The Future Homes Standard offers two compliance routes during the transition period: SAP 10.3 (an updated version of the familiar SAP methodology) and HEM (the government's new half-hourly dynamic simulation). Both routes demonstrate compliance against the same FHS notional building, but the underlying calculations differ significantly. This page compares the two routes to help assessors, architects, and developers choose the right approach for their projects.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Aspect | SAP 10.3 | HEM |
|---|---|---|
| Calculation method | Monthly steady-state | Half-hourly dynamic simulation (17,520 timesteps/year) |
| Software delivery | Third-party SAP software providers | Centralised ECaaS API |
| Calculation speed | Near-instantaneous | 5–10 minutes per calculation |
| Assessment time (typical house) | ~20 minutes data entry | ~1 hour 40 minutes data entry |
| Heat pump modelling | Fixed seasonal efficiency (COP) | Dynamic COP at each timestep based on conditions |
| Solar PV | Annual generation estimate | Half-hourly generation + self-consumption modelling |
| Battery storage | Limited modelling | Full charge/discharge at each timestep |
| Thermal mass | Simplified parameter | Dynamic modelling at each timestep |
| Thermal bridges | Annual uplift factor | Calculated at each timestep |
| Carbon factors | Updated for FHS (forward-looking) | Forward-looking (2025–2029 projected) |
| Missing data handling | Standard SAP defaults | Punitive defaults — more severe than SAP |
| Assessor familiarity | High — existing workflow | Low — new methodology and platform |
| Long-term status | Interim — will eventually be withdrawn | Primary — government's preferred methodology |
SAP 10.3 — The Familiar Route
SAP 10.3 is an updated version of SAP that incorporates the FHS notional dwelling specifications, revised carbon emission factors, and updated primary energy factors. It retains SAP's monthly calculation approach and is delivered through existing third-party software providers.
Advantages
- Familiarity — assessors already know the SAP workflow, data entry process, and software
- Speed — calculations are near-instantaneous, allowing rapid iteration on designs
- Lower data requirements — SAP requires less detailed input data than HEM
- Established software — existing SAP software is mature, with well-understood interfaces and workflows
- No ECaaS dependency — assessments can run locally without relying on the ECaaS platform's availability
Limitations
- Less accurate technology modelling — heat pumps, solar PV, and battery storage are modelled less precisely than in HEM
- Monthly resolution — cannot capture within-day or within-month performance variations
- No self-consumption modelling — cannot accurately model how much solar PV electricity is used on-site
- Interim status — will eventually be withdrawn; investing heavily in SAP 10.3 workflows is a short-term strategy
- Software inconsistency — different providers may produce marginally different results
HEM — The Future-Proof Route
HEM is the government's preferred long-term compliance methodology. It uses a half-hourly dynamic simulation based on BS EN ISO 52016-1:2017, delivered exclusively through the ECaaS platform.
Advantages
- More accurate modelling — half-hourly timesteps capture real-world performance, particularly for heat pumps, solar PV, and thermal mass
- Solar PV self-consumption — properly credits electricity used on-site, not just total generation
- Battery storage — full charge/discharge modelling at each timestep
- Dynamic heat pump COP — models efficiency based on actual source and sink temperatures at each timestep
- Consistency — every assessment uses the identical calculation engine via ECaaS
- Future-proof — HEM is the government's long-term methodology; early adoption builds capability
- Design flexibility — more accurate modelling may reveal compliance margin that SAP misses, enabling design optimisation
Challenges
- Longer assessment time — approximately 1 hour 40 minutes per house type versus 20 minutes for SAP (excluding geometry and U-value calculations)
- More data required — detailed geometry, individual hot water outlets, specific product data, inverter specifications
- Calculation time — 5–10 minutes per run versus near-instantaneous for SAP
- Punitive defaults — missing data triggers default values that are far more severe than SAP defaults
- ECaaS dependency — requires internet connectivity and platform availability
- Learning curve — new methodology, new platform, new data requirements
Choosing the Right Route
The choice between SAP 10.3 and HEM depends on your circumstances. Here is practical guidance for different situations:
| Situation | Recommended Route | Reasoning |
|---|---|---|
| Standard house types with clear compliance margin | SAP 10.3 | Faster, familiar, no additional training needed |
