Tools

Operator Comparison

The 7 solar energy operators with documented profiles in Colombia, compared on the figures their sources actually publish — and only on those.

How to read this comparison

The gaps are real. When a cell says "Not documented" or "Not disclosed" it is because the operator's source does not publish that data — not because it has not been loaded. EPM does not publish capacity, number of projects or prices; Enel, AES and Celsia do not document the founding year of their Colombian entity. None of those cells is filled with an estimate.

Total MW and solar MW are separate columns on purpose. Enel reports 4,011 MW, but most is hydroelectric: only 688 MW are solar. Comparing Enel's 4,011 MW against Unergy's 50 MW says nothing about community energy. The charts on this page use solar MW for that reason.

Parent-group founding years are not those of the Colombian entity. Grupo Enel (Italy) dates from 1962 and AES Corporation (USA) from 1981, but no source documents when their Colombian subsidiary was incorporated. Placing "1962" next to Unergy's "2018" would compare different things, so those cells are left empty and the note explains why.

Comparative table

Filter by territorial presence or by price transparency. Sort by any numeric column.

The 7 operators with documented profiles. "Not documented" = the source does not publish the data. "Not disclosed" = the operator explicitly states it does not disclose it. Sort by column; cells with no data always appear last, in both directions.
Operator Founded Solar MW Total MW Projects Departments Prices Detail
Unergy 2018 50 50 72 2 Disclosed
Celsia Solar Not documented 355 1,900 20 8 Disclosed
EPM Not documented Not documented Not documented Not documented 3 Not disclosed
Erco Energia 2012 265.6 265.6 2,179 6 Not disclosed
Enel Green Power Colombia Not documented 688 4,011 Not documented 8 Not disclosed
AES Colombia Not documented 108 1,129 Not documented 4 Not disclosed
SunColombia / SunCompany 2012 57.6 57.6 Not documented 2 Not disclosed

"Departments" counts the coverage entries from each profile. In Unergy and SunColombia one of those entries is "National", which is not a department: their counts of 2 are not comparable line-for-line with Celsia's or Enel's 8. The source count is shown without normalizing it, because normalizing it would require deciding what "National" means and no source says.

Seven profiles, comparable only if read carefully

From a community solar fintech with 50 MW (Unergy) to the country's second-largest generator with 4,011 MW (Enel), of which only 688 are solar. The charts on this page use solar MW, never total MW, and every empty cell is a real gap in the source, not data pending upload.

Capacity and trajectory

Only on published figures. Each chart states who is excluded and why.

Installed solar capacity (MW)

Solar MW, not total MW. Enel appears with 688 MW and not its 4,011 MW, because 3,097 MW of that figure are hydroelectric and say nothing about community solar generation. EPM is not shown: its profile does not document installed capacity.

Unergy trajectory: cumulative mini-farms

Unergy is the only operator with a time series in the corpus: 4 mini-farms in 2023, 31 in 2024, 72 in 2025. None of the other six publishes an annual progression, and that is why this chart has no other lines. Drawing a growth curve for Celsia, Erco or Enel would require fabricating the intermediate data points.

Unergy vs. Erco Energia (documented axes)

Why the radar only compares two operators

A radar needs three or more axes with data for all participants. Of the 7 operators, only Unergy and Erco have the founding year of the Colombian entity, solar capacity and number of projects all documented simultaneously. Celsia, Enel and AES do not document founding year; Enel, AES and SunColombia do not document projects; EPM does not document any of the three. Adding them would require filling the gaps.

Values are normalized to % of the pair's maximum, not absolute units: the actual figures are in the table above. Erco scores 100 on all three axes because it genuinely surpasses Unergy on all three. That Unergy appears at 3 on the projects axis is exact (72 vs. 2,179) — the scale is not smoothed to look better.

There are no axes for "price", "technology" or "community focus". No source publishes a comparable score for those dimensions, and converting profile prose into a number from 1 to 10 would be fabricating it.