Artemis

Name: Artemis
Brand: Artemis Power
Rating: 4.9 (321 reviews)

AI Native

Helps home-energy companies move faster, sell smarter, and earn trust at every step.

Est 2022|13 Ref Customers

LinkedIn 799|Website|FTEs 36

MarketsCPQ Software (Configure, Price, Quote)Proposal & eSignature

Published Oct 5, 2026

01Common complaints

- If an organization requires a free trial or a self-serve sandbox - The vendor indicates it does not offer free trials due to customized setup, which may conflict with procurement policies that mandate hands-on evaluation. - If procurement requires publicly documented security certifications - SOC 2 and ISO 27001 certifications are not clearly published by the vendor; regulated buyers may prefer vendors with readily available assurance packages. - If finance-grade modeling accuracy is a core requirement and modeling disputes are unacceptable - Aggregated reviewer feedback includes mentions of production estimate and sun-hour accuracy concerns. Organizations that cannot tolerate modeling disputes should validate outputs against historical production datasets and lender requirements before migrating. - If deep commercial engineering workflows are the primary use case - The vendor’s primary positioning is residential speed; teams with heavy C&I or utility-scale engineering requirements may require specialized engineering tools and mature validation workflows. - If organizations are highly sensitive to per-design unit economics - Pay-per-design pricing can be beneficial, but if workflows create multiple variants, re-design loops, or QA passes, the effective cost per closed deal may increase. Confirm how the vendor counts designs and revisions in contract terms. - Limitations documented in public materials - No free trial is offered. - The vendor lists some roof-report capabilities as early-access or in development in different contexts; procurement should clarify what is generally available versus early-access features. - Roadmap and feature readiness risk - Public signals indicate rapid product iteration; rapid change can deliver features quickly but may introduce change-management risk for stable workflows. - Scale limitations - Not documented publicly; procurement should validate: - API rate limits - Maximum design throughput - Multi-market configuration and permissioning capabilities - Security or compliance gaps - Lack of publicly documented SOC 2/ISO certifications may be a procurement blocker for some buyers. - API limitations or integration constraints - The vendor states an open API and CRM integrations; documentation and sandbox access are not publicly available and should be requested.

Why some customers left for competitors (churn reasons)

Direct "why we left" testimonials were not widely available in accessible sources.
Inferred reasons from negative themes include:
- Concerns about production accuracy leading teams to choose incumbents with established, finance-grade modeling workflows
- Missing features or gaps in engineering depth causing teams to use specialist tools for certain project types

02Why they buy

- Customer-reported signals and vendor claims (framed neutrally) - Several reviewers report time savings due to automation of manual input and faster proposal generation. - Reviewer feedback frequently references responsive support in aggregated review data. - Vendor-claimed differentiators to verify during evaluation - Inclusion of all listed features without add-on fees and unrestricted user counts as stated by the vendor - Integrated lender workflows and contract signing, and stated CRM integrations - Vendor-reported short design generation times (e.g., multi-second generation reported in vendor materials) - Areas where competitors have advantages - Aurora: established reputation and tooling for finance-grade modeling and shade reporting - Solargraf: transparent annual package pricing and alignment with certain hardware ecosystems - OpenSolar: low-cost positioning with caveats around data portability and integration costs

Why customers chose Artemis over alternatives

Based on public reviews and vendor positioning:
- Faster turnaround for proposal generation compared with some competitors
- Published per-design economics and unrestricted user counts as presented by the vendor
- Integrated financing and contract signing workflows
Note: Some vendor-invited review programs can introduce selection bias toward satisfied users.

03Field reports

Review platform availability and access notes

G2 reviews are accessible and numerous; other review platforms (e.g., Gartner Peer Insights, TrustRadius) may require login or were not clearly discoverable for a full review set.

Positive review signals (examples)

- Speed and automation - Multiple G2 reviews note that Artemis automates manual input steps, reducing time required for residential solar proposal design and enabling faster manual panel placement after initial setup. - Proposal quality and customer trust - Some reviewers report that Artemis generates proposals more quickly and with presentation quality that helps in homeowner-facing interactions. - Backend support - Some reviewers highlight responsiveness from support and the availability of vendor assistance for complex designs.

