi-vendor platform to Git-native start-ups, compliance tools and the Git support built into each vendor’s own engineering software. They are not interchangeable, and the right choice depends far more on the plant’s device mix and workflow than on any feature list.

This page compares seven options on public facts, as of October 2026, and says where each one fits. We are independent of all of them and take no margin on any licence. Background on the category sits on the automation change management hub, and the difference between Git and approved-version workflows is explained on our PLC version control page.

The PLC version control software, side by side

Tool	Model	Device scope (vendor’s description)	Deployment	Owner and scale
AMDT octoplant	Approved version with check-in, check-out, scheduled compare and disaster recovery (amdt.com)	Multi-vendor PLCs, HMIs, robots, CNC, drives, SCADA, network devices; AMDT states “180+ industrial device types” (amdt.com)	Mainly on-premises	AMDT, formed from AUVESY and MDT Software; AMDT states 3,200+ customers
FactoryTalk AssetCentre	Scheduled backup, versioning, compare, audit and disaster recovery (Rockwell)	Rockwell controllers, drives and HMIs, with some third-party support	On-premises, on the FactoryTalk stack	Rockwell Automation
Copia Automation	Git-based source control plus DeviceLink backup and change detection (copia.io)	Siemens, Rockwell, Omron, Schneider, B&R, ABB, Beckhoff, WAGO and CODESYS listed on its multi-vendor page (copia.io)	Cloud on AWS or private cloud (copia.io)	Venture-backed; $55M raised in total per Pulse2
Software Defined Automation (SDA)	Browser-based engineering, multi-vendor version control, automated backup, virtual PLC management (SDA)	“Supports 13+ PLC vendors,” per its site	Cloud, with an on-site connectivity agent	Venture-backed; seed round led by Insight Partners (ARC)
Industrial Defender	OT asset management, configuration baselines, change detection, compliance reporting (industrialdefender.com)	Broad OT asset and configuration monitoring	On-premises	Banneker Partners majority stake, January 2026 (Orrick)
Octave Cyber Integrity (formerly PAS)	Multi-vendor OT inventory and configuration change management for DCS, SIS and PLC (ARC)	Strongest in process control systems	Check with vendor	Octave, listed on Nasdaq after the Hexagon spin-off (IT Brief)
OEM-native Git	Git or source control inside TIA Portal, SIMATIC AX, FactoryTalk Design Studio, CODESYS, TwinCAT, PLCnext and Ignition 8.3	One vendor per tool	Desktop, or cloud for Design Studio	Each automation vendor

What each covers, by capability

The matrix below is our reading of each vendor’s public materials. “Check” means the capability is not clearly described in public sources, not that it is missing. Ask in the demo.

Capability	octoplant	AssetCentre	Copia	SDA	Industrial Defender	Octave	OEM Git
Scheduled backup from running devices	Yes	Yes	Yes (DeviceLink)	Yes	Check	Check	No
Compare running against approved	Yes	Yes	Yes	Check	Baselines	Check	No
Git branching and merge	No, approval model	No	Yes	Yes	No	No	Yes
Robots, CNC and drives	Yes	Rockwell drives	Check	Some (Sinumerik CNC announced)	Check	Check	No
Multi-vendor in one tool	Yes	Partly	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No
Audit trail for change	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Commit history
Inventory and vulnerability data	Via octovision	Via partners	Check	Announced PLC vulnerability management	Yes	Yes	No
Fully on-premises option	Yes	Yes	Check	Check	Yes	Check	Yes, desktop

Sources for the less obvious cells: SDA’s CNC backup and vulnerability features were announced at Automate 2026 (Automate.org); octovision is AMDT’s inventory and vulnerability layer (amdt.com); Claroty enriches AssetCentre with vulnerability and threat data (Claroty).

Where each one fits

AMDT octoplant fits a multi-vendor plant or group with a large and varied installed base: several PLC families, robots, CNC, drives and legacy controllers, where one tool and one audit trail matter more than Git workflows. It is mainly on-premises, which suits plants with strict OT network rules. Prices and the full device matrix are not public, so budget time for the commercial process. Detail is in our AMDT cluster.

FactoryTalk AssetCentre fits a plant that is predominantly Rockwell and already runs the FactoryTalk stack. It is the natural first step in that estate, and our AssetCentre page covers what it solves. Its limits show as the share of other vendors grows.

