Get A Quote

Electric vs Hydraulic

  • Home
  • Technology
  • Electric vs Hydraulic Motion Platform
Comparison guide · drive technology

Electric vs Hydraulic Motion Platform

Electric drive has taken over most of the motion platform market over the past fifteen years, and for real engineering reasons. But hydraulic has not become obsolete, and several of the arguments made against it are out of date while a few arguments for it remain entirely valid. This page tries to separate the two.

Where Hydraulic Still Wins
Replacing a Hydraulic Platform
Our position, stated up front

We build all-electric platforms. We do not sell hydraulic.

You should know that before reading a comparison we wrote. It means we have a commercial interest in one of these answers, and you are entitled to weigh what follows accordingly.

What we have tried to do instead of pretending neutrality: state the hydraulic case as its advocates would state it, including the arguments that pro-electric material usually leaves out. Where hydraulic is the better engineering answer, this page says so — and says that we are not the right supplier for it.

If that turns out to be your situation, we would still rather you found out here than three months into a procurement.

Force density

Still hydraulic’s clearest structural advantage.

Heat location

A remote power unit takes heat and noise out of the room.

Energy use

An HPU runs continuously; electric draws roughly what it works.

Bandwidth gap

Largely closed — the old objection is mostly outdated.

Side by side

Electric vs Hydraulic: The Comparison

Attribute by attribute, with the winner marked where there is a clear one and marked as even where there is not. Several rows that older comparisons treat as decisive are genuinely close today.

Direct answer. For most motion platforms specified today, electric is the better choice — on energy, maintenance, uptime, cleanliness, noise and installed cost. Hydraulic retains a real advantage in force density for very large payloads, in holding load without continuous power, and in keeping heat and noise away from the platform. The decision turns on payload, duty cycle and site, not on drive technology in the abstract.

Attribute Hydraulic All-electric Practical effect
Force density Advantage Adequate to large Hydraulic delivers more force per unit of actuator volume and mass. Decisive at the top of the payload range.
Holding static load Advantage Needs brake or self-locking A closed valve holds load with almost no energy. An electric actuator must be braked or will draw current and heat.
Heat at the platform Advantage Heat is in the room The HPU can sit in a plant room. Servo drives reject heat where the platform is, which belongs in the HVAC calculation.
Shock and impact tolerance Advantage Screw drives are sensitive Fluid compliance and relief valves absorb shock. Roller and ball screws can be damaged by impact loading.
Energy consumption Continuous Advantage An HPU runs whether or not motion is demanded. Electric consumption tracks actual work, which matters most at low duty.
Maintenance burden Substantial Advantage Oil changes, filters, seals, hoses, contamination control and leak remediation versus greasing and periodic inspection.
Cleanliness Oil present Advantage Decisive for laboratories, cleanrooms, classrooms, medical and food-adjacent installations.
Installed infrastructure HPU, piping, bunding Advantage Electric needs power and cable. No plant room, oil handling, spill containment or associated fire measures.
Acoustic noise HPU noise, remote Advantage Electric is quieter overall, though the HPU's noise can be relocated rather than eliminated.
Low-speed control Valve deadband Advantage Electric avoids stiction and valve overlap effects, which helps fine positioning and slow trajectories.
Control bandwidth Even Even Historically hydraulic. Modern servo cylinders have closed most of the gap within typical motion-platform frequency content.
Motion fidelity (simulation) Even Even Several industry sources now treat the two as broadly equivalent for flight simulation. Design quality dominates drive type.
Peak payload ceiling Higher High but bounded Above a certain mass and acceleration, an electric solution becomes impractical rather than merely expensive.
Safety hazards Different Different Electric removes high-pressure fluid and fire load. It adds the need to engineer behaviour on power loss deliberately.
Stated as its advocates would state it

Where Hydraulic Genuinely Still Wins

These are not concessions offered for balance. They are the cases where, if you asked our engineers privately, they would tell you to buy a hydraulic platform — and where we would decline the enquiry rather than sell you something unsuitable.

Advantage 01

Force density at extreme payload

A hydraulic cylinder produces far more force per unit of volume and mass than any electromechanical actuator of comparable size. For very large cabins, complete vehicles or heavy structures, an electric solution stops being merely expensive and becomes physically impractical — the actuators grow beyond what the geometry can accommodate.

