McCormick vs ConEst IntelliBid.

McCormick vs ConEst: which electrical estimating system is the better buy?

A note on sources before the detail. McCormick publishes its own "McCormick vs. ConEst" page, and it is worth reading as long as you remember who wrote it. Everything below comes from each vendor's own site as read in November 2026, with third-party claims labelled. Both companies keep a good deal behind the demo form, so some rows are shorter than I would like.

Pricing reviewed 13 November 2026, based on public documentation as of Nov 2026; neither vendor publishes a price list. McCormick and Design Estimating Pro are trademarks of McCormick Systems, and ConEst, IntelliBid and SureCount are trademarks of Conest Corporation; this is an independent comparison.

Side by side

One product or a family of them

The first difference between McCormick and ConEst is how the product is packaged. McCormick presents a single path: the drawing, the takeoff and the estimate sit in one workflow, backed by a preloaded material database with supplier pricing. You are buying one thing and the conversation with sales is mostly about seats and trades.

ConEst is a family. IntelliBid is the estimating program and comes in three editions, Standard, Plus and Pro. SureCount is the takeoff product. Conest Connect handles reporting, and CE Cloud is the hosted option. That structure can work in a small contractor's favor, since a tiered product lets you start lower, but it also means a ConEst quote has more moving parts. Before comparing numbers, write down which IntelliBid edition is quoted, whether SureCount is on it, and whether it is on-premise or CE Cloud. I am not going to list what separates the three editions, because I could not verify the split from public pages; ask ConEst for the edition comparison in writing.

Takeoff: Auto Home Run against Auto Count

Each vendor holds a patent on a different part of the takeoff, and it tells you what each one thinks the hard part is.

ConEst's SureCount is about the count. Its Auto Count is described as counting all symbol types on a drawing simultaneously, so one pass over a lighting plan picks up every fixture type instead of one type per pass. On device-heavy work, such as a school or a clinic with 20 fixture types and hundreds of receptacles, that is where the hours go.

McCormick's Design Estimating Pro has auto-count too, alongside point-and-click counts and linear takeoff, but the patented piece is Auto Home Run. That is aimed at the wiring back to the panel, which is tedious to measure and easy to get wrong when circuits are grouped. On a job with long branch runs and many panels, that is the more valuable automation.

The fair way to judge is to bring the same two sheets to both demos: one dense lighting plan and one power plan with the panel schedule. Watch how each handles the part it does not hold the patent on. Neither site describes AI takeoff features as of November 2026; McCormick links to an AI statement, and ConEst's site does not mention AI. As published, these are assists inside a takeoff the estimator still drives.

Cloud, on-premise and trades

Deployment is the cleanest dividing line. McCormick now describes its software as cloud-based, accessible anywhere with internet and with no expensive hardware required. What I could not confirm is whether that means a true browser application or hosted Windows, and Mac support is not stated. If your estimators work from home on mixed laptops, ask McCormick to show it running on the exact machine you use.

ConEst gives you a choice: on-premise or CE Cloud. Some contractors still prefer estimating software and bid files on their own server, for IT policy or simply because the internet at the shop is unreliable, and for them ConEst's on-premise option is a real point in its favor. One third-party reviewer notes that moving documents out of the hosted cloud to a local machine is awkward, so if you go the CE Cloud route, test that file handling. Mac and browser support for CE Cloud is not stated either.

Trade coverage differs in a useful way. McCormick covers electrical, plumbing and mechanical, which suits a multi-trade MEP contractor that wants one estimating system. ConEst's stated focus is electrical, low voltage, datacom and solar, which suits an electrical contractor with a structured cabling or solar division.

Pricing, trials and the verdict

Pricing is not public for McCormick or ConEst. Third-party listings report McCormick from $300 per month, a figure McCormick does not publish itself. I have seen a per-seat number for ConEst on a competitor's blog and am not repeating it, because it is a single unverified source. Third-party listings also report that IntelliBid has no free trial, so expect a guided demo.

If I had to reduce it to one question: do you want the vendor to host it and keep every trade in one system, or do you want control over where it runs and a product tuned to electrical and low voltage? The first points to McCormick, the second to ConEst. For the incumbent on the other side of the market, see Accubid vs McCormick.

If you would rather not click at all

Both systems speed up a takeoff that an estimator still performs. Pilars does the reading itself. Upload the plan set and the spec book, and the software goes through every sheet, resolves the fixture and panel schedules and cross-sheet references, counts devices, measures and traces runs, and returns quantities with a confidence score and the sheet each one came from. The estimator checks the work instead of producing it.

Pilars is $300 per user per month, billed monthly or annually. Each user covers one trade of their choice with unlimited takeoffs, so an electrical estimator is one user and the cost does not change with how many sets you bid. Because Pilars sits ahead of the estimating system, that is a cost on top of McCormick or IntelliBid, not instead of one. It runs in a browser, any detection can be edited before export, and electrical is one of 19 trades alongside plumbing, HVAC and fire protection. For evidence on counting, see the published duplex receptacle count benchmark, where the Pilars model scored 97.5% on a real power plan.

The honest boundary: Pilars produces the takeoff and an Excel export, not a priced estimate with labor units and supplier pricing. A contractor with a tuned McCormick or IntelliBid database would keep it and use Pilars to cut the hours spent in front of the drawings. Try your own set in the live demo.

Questions estimators actually ask