CANopen vs EtherCAT

They share application-layer DNA, so migration is natural — the real question is bandwidth and determinism.

CANopen vs EtherCAT

CANopen and EtherCAT share application-layer DNA — EtherCAT’s CoE (CANopen over EtherCAT) reuses the object dictionary and CiA 402 drive profile — which makes migration natural. The difference is bandwidth and determinism: CANopen tops out at 1 Mbit/s on a shared CAN bus, while EtherCAT delivers 100 Mbit/s with “processing on the fly” and sub-microsecond synchronisation.

At a glance

Criterion CANopen EtherCAT
Physical layer Classical CAN, ≤1 Mbit/s (CAN FD via CiA 1301) 100BASE-TX Ethernet, 100 Mbit/s
Governing body CiA ETG
Standards EN 50325-4 / CiA 301 IEC 61158, IEC 61784-2 (CPF 12)
Typical cycle time 1–10 ms <100 µs to ~1 ms
Synchronisation SYNC object Distributed Clocks, <1 µs jitter
Node limit 127 (practically fewer) 65,535 per segment
Slave hardware Any CAN controller (often on-MCU) Dedicated EtherCAT Slave Controller (ESC)

Engineering detail

CAN’s bus length is propagation-limited (~40 m at 1 Mbit/s, ~500 m at 125 kbit/s), and real-world worst-case latencies of 5–10 ms under load are the practical ceiling for CAN determinism. CANopen FD (CiA 1301) extends payloads to 64 bytes and 2–5 Mbit/s data-phase rates, improving throughput but not turning CAN into a hard-real-time motion bus.

EtherCAT reads and writes each slave “on the fly” as a single frame streams through, so cycle time is bounded by propagation and master processing rather than node count — 1,000 I/O in tens of microseconds is achievable. The cost is a hardware dependency: every EtherCAT slave needs an EtherCAT Slave Controller (ESC) ASIC/FPGA, whereas CANopen runs on the CAN peripheral already present in most MCUs.

When to choose which

CANopen for ≤8 axes, cycle times ≥1–2 ms, harsh/robust environments and the lowest per-node BOM. EtherCAT for high axis counts, sub-millisecond motion, tight synchronisation and large modular machines.

The ISIT-Neperis stacks

ISIT-Neperis provides both CANopen (CiA 301/302) stacks and EtherCAT tooling — including the FSoE Safety-over-EtherCAT stack and an FSoE/EtherCAT network simulation — so you can stay on CAN or move to EtherCAT without changing supplier.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is EtherCAT compatible with CANopen?

Largely, at the application layer: EtherCAT's CoE (CANopen over EtherCAT) reuses the CANopen object dictionary and CiA 402 drive profile, so device profiles and configuration know-how carry over and migration is an evolution, not a rewrite.

How much faster is EtherCAT than CANopen?

EtherCAT runs 100 Mbit/s with sub-microsecond synchronisation and cycle times below 100 µs, versus CANopen's ≤1 Mbit/s and 1–10 ms practical cycles — but EtherCAT needs an ESC chip per slave, while CANopen uses the CAN peripheral already in most MCUs.

When is CANopen still the better choice?

For ≤8 axes, cycle times of 1–2 ms or more, robust environments and the lowest per-node cost, CANopen remains the pragmatic choice; move to EtherCAT for high axis counts and sub-millisecond motion.

Discuss your application

Tell us about your use case and our engineers will help you scope it.

Contact Us