ABB SACE Emax 2 vs Schneider MasterPact MVS: ACB Comparison Guide
What is an ACB comparison between ABB SACE Emax 2 and Schneider MasterPact MVS? An ACB comparison between ABB SACE Emax 2 and Schneider MasterPact MVS evaluates two IEC 60947-2-rated air circuit breaker platforms covering 630–6300 A, with breaking capacities reaching 150 kA Icu, across frame sizes, trip unit architectures, and digital communication capabilities. Selecting the wrong platform for a given installation — misaligned Icu/Ics ratings, incompatible fieldbus protocols, or insufficient short-time withstand current — can compromise protection coordination, delay commissioning, or create cybersecurity exposure in connected switchgear. This guide covers mechanical frame construction, Ekip Touch versus Micrologic X trip unit functionality, IEC 60947-2 short-circuit performance, PROFIBUS/IEC 62443 digital integration, and documented application case examples.
Why this comparison matters: two dominant ACB platforms
If you walk into a main LV switchboard anywhere from a Rotterdam container terminal to a São Paulo automotive plant, the odds are very high that the incomer is either an ABB Emax 2 (SACE Emax 2) or a Schneider MasterPact. These two ranges have effectively split the global premium ACB market between them, with Siemens 3WL and a handful of regional players making up most of the remainder. For procurement teams running standardisation programmes across multiple sites, picking the wrong platform is expensive — not because either is technically inferior, but because mixing them across a fleet doubles the spares inventory, training requirements and digital integration work.
In our experience supplying both platforms across EMEA and Asia, the decision rarely comes down to raw breaking capacity. Both meet IEC 60947-2 Utilisation Category B with comparable Icw values. The differences that actually drive engineering choices are subtler: trip unit firmware behaviour, withdrawable cassette mechanics, communication protocol licensing, and the regional availability of replacement Ekip or Micrologic modules.
Quick orientation: what each name actually means
ABB SACE Emax 2 is the second generation of the SACE Emax platform, launched in 2014 and still the current portfolio. The frames are E1.2, E2.2, E4.2 and E6.2, covering 630 A through 6300 A. Schneider MasterPact MVS is the medium-frame ACB sitting below the larger MasterPact MTZ. The MVS covers 800 A to 4000 A and shares the Micrologic trip unit family with MTZ. Worth noting: Schneider's flagship is now MasterPact MTZ, but MVS remains specified across countless installed projects and remains in active production for the Asia-Pacific market and selected European tenders.
Mechanical construction and frame sizes compared
Both platforms use a stored-energy spring mechanism with a charging motor option, draw-out (withdrawable) and fixed variants, and a modular accessory bay. The first real differentiator is frame compactness. The ABB Emax 2 E1.2 frame, which covers 630 A to 1600 A, is genuinely small for an ACB — 296 mm wide for the three-pole version. That matters in retrofit projects where you are trying to fit a modern ACB into an existing 1990s switchboard cubicle.
Schneider MVS is dimensionally similar to the older Emax (first generation) and slightly larger than Emax 2 in the lower current bands. For new-build projects this is rarely material. For replacements of legacy Masterpact M08–M16 or Emax E1, the Emax 2 E1.2 typically drops in with less metalwork modification.
Withdrawable cassettes: a point engineers often overlook
A common mistake during specification is to assume all withdrawable ACBs behave the same in service. They do not. The Emax 2 cassette uses a racking screw with positive engagement at three positions — connected, test, isolated — with a clear mechanical interlock against racking under load. The MasterPact MVS uses a similar three-position scheme but the racking handle interface and the position indicator window sit in different locations, which has training implications for maintenance crews who have only ever worked on one brand.
What we typically see in the field: shutdown windows are short, and an electrician who has racked out 200 Emax 2 breakers in their career will be measurably slower on a MasterPact MVS for the first dozen operations. Standardisation pays back here.
Trip units: Ekip Touch vs Micrologic X compared
This is where the two platforms diverge most clearly, and where most procurement decisions between the ABB Emax 2 and the MasterPact MVS are actually won or lost.
ABB Ekip family
The Emax 2 ships with the Ekip trip unit family. The basic models — Ekip Dip LI and Ekip Dip LSI — provide DIP-switch configured Long-time, Short-time and Instantaneous protection without a display. These are common on cost-sensitive distribution feeders. The fixed 630 A ABB 1SDA070701R1 E1.2B 630 Ekip Dip LI and the 800 A ABB 1SDA070741R1 E1.2B 800 Ekip Dip LI are typical of this category — 42 kA Icu, three-pole, fixed mounting, Ekip Dip LI trip unit.