Advantage 02

Holding load without drawing power

Close a valve and a hydraulic cylinder holds its load almost indefinitely at near-zero energy cost. An electric actuator resisting gravity either needs a brake, a self-locking screw, or it draws continuous current and heats up. For platforms that spend long periods loaded and stationary, this is a real operating difference.

Advantage 03

Heat and noise are somewhere else

This one is routinely omitted from pro-electric comparisons, including most of the ones ranking for this search. A hydraulic power unit can be installed in a separate plant room, taking its heat and its noise with it. Electric servo drives reject their heat into the room where the platform stands, and on a large installation that is a genuine HVAC load to design for.

Advantage 04

Tolerance of shock and impact

Fluid compliance and relief valves give a hydraulic system a degree of natural protection against sudden overload. Ball and roller screws in electric actuators are comparatively intolerant of impact loading. For drop testing, crash-adjacent work or anything with genuine shock content, that difference matters.

Advantage 05

Existing hydraulic infrastructure

A facility already built around hydraulic power has the plant room, the piping, the spares, and — most importantly — maintenance staff who know the technology. Introducing a single electric platform into that environment means the one machine nobody is trained to service. That is a legitimate reason to stay with hydraulic.

Advantage 06

Very high sustained force duty

Applications demanding large continuous force — as opposed to intermittent dynamic motion — suit hydraulic well. Electric actuators are thermally limited by continuous duty in a way hydraulic cylinders fed by an adequately sized power unit are not.

If one of these describes your project

We are not the right supplier, and we would rather say so here than after a specification exchange. There is a genuine industry of hydraulic motion base specialists — including firms that publish detailed and well-argued material defending hydraulic drive, which is worth reading if your case sits in this territory.

That said, one caveat is worth stating in the other direction: a meaningful share of requirements that assume hydraulic can in fact be met electrically. Payload figures are often quoted with large unexamined margins, and duty cycles are often gentler than first described. If you would like a second opinion before committing, send the payload, trajectory and duty and we will tell you honestly whether electric reaches it.

Why the market moved

Where Electric Wins — and Why the Industry Shifted

Electric did not displace hydraulic across most of the motion platform market because of marketing. It happened because servo cylinder technology matured to the point where the remaining hydraulic advantages stopped applying to the majority of applications.

Advantage 01

Energy tracks the work done

A hydraulic power unit runs continuously, maintaining pressure whether the platform is moving or parked. An electric platform draws roughly in proportion to the motion demanded. For systems that are idle or lightly loaded much of the day — which describes most simulators and test rigs — the difference over a year is substantial.

Advantage 02

Maintenance largely disappears

No oil changes, no filter schedule, no seal replacement, no hose inspection or replacement intervals, no fluid analysis, no contamination control regime, no leak remediation. What remains is greasing, periodic inspection and eventual screw or bearing service.

Advantage 03

No oil, anywhere

For laboratories, cleanrooms, classrooms, medical environments and anywhere with a clean floor requirement, this is frequently the decisive factor on its own. It also removes spill containment, disposal and the associated permitting.

Advantage 04

Far less installed infrastructure

An electric platform needs an electrical supply and cable. No plant room, no pipe runs, no bunding, no oil handling equipment and no fire measures associated with a large volume of hydraulic fluid. On a new installation this is often a larger saving than the platform price difference.

Advantage 05

Cleaner control at low speed

Servo valves have deadband and hydraulic systems have stiction. Neither applies to a well-tuned electric axis, which makes slow trajectories and fine positioning more repeatable — one reason precision positioning hexapods have been essentially all-electric for years.

Advantage 06

Higher availability

Fewer consumables and fewer wear paths mean fewer unplanned stoppages. For a training device or a test rig with scheduled utilisation, uptime frequently outweighs the purchase price difference within the first few years.

This is not just our view. Moog — the supplier most associated with hydraulic motion bases historically, and still the largest name in the field — has publicly documented its own move to electric actuation for simulator motion systems, citing energy efficiency, uptime and reduced infrastructure cost. When the incumbent leader of a technology publishes the case for replacing it, that is a reasonable signal about where the engineering has landed.
Arguments worth retiring — on both sides

Three Claims That Are Now Out of Date

Comparison material on this topic has a long tail, and some of it is arguing about a state of the technology that no longer holds. Two of these are outdated arguments against electric; one is an overstated argument against hydraulic.

