HAZOP Software
Comparison 2026 (5 Vendors, 3 Workflow Categories)

Facilitation software (PHA-Pro, Open-PHA, SALUS, Kairos) helps teams conduct new HAZOP studies during design reviews. Register extraction (Pathnovo) digitises completed study PDFs into structured, queryable registers with action tracking. They solve different problems and are complementary, not competitive. A typical OISD 118-jurisdiction refinery uses PHA-Pro to facilitate the live study, then Pathnovo to maintain the resulting register through closure and the mandatory 5-year re-validation cycle.

No, they are complementary. PHA-Pro creates HAZOP studies. Pathnovo processes the output (the PDF report) into structured registers and manages the workflow through to verified closure. Use PHA-Pro to facilitate the live study, then Pathnovo to digitise the resulting register and maintain OISD 118 / IEC 61882 / MoPNG compliance over the asset lifecycle.

SALUS and Kairos provide AI assistance during live HAZOP workshops, recording actions in real-time. Pathnovo provides post-workshop extraction from the resulting study PDFs. Different stages of the same workflow: facilitation tools record what was said during the workshop; Pathnovo turns the workshop output into a queryable, audit-ready register mapped to current P&ID revisions. Most Indian PSU refineries running 5-year HAZOP re-validation deploy both: facilitation tool during the workshop, Pathnovo afterwards.

Only Pathnovo produces OISD 118-aligned register output natively (inter-distance tables, HAZOP action structure, MoPNG audit-pack format) along with cross-references to IBR Form IV and PESO Form XIV/XV. PHA-Pro and other study facilitation tools record actions in workshop format but do not produce OISD 118 audit-pack output. SALUS and Kairos similarly focus on facilitation, not regulatory compliance output.

Pathnovo's credit-based pricing is transparent on the pricing page. HAZOP studies are extracted at 48-96 hour SLA per study. Typical Indian refinery unit HAZOP study (800-3,000 page PDF) fits inside Starter or Professional tier credit allocation. Book a demo to see extraction on your own documents. PHA-Pro is per-seat / per-organisation licensed at $30K-$100K+/yr for facilitation use; SALUS and Kairos are typically per-workshop or per-seat engagements (rates not publicly published).

Yes; this is the standard pattern. For an OISD-jurisdiction refinery on a 5-year HAZOP re-validation cycle: (a) PHA-Pro or SALUS / Kairos facilitates the live study, (b) Pathnovo extracts the resulting PDF into a structured register mapped to current P&ID nodes, (c) the register feeds OISD 118 / IBR / PESO compliance workflows continuously through to the next re-validation. No single product covers the full lifecycle.

For safety-critical industries (refining, petrochemical, fertiliser, LNG / LPG, gas processing, fine chemicals, pharma manufacturing, nuclear), HAZOP software should be compared along seven criteria that go beyond generic feature lists. (1) Workflow stage coverage: facilitation only (PHA-Pro, Open-PHA, SALUS, Kairos), post-workshop extraction only (Pathnovo), or both via combination. (2) Regulatory output fit: OISD 118 audit-pack for Indian MoPNG / PNGRB jurisdiction, IEC 61882 international, IEC 61511 SIL determination, ASME / API / NACE cross-reference for international scope, PESO Form XIV / XV for hazardous-area assets, IBR Form IV for pressure equipment. (3) P&ID revision-mapping: whether actions stay tied to the current P&ID revision or drift onto superseded nodes (the biggest hidden compliance risk in safety-critical industries). (4) Legacy backlog handling: whether the tool can digitise 20+ years of historical PDF HAZOP studies from prior consultancies (DNV, Lloyd's Register, Bureau Veritas, TÜV SÜD, KBC, Intertek, in-house teams) or only supports new studies authored in the tool. (5) Closure traceability: action status, evidence document linkage, sign-off matrix, and audit-day desk-review readiness. (6) Multi-asset and multi-jurisdiction support: critical for tier-1 owner-operators running portfolios across India, Gulf, Europe, and the Americas with different regulatory regimes per asset. (7) Combination economics: most safety-critical operators end up with two or three tools (facilitation + register management + extraction), so compare on the joint-deployment cost and integration friction rather than the per-tool sticker price. The featureMatrix and the ICP scenarios on this page apply this framework against PHA-Pro, Open-PHA, SALUS, Kairos, and Pathnovo.

Refineries and petrochemical plants are the highest-stakes HAZOP software buyers because the regulatory burden is heaviest (OISD 118 + IBR + PESO + CCOE in India; equivalent regimes in Gulf, Europe, US). For those plants specifically the comparison criteria are: (1) Does the tool produce OISD 118-compliant register output natively, or does it require bespoke template configuration? (2) Does it handle the 5-year mandatory re-validation cycle (OISD 118 + MoPNG)? (3) Does it map HAZOP actions across multiple P&ID revisions over a 5-to-20-year asset life? (4) Does it cross-reference HAZOP recommendations to IBR Form IV (pressure equipment scope) and PESO Form XIV / XV (hazardous area scope), so a single trip loop change does not orphan compliance in three registers? (5) Does it work with the existing legacy PDF HAZOP studies the plant already has? Of the five tools on this page, PHA-Pro answers (1) partially via custom templates, SALUS and Kairos answer it only at the workshop side, Open-PHA does not answer it, and Pathnovo answers all five natively. For non-Indian refineries without OISD-jurisdiction equivalents, criterion (1) drops in weight and PHA-Pro's bowtie integration becomes a stronger differentiator.

Five industry groups have a structural need for ongoing HAZOP register management that goes beyond what facilitation tools (PHA-Pro, SALUS, Kairos, Open-PHA) provide on their own. (1) Refining (CDU-VDU, hydrocracker, FCCU, coker, hydrotreater) where 5-year mandatory re-validation under OISD 118 / MoPNG creates a continuous register lifecycle. (2) Petrochemical (steam cracker, polyethylene, polypropylene, aromatics) where production scale and HAZOP node count mean PDF studies routinely exceed 2,000 pages and need digitisation to remain queryable. (3) Gas processing and LNG / LPG terminals where PESO and CCOE compliance pull HAZOP recommendations into formal hazardous-area registers maintained over the asset life. (4) Fertiliser and fine chemicals where MoC (Management of Change) cycles trigger frequent re-HAZOP requirements and the register must show delta tracking across versions. (5) Pharma manufacturing and nuclear (less common in current scope but adjacent) where regulatory audit cadence (FDA cGMP for pharma, AERB for nuclear in India) requires continuously-maintained safety registers rather than point-in-time workshop output. For all five, the optimal architecture is a facilitation tool for new studies plus Pathnovo for register extraction and lifecycle maintenance.