Step up to Ekip Touch and Ekip Hi-Touch, and you get a colour LCD display, configurable via the front panel or via Ekip Connect software, plus optional G (ground fault), R (residual current), D (directional), and U (under/over voltage) protection blocks. The Ekip Hi-Touch adds power quality measurement to IEC 61557-12 class.
Schneider Micrologic family
MasterPact MVS ships with the Micrologic family — Micrologic 2.0/3.0/5.0/6.0/7.0 in the older naming, or the newer Micrologic X for MTZ. On the MVS specifically, the predominant trip units are Micrologic 2.0/5.0/6.0/7.0. The 5.0 provides LSI, the 6.0 adds ground-fault, and the 7.0 adds earth-leakage. Micrologic A units offer ammeter functions; Micrologic E units add energy metering; Micrologic P and H units extend to protection-grade metering and waveform capture.
In practice, the protection algorithms are functionally equivalent at the block level — both implement the inverse-time, definite-time and instantaneous functions per IEC 60947-2 Annex F. Where they differ is the user experience: Micrologic uses a numeric keypad with a small monochrome display on the standard units; Ekip Touch uses a graphical colour interface. For technicians comfortable with smartphones, Ekip Touch has a shorter learning curve.
Formula: Long-time inverse-time tripping curve — Source: IEC 60947-2 Annex F
ttrip = (k × tr) / ((I / Ir)² − 1)
| Symbol | Description | Unit |
|---|---|---|
| ttrip | Tripping time at fault current I | s |
| I | Measured RMS current | A |
| Ir | Long-time pickup setting | A |
| tr | Long-time delay band setting at 6 × Ir | s |
| k | Curve constant (typically 36 for I²t curve) | — |
Both platforms implement this curve with slight algorithmic differences in thermal memory behaviour. Engineers performing detailed coordination studies in ETAP or SKM should always import the manufacturer's actual curve files rather than approximating with the formula above.
Performance and short-circuit ratings under IEC 60947-2
Both the ABB Emax 2 and the MasterPact MVS are tested to IEC 60947-2 with full ratings published for Icu (ultimate short-circuit breaking capacity), Ics (service short-circuit breaking capacity) and Icw (short-time withstand current).
| Criteria | ABB SACE Emax 2 (E2.2N) | Schneider MasterPact MVS (N1) | Reference Standard |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rated current range | 800–2500 A | 800–2000 A | IEC 60947-2 §4.3.2.3 |
| Rated insulation voltage Ui | 1000 V AC | 1000 V AC | IEC 60947-2 §4.3.1.3 |
| Icu @ 415 V AC | 66 kA | 50 kA | IEC 60947-2 §4.3.5.2 |
| Ics @ 415 V AC (% of Icu) | 100% | 100% | IEC 60947-2 §4.3.5.4 |
| Icw (1 s) | 66 kA | 42 kA | IEC 60947-2 §4.3.6.1 |
| Mechanical endurance (CO cycles) | 25,000 | 12,500 | IEC 60947-2 §8.3.4 |
| Electrical endurance @ 690 V | 10,000 | 6,000 | IEC 60947-2 §8.3.4 |
| Utilisation category | B | B | IEC 60947-2 §4.4 |
| Trip unit (standard) | Ekip Dip / Ekip Touch | Micrologic 2.0/5.0 | — |
Two observations from this table. First, the headline Icu numbers favour Emax 2 at the same frame size when comparing N performance class to N performance class, but Schneider's MVS H and L variants close the gap at the cost of higher list price. Second, mechanical endurance figures are quoted differently between the two manufacturers — always read the IEC 60947-2 test conditions footnote in the catalogue, not just the headline number.
Selectivity and zone-selective interlocking (ZSI)
Both platforms support ZSI between upstream ACB and downstream MCCBs of the same brand. Cross-brand ZSI is technically possible via hardwired interlocking signals but loses the time-coordinated benefits. In switchboards where the main is one brand and the feeders are another, you typically fall back on time-grading with a 100–150 ms step between levels — fully covered in our ACB sizing guide for motor feeders.
Communications, digital integration and cybersecurity
Modern switchboards are increasingly expected to push real-time data into SCADA, BMS or cloud asset-management platforms. Both the ABB Emax 2 and the MasterPact MVS cover the major protocols, but with different licensing models.
Protocol support
Emax 2 with Ekip Com modules supports Modbus RTU, Modbus TCP, Profibus DP, Profinet, EtherNet/IP, IEC 61850 and DeviceNet. The IEC 61850 module enables direct integration into substation automation systems where the LV ACB needs to publish GOOSE messages to upstream MV protection — increasingly common in critical-power facilities such as data centres and pharmaceutical manufacturing.