Outdated · against electric

"Electric cannot match hydraulic bandwidth"

Then: true, and decisively so. Now: modern servo electric cylinders cover the frequency content of typical motion platform work, and several industry sources treat the two as broadly equivalent for flight simulation performance. The gap survives only at the high-frequency end, where dedicated shaker systems are the real answer anyway.

Outdated · against electric

"Electric cannot handle serious payload"

Then: electric was a light-duty option. Now: servo electric platforms routinely handle multi-tonne payloads. There is still a ceiling above which hydraulic is the practical answer, but it is far higher than the reputation suggests, and many requirements assumed to be beyond electric are not.

Overstated · against hydraulic

"Hydraulic is obsolete"

Not true. Hydraulic drive remains the correct engineering answer for extreme payload, sustained holding force, shock-tolerant duty and facilities already built around it. A comparison that treats it as legacy technology is selling something. The honest claim is narrower: electric has become the better answer for most applications, not for all of them.

Where the money actually goes

Total Cost of Ownership Over a Platform's Life

Motion platforms are typically in service for ten to twenty years. On that horizon the purchase price is usually not the largest number, and the two technologies distribute their costs very differently.

The comparison most often presented is purchase price, where the difference is real but modest and varies by configuration. The comparison that decides most business cases is what happens over the following fifteen years.

Two items dominate. The first is energy: a hydraulic power unit maintains pressure continuously, so its consumption is largely a function of hours powered rather than motion demanded. A platform used two hours a day still runs its HPU all shift. An electric platform in the same duty draws a fraction of that.

The second is maintenance labour, which is frequently underestimated because it is distributed. Oil changes, filter replacement, seal kits, hose inspection and replacement, fluid sampling, contamination control and periodic leak remediation add up to a recurring commitment of skilled time.

Against those, hydraulic’s genuine cost advantages are: lower actuator cost at very high force ratings, and — where an HPU and trained staff already exist — near-zero marginal infrastructure cost.

Purchase price

Comparable at moderate ratings; hydraulic gains at very high force. Rarely the deciding number on its own.

Installation

Electric usually lower — no plant room, piping, bunding, oil handling or associated fire measures.

Energy

Electric usually much lower. The gap widens as duty cycle falls, because an HPU’s consumption is largely duty-independent.

Scheduled maintenance

Electric substantially lower. Removing the fluid removes most of the recurring schedule.

Unplanned downtime

Electric usually lower — fewer consumables and fewer wear paths.

Actuator replacement

Screws and bearings are a real end-of-life cost on electric. Hydraulic cylinders are often reseal-and-return.

Existing infrastructure

If an HPU, spares and trained staff already exist, hydraulic’s marginal cost can be very low. This can outweigh everything above.

Decommissioning

Electric lower — no fluid disposal, no contamination assessment, no residual spill liability.

The most common reason people read this page

Replacing an Ageing Hydraulic Platform With Electric

A large share of the people comparing these technologies are not specifying a new system at all. They have a hydraulic simulator or test rig approaching end of life, rising maintenance costs, and a decision to make about what replaces it.

Signals that a retrofit is due

Spares availability. Original servo valves, seals or control hardware becoming obsolete or single-sourced.

Fluid and disposal cost. Oil volume, sampling and disposal becoming a visible line item.

Rising leak frequency. Seal and hose remediation moving from annual to routine.

Facility pressure. Plant room space, noise complaints, HVAC load or environmental permitting under review.

Utilisation change. A device now used intermittently but still running its HPU all shift.

Skills attrition. The technician who understood the hydraulics has retired or is about to.

How the work is sequenced

Survey What Exists

Document the current envelope, payload, host interface, foundation, and the motion the device actually needs to deliver — which is often not what it was originally specified for.

Establish the Real Requirement

Legacy specifications frequently carry large unexamined margins. Re-deriving the requirement from current use often reveals a smaller, cheaper platform is sufficient.