| Complex designs with heat pumps + solar PV + battery | HEM | More accurate technology modelling may reveal compliance margin |
| Team not yet trained on HEM | SAP 10.3 (short-term) | Pragmatic while building HEM capability |
| Long-term capability building | HEM | Start building experience now; SAP 10.3 will be withdrawn |
| Marginal compliance designs | Try both | One route may pass where the other doesn't |
| High-volume production plots | SAP 10.3 initially, then HEM | SAP 10.3 for speed; transition to HEM as teams upskill |
Data Requirements Compared
HEM requires significantly more detailed input data than SAP 10.3. The additional data points include:
| Data Category | SAP 10.3 | HEM |
|---|---|---|
| Building geometry | Floor area, room count, orientation | Detailed 3D geometry with zone-level resolution |
| Hot water | Total demand from floor area | Individual outlet specifications (taps, showers, baths) |
| Pipework | Basic distribution assumptions | Detailed lengths and insulation for each run |
| Heating products | Product type and basic efficiency | Specific make/model with EN 14825 performance data |
| Ventilation | System type and basic performance | Specific product data, duct lengths, terminal details |
| Solar PV | Panel area, orientation, tilt | Panel specifications + inverter make/model/efficiency |
| Site data | Region and basic orientation | Altitude, noise nuisance potential, detailed shading |
The additional data requirements are the primary reason HEM assessments take longer. However, they also enable more accurate modelling — particularly for heating systems and renewable technologies. For detailed preparation guidance, see our Assessor Transition Guide.
Practical Tips for the Transition
- Run parallel assessments early on — submit a few designs through both routes to understand how results compare for your typical house types
- Invest in data collection — good data is essential for HEM. Establish processes to capture the additional data points from designers, manufacturers, and site teams
- Build product data libraries — collate make/model data for your standard heating, ventilation, and PV specifications
- Factor in calculation time — HEM takes 5–10 minutes per run; plan workflows that allow for this rather than expecting instant results
- Engage with ECaaS — familiarise your team with the platform's API and workflow before it becomes mandatory
- Use SAP 10.3 as a backstop — if an HEM assessment fails unexpectedly, SAP 10.3 provides an alternative route during dual running
Frequently Asked Questions
Should I use SAP 10.3 or HEM for FHS compliance?
It depends on your team and project. SAP 10.3 is pragmatic for teams not yet trained on HEM — it is familiar, faster, and uses existing software. HEM provides more accurate modelling and may reveal compliance margin or design flexibility. Both routes demonstrate compliance against the same notional building, so homes that pass either route meet the same standard.
Do SAP 10.3 and HEM give the same compliance result?
Not necessarily. Both routes compare against the same notional building, but the calculation methods differ. A dwelling that marginally passes on one route may marginally fail on the other, particularly for designs relying on heat pumps and solar PV where HEM's dynamic modelling is more accurate. Most well-designed FHS homes will pass on both routes.
When will SAP 10.3 stop being accepted for FHS compliance?
SAP 10.3 will be withdrawn a minimum of 24 months after HEM is approved. Since HEM arrives at least 3 months after FHS launch, SAP 10.3 will be available for a minimum of 27 months total from FHS launch. The exact end date depends on when HEM is approved.
Can I switch between SAP 10.3 and HEM during a project?
Each submission must use one route — you cannot mix them in a single assessment. However, you can use different routes for different plots on the same site. For example, SAP 10.3 for standard house types and HEM for complex designs where dynamic modelling helps. The choice is made at submission, not at project start.
Is it harder to pass compliance with HEM than SAP 10.3?
Not inherently, but results may differ. HEM models heat pumps and solar PV more favourably (dynamic COP, self-consumption), but also assesses fabric more rigorously (thermal bridges at every timestep). Well-designed FHS homes pass comfortably on both. Designs relying on generous SAP assumptions may find HEM less forgiving.
Related Pages
FHS Compliance Pathways
Full guide to the notional building approach and compliance metrics.
SAP vs HEM — Methodology Comparison
Broader comparison of SAP and HEM methodologies beyond FHS compliance.
For SAP Assessors
What the transition to HEM means for energy assessors.
Assessor Transition Guide
Detailed preparation guide for the move from SAP to HEM.