Allen Bradley Vs. Mitsubishi

[SubaruGuy207 0]

I work for an OEM in the USA that currently uses Allen Bradley Micrologix series PLCs and PanelView HMIs.  We are considering making a switch to Mitsubishi FX3 series PLCs and GT HMIs.  What advantages are there to using the Mitsubishi line of components over the AB line?  

[TimWilborne 107]

You are going to get tons of varying opinions on this. I my opinion is it is like comparing two car brands.  You may have a preference, but they both with do the job just fine.  I think the question you have to ask is what are you dissatisfied about your current PLCs that you think the new ones will solve and are you prepared for support both brands during the transition plus are you prepared to retrain those involved on the new brand?

[gleblanc 1]

I've got PLCs and HMIs from both lines that you're thinking of using.  I don't find that there is a strong advantage to one brand over the other overall.  AB equipment is more readily available in our area.  I do not like any of the HMI programming software from AB.  I found GT designer a bit less painful, but in most of our new panels we are using RedLion HMIs, which I like better than either GOT, PanelvVew Plus, or PanelView Component.  

One of the things that Mitsubishi makes a little easier than AB is building a rack with different amounts of I/O and using the same program on both. The AB PLCs will wind up with the outputs re-numbered based on how many cards are actually installed.  With the Mitsubishi you can specify the starting addresses (at least on the Q PLCs, I've not tried this on FX).

[Paullys50 2]

It really depends on how much you have going on in your logic and HMI screens. Mitsubishi can do it just like AB, however in my opinion AB programming software is better. My perspective is from a ControlLogix/CompactLogix perspective. I would still say I would prefer RSLogix 500 over Mitsubishi software. The new GOTs do have some nice features to them, I'm not a big fan of the development environment either. But FT ME isn't all that great either. So call that one a wash.

Edited 4 Feb 2016 by Paullys50

[kaiser_will 65]

Rockwell/A-B...contact tech support; expensive software and programming cables; decent technical literature; very good programming environment that has many features built-in; more expensive components; excellent life-cycle support; good integrated motion programming environment

Mitsubishi...free M-F 8a-5p CST tech support; cheap software and programming cables; could use more technical literature; dated programming environment that requires custom coding and technical guidance; cheaper components; good life-cycle support; once you get to be an expert, good integrated motion programming environment

What are the objectives your OEM is using for considering the platform switch from Rockwell/A-B to Mitsubishi?

My personal choice...stick with what you have invested in unless that platform is clearly not fulfilling your needs.  Any cost savings in the areas of support or hardware are lost in the learning curve to becoming proficient in another platform.