MasterPact MVS with the corresponding Micrologic communication options supports Modbus RTU, Modbus TCP, Profibus, and via gateway IEC 61850. Schneider's EcoStruxure Power platform integrates the MVS data into building-level dashboards. ABB Ability Electrical Distribution Control System plays the equivalent role on the ABB side.
Cybersecurity
Engineers often overlook this until the first IT audit. Newer Ekip Touch firmware (from 2020 onward) implements role-based access control with password protection per IEC 62443-4-2. Micrologic X on MTZ implements similar features; Micrologic on MVS varies depending on firmware vintage. If your specification calls for IEC 62443 compliance, verify the trip unit firmware version against the manufacturer's compliance declaration before placing an order. Some installed base predates these requirements entirely.
Real-world applications and case examples
Case 1: Data centre 2N main-tie-main scheme
A Tier III colocation facility we supplied in Frankfurt used six ABB Emax 2 E4.2 frames at 4000 A as main and tie breakers across two A/B distribution boards. The selection criteria were: Icw of 100 kA for 1 s (to ride through a downstream MCCB clearing without nuisance trip), IEC 61850 GOOSE for fast bus-tie transfer, and Ekip Hi-Touch for power quality logging to satisfy the customer's uptime SLA reporting. MasterPact MTZ would have met the same criteria; MVS at 4000 A in this Icw class is at the edge of its range. For the data-centre context, see our selection guide for data centre power distribution.
Case 2: Cement plant 1600 A motor feeder
A cement grinding mill in Türkiye specified six 1600 A feeders to MV/LV transformer secondaries powering 1100 kW VSDs. The customer's procurement team was already standardised on ABB across the rest of the plant. The chosen unit was the ABB 1SDA070861R1 E1.2B 1600 Ekip Dip LI. The Ekip Dip LI was sufficient because upstream MV relay protection handled all selectivity; the LV ACB only needed L and I functions, not S. This dropped the unit price by roughly 18% versus an Ekip Touch variant — meaningful across a six-unit order.
Case 3: Marine emergency switchboard
A specialised survey vessel needed a 1250 A emergency main board ACB rated for marine ambient (55 °C continuous) and capable of full operation after seawater spray exposure per IEC 60068-2-52. We specified the ABB 1SDA070821R1 E1.2B 1250 Ekip Dip LI with marine derating tables applied. MasterPact MVS would have been an equally valid choice; the deciding factor was the existing fleet's spares pool — every other vessel in the operator's fleet ran Emax 2.
Case 4: Industrial generator changeover
A pharmaceutical plant in Singapore used a pair of ABB 1SDA070981R1 E2.2B 1600 Ekip Dip LI breakers as generator and mains incomers, with mechanical and electrical interlocks for changeover. The Emax 2's E2.2 frame allowed both incomers in compact cubicles. The Ekip Dip LI was chosen because the changeover logic ran in an external PLC; the trip units only needed standard overcurrent protection.
Total cost of ownership: price, spares, and service network
List pricing on either the ABB Emax 2 or the MasterPact MVS varies wildly by region, distributor, project volume and frame configuration. Direct list-to-list comparison is misleading. What we typically see in EMEA project pricing:
- For equivalent 1600 A, Icu 50 kA, fixed-mounting, basic LI trip unit configurations, Emax 2 and MasterPact MVS land within ±5–10% of each other on transactional pricing.
- Withdrawable variants with full LSIG trip units widen the gap to ±15%, depending on negotiation leverage and accessory bundling.
- Spares — particularly trip units, charging motors and shunt trips — are typically 8–15% cheaper on Emax 2 in the European market, partly reflecting ABB's wider Italian and Eastern European distribution depth. The opposite is true in parts of Southeast Asia where Schneider's MVS service network is denser.
Lead-time reality check
Since 2021, both platforms have suffered semiconductor and electronic-component supply pressure on the trip unit side. Lead times that were 4–6 weeks pre-2020 stretched to 16–24 weeks at the worst point in 2022, and have since recovered to roughly 8–12 weeks ex-factory for standard configurations. Distributor stock — see air circuit breakers at Stoklink — bridges this gap when project timelines cannot wait.
Selection methodology: how we choose between them
There is no universal answer because the right ACB — whether an ABB Emax 2, a MasterPact MVS or another platform — depends on at least seven factors: required In, Icu, Icw, utilisation category, trip unit features, communication protocol, and fleet standardisation. Here is the decision sequence we use in practice.
