FoundryNet / Compare / MTConnect vs OPC UA
Protocol comparison

MTConnect vs OPC UA

The machine-tool standards question. Both claim the shop floor, and several controllers now expose both simultaneously.

Get an API key All 14 adapters

Side by side

The comparison

MTConnectOPC UA
SpecificationANSI/MTC1.4IEC 62541
First published20082008
TransportHTTP, XML documentsTCP binary on 4840, or HTTPS
Data modelA machine-tool semantic dictionary. DataItems classified as Sample, Event or Condition, with defined types and units.A full information model: typed nodes, references, objects, methods and historical access. The richest model in industrial automation.
DiscoveryYes — /probe returns the full device model before you read a value.Built in. Browse the address space, read the type definitions.
SecurityNone in the protocol. Read-only by design, usually kept on the plant network.Built in and mandatory to configure: X.509 certificates, signing, encryption, user authentication.
Polling or subscriptionPolling with sequence numbers, plus long-poll streaming from /sample.Both. Polled reads and subscriptions with monitored items and dead-banding.
Implementation complexityLow to moderate. It is HTTP and XML; the agent/adapter split is the only real concept.High. The stack is large, certificate handling is a real operational task, and server implementations vary.
Typical industriesCNC machine tools, almost exclusively. Its vocabulary is metalcutting.Modern machine tools, robotics, packaging, anything specified after ~2015.
Forge supportAdapter shipped. 21 OEM families mapped.Adapter shipped. 23 OEM families mapped.

Where each one wins

MTConnect

Strength. The only protocol here that ships an opinion about what a machine tool means.

What it costs you. Read-only, machine-tool-specific, and the vocabulary is a floor not a ceiling — vendors add their own DataItem names freely.

MTConnect adapter →

OPC UA

Strength. Self-describing. You can walk a server you have never seen and learn what it holds.

What it costs you. Self-describing is not the same as standardised — two vendors model the same machine differently, so the names still need mapping.

OPC UA adapter →

MTConnect knows what a machine tool is; OPC UA knows how to describe anything. If every asset you care about is a metalcutting machine, MTConnect's vocabulary saves you work. The moment a robot, a washer or a CMM joins the cell, that vocabulary stops and OPC UA's generality starts to matter.


The Forge angle

Whichever one you pick, the output is the same

Forge is not an argument for a protocol. It is the layer that makes the choice stop mattering downstream: 16,908 curated mappings across 14 protocol adapters, resolving to 366 canonical fields with enforced units and physics bounds.

Two devices, two protocols, two vendors, two entirely different tag names — and one canonical field out. Both of these are real mappings from the corpus, not illustrations.

MTConnect — Haas

# raw tag on the wire
{"F Rate (ipm)": 1450}
# normalized
{"feed_rate": 1450}

OPC UA — Fanuc

# raw tag on the wire
{"actual_feed": 1450}
# normalized
{"feed_rate": 1450}

Same field: feed_rate. Same unit contract, same physics bounds, same shape. Your query does not need to know which protocol the reading arrived on.

# Try it against both, with no key and no account
docker run -p 8000:8000 ghcr.io/foundrynet/forge-sandbox

Keep reading

Protocol hubs

MTConnect OPC UA All adapters
The protocol you pick matters less than the schema underneath. The Machine Agent, weekly. Read it →
Get the thesis behind this infrastructure — The Machine Agent, weekly.