Tagsight vs AVEVA P&ID-style workflows
Project-database-centered P&ID workflows store tag data in a shared engineering database, with diagrams as one of several views. Tagsight takes the rendered drawing as input and produces structured tag data directly from it. Different jobs done well. The comparison is on the controls-document side.
At a glance · Time per drawing
Minutes per drawing for extraction. Review and exception handling are where engineer time goes.
Depends on how complete the engineering database is for the project. Drawings outside the database require separate transcription.
Read one of your own drawings.
Drop a P&ID, instrument index, or schedule. Tagsight reads it to the tag and opens a workspace you keep when you sign in.
PDF · DWG · DXF · TIFF · PNG · XLSX
Comparison.
| Axis | Tagsight | Alternative |
|---|---|---|
| Time per drawing | Minutes per drawing for extraction. Review and exception handling are where engineer time goes. | Depends on how complete the engineering database is for the project. Drawings outside the database require separate transcription. |
| Revision handling | Upload two revisions, run Revision Comparison, export MOC-ready Change Report Excel. Audit trail of comparison history. | Revisions managed inside the project database for in-database drawings. Out-of-database drawings handled separately. |
| Signal classification consistency | Classifier runs the same way on every drawing across the project. Low-confidence reads are flagged. | Consistency depends on project setup and which engineer authored each tag in the database. |
| Audit trail | Per-tag source page, source region, and review decision. Queryable and version-controlled. | Audit trail in the project database for in-database tags. Drawings outside the database have no equivalent. |
| Output formats | Excel, CSV, TIA Portal XML, Rockwell L5X, PLCCreator, DEXPI, JSON, annotated PDF. | Output formats depend on the modeling environment build and licensed modules. |
Time per drawing
Minutes per drawing for extraction. Review and exception handling are where engineer time goes.
Depends on how complete the engineering database is for the project. Drawings outside the database require separate transcription.
Revision handling
Upload two revisions, run Revision Comparison, export MOC-ready Change Report Excel. Audit trail of comparison history.
Revisions managed inside the project database for in-database drawings. Out-of-database drawings handled separately.
Signal classification consistency
Classifier runs the same way on every drawing across the project. Low-confidence reads are flagged.
Consistency depends on project setup and which engineer authored each tag in the database.
Audit trail
Per-tag source page, source region, and review decision. Queryable and version-controlled.
Audit trail in the project database for in-database tags. Drawings outside the database have no equivalent.
Output formats
Excel, CSV, TIA Portal XML, Rockwell L5X, PLCCreator, DEXPI, JSON, annotated PDF.
Output formats depend on the modeling environment build and licensed modules.
When this is the right call.
- Document side of the project, I/O list, equipment list, line list, MOC change reports is the primary need
- Drawing set includes scans or PDFs not held in the project database
- Team wants to skip the database-maintenance overhead for downstream extraction work
- Per-tag audit trail is required for HAZOP, MOC, or SIS proof-test documentation
When it is not the right call.
- Authoring intelligent diagrams in a centralized engineering model is the team's primary output
FAQ.
Does Tagsight require the source engineering database.
No. The input is the rendered drawing. PDF, scan, or image. The system does not connect to or depend on a project database.
Can we use Tagsight alongside an existing project model.
Yes. A common pattern is to keep the project model for diagram authoring and use Tagsight for the document side. I/O list, equipment list, line list, MOC change reports.
How are control loops represented.
Loop numbers come from the tag set per drawing and surfaced in the I/O list. The I/O list groups instruments by loop, equipment, and source drawing.
Is DEXPI an output option.
Yes. DEXPI 1.3 XML is one of the standard exports.
What about scans of drawings that never made it into the database.
Scans produce the same structured outputs. The cleaner the scan, the less you confirm by hand in the review canvas.