Step 1: Define the electrical envelope
Establish the rated current In, the prospective short-circuit current at the installation point (Ipsc), and the required selectivity time. Both Emax 2 and MasterPact MVS will satisfy 90% of typical industrial envelopes up to 4000 A and 65 kA. If your prospective fault exceeds 80 kA at 415 V, you are comparing Emax 2 H or MasterPact MVS H/L variants, and the choice narrows.
Step 2: Define the trip unit feature set
Do you actually need ground fault (G), residual current (R), directional (D), under/over voltage (U), or full power quality (M/E)? In our experience, roughly 60% of industrial feeders only need LSI plus optional G. Specifying a Micrologic 6.0 or Ekip Hi-Touch when LSI suffices is a common waste — the ABB 1SDA070702R1 E1.2B 630 Ekip Dip LSI is a good example of cost-rational LSI specification for a 630 A feeder.
Step 3: Define the communication scope
Modbus RTU is universal and cheap. Modbus TCP is straightforward on either platform. IEC 61850 is a paid option on both, and is genuinely necessary only when the LV system needs to communicate with substation-grade IEDs upstream. Profinet and EtherNet/IP appear in process-industry projects with Siemens or Rockwell PLC standardisation respectively.
Step 4: Check the existing site standard
If 80% of your installed base is one brand, the marginal benefit of switching for a single project rarely outweighs the spares and training penalty. We covered the broader brand comparison logic in the ABB vs Schneider vs Siemens ACB comparison.
Step 5: Verify lead time against project schedule
If the breaker is on the critical path and ex-stock availability matters, distributor inventory takes precedence over brand preference. A 1000 A feeder where the customer specified Schneider but only ABB is available ex-stock — we frequently see project teams accept the substitution rather than slip commissioning by ten weeks. The ABB 1SDA070781R1 E1.2B 1000 Ekip Dip LI and ABB 1SDA071021R1 E2.2B 2000 Ekip Dip LI are typical of the SKUs we hold in regional stock.
Maintenance, ageing and end-of-life considerations
Both the ABB Emax 2 and the MasterPact MVS are designed for 25-year service life with periodic maintenance per IEC 60947-2 §B.7. In practice, the failure modes you will encounter are remarkably similar: contact erosion at high cycle counts, charging motor wear, trip unit electrolytic capacitor ageing on units more than 10–12 years old, and accessory contact failure on auxiliary switches.
What differs is parts availability over the long tail. Schneider has historically been more aggressive about declaring older Micrologic versions obsolete and forcing upgrades. ABB has supported earlier Emax (first generation) trip units further into their lifecycle, though both companies are converging on similar 15-year post-discontinuation parts support windows. If your asset is nuisance-tripping intermittently, the root cause checklist in our article on ACB nuisance tripping causes and fixes applies equally to both platforms.
Coordination with downstream MCCBs and MCBs
An ACB rarely operates in isolation. The downstream protection — moulded case circuit breakers (MCCBs), miniature circuit breakers (MCBs) and residual current devices — has to coordinate with the upstream ACB for both selectivity and let-through energy. Schneider publishes selectivity tables between MasterPact MVS and Compact NSX MCCBs; ABB publishes equivalent tables between the ABB Emax 2 and Tmax XT MCCBs. Cross-brand coordination is possible through generic time-current curve analysis but loses the published guarantee.
For a typical industrial board with an Emax 2 main and Tmax XT feeders, full selectivity up to the Icw of the upstream breaker is achievable with appropriate Ekip settings. Mixing brands sacrifices roughly one selectivity step. For complete LV protection portfolios, the Stoklink ranges of miniature circuit breakers, residual current devices and protection relays integrate cleanly downstream of either ACB platform.
Standards landscape: IEC, IEEE and NEMA cross-references
Both Emax 2 and MasterPact MVS are designed primarily to IEC 60947-2. For projects in North America requiring UL 1066 (low-voltage power circuit breakers) or ANSI C37.13, the platform variants change. ABB offers Emax 2 in UL-listed variants; Schneider offers MasterPact NW for UL/ANSI markets, which is mechanically related to MVS but separately certified. NEMA AB-3 testing requirements apply to molded-case devices, not directly to ACBs, but procurement specifications written to NEMA frameworks need translation when cross-referencing IEC catalogues.
IEEE 1584-2018 arc-flash calculations are independent of breaker brand but very dependent on instantaneous trip settings — Ekip and Micrologic both allow the engineer to select arc-flash reduction modes (lowered I-pickup) when maintenance personnel are working on energised equipment. The arc-flash reduction switch is wired through a two-position selector on the switchboard front and is increasingly required by site safety policies.