Negative / critical review themes (examples and frequency indicators)

- Feature gaps and layout issues appear in aggregated review summaries. - Aggregated indicators on G2 include mentions of missing features and layout issues. - Usability and workflow friction - Reviews cite requests for improved panel deletion efficiency, map area reselection, layout alignment, and screen real estate optimization. - Learning curve / technical setup - Some users report a learning curve, particularly around integrations and technical setup. - Performance lags - Reviews mention occasional performance lag, sometimes linked to local connectivity conditions. - Output accuracy concerns - Some aggregated feedback references inaccuracy in solar production estimates and sun-hour calculations; production accuracy is a core buying criterion and can be a source of disputes with customers and lenders.

Deal-breakers and reasons customers didn't purchase

The absence of a free trial and the need for a customized setup can impede evaluation by procurement teams that require hands-on trials.

Vendor-published outcomes and metrics (not independently verified)

The vendor publishes performance and savings metrics, including claims of faster design times, reduced software spend, and estimates of production accuracy and revenue uplift.
These vendor-published metrics are presented without publicly visible methodology in accessible pages and should be validated in procurement discussions.

Implementation details and time to value

The vendor reports rapid onboarding within a short timeframe; organizations should test this estimate against their internal readiness and customization needs.

Mixed results / failure cases

No explicit failed implementations were identified in accessible public sources.
Reported accuracy concerns and feature gaps suggest edge cases (e.g., complex roofs, tree shading, nuanced utility rate structures) where secondary validation or alternative tools may be required.

04Best fit

- Company sizes - Likely fit: - Installers and dealer networks that are small to mid-sized teams and need speed and standardized proposals - Multi-market residential installers with high inbound lead volume - Evidence signals - Public reviews indicate a significant portion of respondents come from small- to mid-sized businesses - Industries and verticals - Residential solar installers - Solar + roofing contractors - Home improvement sellers bundling multiple services (vendor materials reference potential expansion into HVAC/windows/doors) - Roles and personas - Decision makers - VP Sales / Head of Sales - Operations leaders responsible for sale → design → permitting → install handoffs - Owners/operators focused on customer acquisition cost and cycle time - End users - Sales representatives (in-home and virtual) - Designers - Proposal specialists - Pain points the product addresses - Long proposal turnaround times and high per-proposal cost - Fragmented tool stacks across design, proposal, lender portals, e-sign, and CRM - The need to present financing options quickly and consistently - Deal disqualifiers - Organizations requiring publicly documented SOC 2 or ISO certifications for procurement - Organizations that require free trials or sandbox self-serve evaluation - Highly specialized commercial or utility-scale engineering use cases

05The pitch

What the product does (core value proposition in objective terms)

- Artemis is a B2B SaaS platform for residential (and some commercial) solar, storage, and roofing sales and design workflows. - Core outputs include: - Address-based 3D property and roof modeling and solar/battery design generation - Customer-facing proposals and presentations - Embedded financing flows and contract automation (including integrated e-sign) - Workflow collaboration features intended to reduce handoffs between sales, design, and operations - The vendor presents Artemis as a single platform intended to consolidate multiple point tools used across quoting, proposal generation, financing, and (to a lesser extent) post-sale workflow (vendor product overview and feature pages).

Target market and market positioning

- Primary buyers appear to be: - Residential solar installers - Roofing + solar hybrid contractors - Sales organizations and dealer networks needing rapid proposal turnaround - Lenders and financiers interacting with solar proposals and underwriting artifacts - Market positioning themes reported by the vendor and in public materials: - Speed (designs/proposals generated in seconds according to vendor statements) - A pricing philosophy described by the vendor as including all listed features without add-on fees - Lower cost positioning relative to incumbents (notably Aurora Solar and Solo) via pay-per-design pricing and unrestricted user counts according to vendor materials (vendor pricing and marketing materials)

Get a comprehensive analysis of Artemis including market position, competitive landscape, adoption trends, and peer benchmarks.

Download full report →