Fast, honest feasibility for the rest of the market.
SiteLitmus is built only for EV charging — the fast, honest read a fast-charging developer needs before site control. Most projects don't die because the technology fails; they stall, or get killed late, because a feasibility fact that was knowable on day one didn't surface until day ninety.
The teams most exposed to that risk are the ones with the least slack: small EV-charging (DCFC and Level 2) developers first, plus fleet and depot operators, energy consultants and brokers. They can't justify a $2,000–3,000/year enterprise design seat to screen a pipeline of maybe-sites — so they fall back on spreadsheets and stale rate lookups, and they get surprised.
SiteLitmus exists to give those teams the fast, sourced, screening-grade read that de-risks a site before they spend real development dollars.
What we believe
Screening is its own job. It's not engineering and it's not a sales demo. The right first-look tool tells you which sites deserve real studies — quickly, cheaply, and without a login.
Trust comes from showing your work. Every number SiteLitmus produces is confidence-scored and stamped with the date its source was last verified, with the method one click away. We'd rather flag uncertainty than fake precision. That honesty is the whole point of a de-risking tool — and it's why the name is a litmus test.
Unbundle it. You should be able to buy just the check you need — cost of power, incentives, interconnection, permitting, site & land risk — instead of a bundled suite priced for a different customer.
Where we're headed
SiteLitmus started with the hardest number to get right — the true, all-in cost of power at a specific meter — and is going deep on EV charging first: demand-charge and utilization economics, switchboard and metering, permitting and the full development timeline. Each is a standalone module on one address-level engine.
From the team
SiteLitmus started with a simple frustration: the people doing the most to build EV charging — small developers, consultants, brokers and EPCs — are often the ones flying blind on the numbers that decide a project, because the tools that get those numbers right were priced and built for someone else. We're building the honest, unbundled first look we wish those teams already had.
If that's your problem too, we'd like to hear about it — tell us what you're screening.