Related Reading
- What Is an Air Circuit Breaker and How Does It Work in Power Systems
- Air Circuit Breaker IEC 60947-2 Standard Explained for Engineers
- ABB vs Schneider Electric vs Siemens Air Circuit Breaker Comparison Guide
- Air Circuit Breaker for Data Center Power Distribution: Selection Guide
Ready to Source Air Circuit Breaker?
- Browse in-stock air circuit breaker units
- Request a custom quote — response within 4 hours
- Talk to an engineer
Frequently Asked Questions
Is ABB SACE Emax 2 directly interchangeable with Schneider MasterPact MVS in an existing switchboard?
No. The two platforms have different cubicle dimensions, racking interfaces and accessory wiring conventions, even where the rated current matches. Replacing an MVS with an Emax 2 (or vice versa) typically requires a new cassette frame, modified secondary wiring and updated drawings. Plan for switchboard panel modification, not a drop-in swap.
Which platform is better for IEC 61850 substation integration?
Both support IEC 61850 via dedicated communication modules — Ekip Com IEC 61850 on Emax 2, and equivalent Micrologic communication options on MasterPact MVS. Functionally they are equivalent at the GOOSE and MMS layer. The choice usually comes down to whichever platform integrates with your upstream protection IEDs and SCADA configuration toolchain. For a deeper view of how IEC 60947-2 ACBs interface with IEC 61850, see the IEC 60947-2 standard explained.
Can I mix Emax 2 main with Schneider MCCB feeders?
Yes, but you lose the published selectivity tables. Coordination has to be verified by time-current curve analysis using each manufacturer's tripping curves at your prospective fault current. In most cases you will achieve one selectivity step less than a same-brand cascade. For motor feeder coordination logic, our ACB sizing guide for motor feeders works through a worked example.
What is the typical lead time for Emax 2 versus MasterPact MVS?
As of late, ex-factory lead times are 8–12 weeks for standard configurations on both platforms. Distributor stock is shorter — often 1–3 weeks for common SKUs in the 630–2000 A range. Custom configurations with non-standard accessories or specialised trip units can extend to 14–18 weeks.
Does either platform offer better cybersecurity for connected systems?
Both ABB and Schneider have published roadmaps to IEC 62443-4-2 compliance. On the trip-unit side, Ekip Touch firmware from 2020 onward and Micrologic X firmware implement role-based access control, encrypted communications and audit logging. Older Micrologic A/E/P units on installed MVS breakers may not support these features without firmware or hardware upgrade — verify against the specific firmware version in your asset register.
Which platform has better long-term spares availability?
ABB has historically supported Emax (first generation) trip units later into the product lifecycle than Schneider has supported equivalent legacy Micrologic versions, but both have converged on roughly 15-year post-discontinuation parts support. For any breaker older than 12 years on a critical feeder, plan trip unit replacement proactively rather than reactively.
Are Emax 2 and MasterPact MVS suitable for marine and offshore applications?
Yes, both platforms have variants certified to major class society standards (DNV, ABS, Lloyd's Register, BV). Marine derating tables apply for 55 °C continuous ambient. Specify the marine-certified part numbers explicitly — generic industrial variants may not carry the necessary class certificates even if the underlying hardware is identical.
Conclusion: which platform should you choose?
Both ABB SACE Emax 2 and Schneider MasterPact MVS are mature, well-engineered ACB platforms that meet IEC 60947-2 utilisation category B with full selectivity and modern digital integration. For most industrial projects, the technical decision is genuinely close — within margin of error on raw specs. What tilts the choice in real procurement is fleet standardisation, regional service network density, ex-stock availability against your project schedule, and trip unit feature alignment with your protection scheme.
If we had to summarise: choose Emax 2 when frame compactness, Icw headroom, mechanical endurance, or existing ABB site standard matter. Choose MasterPact MVS when existing Schneider site standard, EcoStruxure Power integration, or denser regional service in Asia-Pacific tilts the balance. Specify trip units to the actual protection requirement, not to the maximum feature set the catalogue offers — Ekip Dip LSI and Micrologic 5.0 cover most feeder duties at materially lower cost than their Touch and 6.0/7.0 siblings.
For the full selection methodology including sizing calculations, coordination studies and procurement checklists across the entire ACB landscape, see our Air Circuit Breaker Guide: How It Works, Selection, Sizing and Maintenance. For current stock and pricing on Emax 2 SKUs across the E1.2 and E2.2 frames, browse the Stoklink air circuit breakers collection or contact our technical sales team with your single-line diagram for a configured quotation.