Copia Automation fits engineering teams that want Git: integrators, OEMs and plants with a controls group that already works like a software team, mainly on the PLC families it supports. DeviceLink adds the device backup and change detection that pure Git lacks. Its cloud delivery needs an OT security review; ask about the private cloud option.

Software Defined Automation fits organisations heading toward browser-based engineering and virtual PLCs, particularly Siemens and Beckhoff-heavy estates in Europe, with a cloud-first appetite. It is a younger company, so weigh roadmap claims against what is shipping.

Industrial Defender fits utilities and energy companies where configuration baselines, change monitoring and NERC CIP evidence are the primary goal. It is a compliance and security tool first, not an engineering workflow.

Octave Cyber Integrity fits process plants with large DCS and safety system estates, where configuration integrity across control systems is the concern.

OEM-native Git fits single-vendor sites and new projects where engineers already work in that tool, and as the engineering half of a combined approach. It does not replace device backup.

Plants rarely end up with one tool. A common, sensible pattern is native Git for new engineering work plus a multi-vendor tool for backup, compare and audit of the running fleet, with network-based OT security alongside. The AMDT alternatives page examines the same field from AMDT’s side.

How PLC version control software is priced

Few vendors in this market publish prices, so a comparison on cost needs quotes. The models differ enough that the same plant can receive very different-looking proposals.

• Per device. The most common model for the established platforms. AMDT, for example, publishes three octoplant editions (Core for up to 50 devices on a single site, Plus for 100 or more, and Premium for 250 or more and regulated sites) and licenses per device, “one license per campus,” but publishes no prices (octoplant.com).
• Per user or seat. Common where the product is an engineering tool, including Git platforms and IDE add-ons.
• Subscription for cloud platforms, usually combining users, devices or sites.
• Bundled. Native Git features may be included in an engineering software licence or sold as an add-on.

Compare three-year totals, not list prices. Add implementation, onboarding of each device family, partner services, training, the server or cloud costs and the internal owner’s time. A cheaper licence that covers 70% of the fleet can cost more than a dearer one that covers all of it, because the remaining 30% still needs a manual process and still carries the risk.

Questions to ask in every demo

Demos are scripted around the devices that work best. These questions take the conversation to the places where tools differ:

• “Show me an online edit being detected.” Make a change on a live controller during the demo and watch how long it takes to appear, and how it is presented.
• “Back up this device.” Bring your oldest controller, a robot or a drive, at its real firmware.
• “Restore it.” A restore is the outcome you are buying. See it, and time it.
• “Show me the audit record of that change.” Ask who approved it and how that is evidenced.
• “What happens when the network path is closed?” Ask how the tool reaches segmented or unnetworked equipment.
• “How do I get my data out?” Export of history and versions matters if you change tools later.

Limits of this comparison

• Public facts only. Several vendors gate their device matrices and none of the multi-vendor platforms publishes prices. Coverage must be confirmed against your devices.
• Fast-moving market. Funding, ownership and features changed through 2026, and will again. Re-check before a decision.
• Demos show the easy devices. The oldest controller and the robot cell are where tools differ, so test those.

Selection checklist for PLC version control software

• A device list with vendor, model, firmware and software versions, and criticality
• Coverage confirmed, in writing, for every critical device type and version
• A trial on a real line, including a legacy controller, a robot or drive, and an HMI
• An online edit made during the trial and detected by the tool
• A restore rehearsed from the tool to a spare or test device
• Deployment reviewed against the OT network design and security policy
• Workflow agreed: approval model, Git, or both, and who approves
• Integrator and OEM obligations written into contracts
• Three-year cost including implementation, onboarding, support and the internal owner
• Exit plan: can you export your history if you change tools?

An independent view helps here. A buyer’s owner’s engineer can run the device list, the trial plan and the commercial comparison without a stake in which vendor wins.

Deeper

• octoplant alternatives: the competitive set from one vendor’s position
• octoplant vs FactoryTalk AssetCentre
• octoplant vs Copia
• octoplant vs Software Defined Automation
• octoplant vs network OT security
• PLC backup software: what any of these tools has to back up, and how to test a restore

Back to the automation change management hub.