For a manufacturer, or a brand specifying a new model, the OCPP version choice is a product decision, not a fashion choice. OCPP 1.6J is the version the installed base of management platforms runs today. OCPP 2.0.1 is the newer build, with security and device management designed in, and it costs more engineering to implement well. Build for the platforms your buyers actually run — and state plainly which version each model implements.
Key Takeaways
- The version decision follows the buyer’s installed platforms, not the protocol’s age.
- OCPP 2.0.1 designs security and device management in; OCPP 1.6J reaches the widest platform base today.
- Supporting both versions means two implementations to build, test and maintain.
- State the implemented version per model — and only what production firmware delivers.
Start With the Platforms Your Buyers Run
A new model that cannot register with the platforms operators already run is unsellable, whatever its specification sheet promises. Operators hold large 1.6J fleets, and their management systems are the fixed point your product has to meet. So the first step is not a feature comparison; it is a market question. Ask target customers which versions their CSMS accepts — some platforms accept both — and read tender documents for the version they name. Our operator-side guide, OCPP Explained, sets out what each version offers the networks that run them; this article is about the build decision behind the datasheet.
What Each Choice Commits Your Engineering To
| Decision area | Building OCPP 1.6J | Building OCPP 2.0.1 |
|---|---|---|
| Platform reach | Registers with the widest installed base of CSMS platforms | Registers with the newer platforms that have adopted 2.0.1 |
| Security work | Security profiles are added through extensions; plan and test them deliberately | Security profiles and certificate handling are part of the core design |
| Device management | Configuration through a basic set of keys | A structured device model — components, variables, monitoring and reporting — to implement |
| Vehicle features | No native Plug & Charge route | Designed to work with ISO 15118 Plug & Charge |
| Test programme | Pairing tests against many installed platforms | Pairing tests against a smaller platform set, plus the new function set itself |
The Dual-Version Question
Supporting both versions is not a checkbox; it is two implementations to build, pairing-test and maintain through every firmware release. Some makers ship 1.6J now and design the communications hardware so a later model can carry 2.0.1. Others build 2.0.1 for a named customer whose platform requires it. What never works is wording: a datasheet that hints at a version the production firmware does not implement manufactures exactly the pairing failures that testing exists to catch.
Writing the Decision Into the Product Specification
- The exact OCPP version each model implements — stated per model, not per brand.
- The security expectations the build must meet, and how they will be tested.
- The named CSMS platforms the model will be pairing-tested against before launch.
- Whether ISO 15118 Plug & Charge is in scope for this model, or a later one.
- The datasheet wording, kept to version claims the production firmware can be held to.
EVDANCE’s networked models state OCPP 1.6J: the EV-AC03201T dual-connector AC station and the EV-RHDC30K-L compact DC charger. A brand planning a private-label networked model starts from the implementation the listing states, and confirms the pairing with its own platform in writing before launch. See the OEM and private-label program, or contact the team with your platform and version requirements.
Frequently Asked Questions
Should a new model skip 1.6J and go straight to 2.0.1?
Only when the platforms it must join already run 2.0.1. A model built for today’s tenders and operator networks still needs 1.6J, because that is what most installed CSMS platforms accept.
Can a 1.6J charger be upgraded to 2.0.1 with a firmware update?
Treat it as a major re-implementation, not a settings change: the message structure and device management differ in kind. If a supplier promises an upgrade path, get it as a written engineering commitment for that model, with milestones you can test against.
Does the newer version win more tenders?
Tenders name the version they require; match the document in front of you. Newer is not automatically compliant — a 2.0.1-only model fails a 1.6J requirement, and the reverse is also true.
Related Reading
- OCPP Explained: What Charge Point Operators Need From EV Charger Hardware
- OEM vs ODM EV Chargers: How Private-Label Charging Works
- OEM and Private-Label EV Chargers: A Complete Guide for Brands
- Smart Charging and Time-of-Use Tariffs: How Scheduling Cuts EV Charging Costs