Check the Interfaces

Host protocol, command convention, coordinate frame, update rate and safety interlocks. This is where retrofits usually get difficult, not in the mechanics.

Plan Structure and Foundation

The existing foundation was designed around hydraulic loads and mounting. Load paths and anchor patterns need checking against the new platform, not assuming.

Usually retained

  • Cabin, cockpit shell or test fixture
  • Visual system, projection and displays
  • Host computing and application software
  • Instructor station and peripherals
  • Room, access stairs and safety perimeter
  • Building foundation, subject to load-path review

Always replaced

  • Actuators — cylinders become servo electric cylinders
  • Hydraulic power unit, piping and reservoir, removed entirely
  • Motion controller and drive cabinet
  • Safety architecture and stop circuits
  • Platform frames and joints, in most cases
Set the expectation correctly: a hydraulic-to-electric conversion is normally a platform replacement underneath an existing shell, not a component swap. What makes it worth doing is that the expensive, application-specific parts — cabin, visuals, host software, room — are exactly the parts you keep. Custom & OEM engineering covers how that scope is defined and delivered.
Four questions

The Decision Test

Answer against your actual installation. Any “hydraulic” answer on questions 1 to 3 is worth taking seriously rather than arguing away.

Q1

Is the payload near the top of the practical range, or is duty near-continuous?

Very large moving masses at high acceleration, or sustained force demands rather than intermittent dynamic motion.

No — Within the electric envelope. Electric’s other advantages apply.

Yes — Force density and thermal duty favour hydraulic. Worth a specification review before deciding.

Q2

Would heat rejected into the platform room be a problem?

Confined rooms, existing HVAC at capacity, or environments where added thermal load is difficult to accommodate.

Manageable — Add the drive heat to the HVAC calculation and proceed with electric.

Serious constraint — A remote power unit genuinely solves this. Legitimate reason to keep hydraulic.

Q3

Does the facility already run on hydraulics, with staff and spares?

An existing plant room, established maintenance routines and technicians trained on the technology.

No — You would be building hydraulic infrastructure from scratch — a significant cost electric avoids.

Yes — Marginal cost of another hydraulic machine is low, and skills already exist. A real argument.

Q4

Does the installation have a cleanliness, noise or environmental constraint?

Laboratory, cleanroom, classroom, medical or shared-occupancy space; or a site where oil handling and spill containment are difficult to permit.

No — Frequently decisive for electric on its own, independent of every other consideration.

Yes — This factor does not decide it. Weigh the others.

Frequently asked

Electric vs Hydraulic FAQ

Short answers to the drive-technology questions we are asked most often.

For most motion platform applications built today, electric is the better choice — on energy use, maintenance, uptime, cleanliness, noise and installed cost. But hydraulic still wins on force density for very large payloads, on holding load without continuous power draw, and where heat and noise must be located away from the platform. The honest answer depends on payload, duty cycle and site.

When the payload is beyond the practical electric envelope, when the platform must hold a large static load for extended periods, when heat generated at the platform is unacceptable and a remote power unit solves it, when shock or impact loading would damage a screw-type electric actuator, or when the facility is already built around hydraulic power with trained staff and spares.

Historically yes, and that reputation persists. Modern servo electric cylinders have closed most of that gap for typical motion platform frequency content, and several industry sources now regard the two as broadly equivalent for flight simulation performance. For high-frequency vibration work above the usual motion-platform band, hydraulic or dedicated shaker systems may still be preferable.

Usually, but the saving is in operating cost rather than purchase price. A hydraulic power unit runs continuously regardless of how much motion is demanded, while an electric platform draws power roughly in proportion to the work it does. Removing oil changes, filters, seals, hose replacement, contamination control and leak remediation is typically the larger saving over a ten to twenty year life.

In most cases the cabin, visual system, host software and often the building foundation can be retained, while the actuators, power unit, controller and safety system are replaced. The practical questions are whether the existing structure suits the new load path, whether the host interface can be matched or adapted, and whether the foundation was designed around hydraulic loads. It is normally a platform replacement under an existing shell rather than a component swap.

Yes, and this is a genuine hydraulic advantage that is often left out of pro-electric comparisons. Servo drives and motors reject heat where the platform is installed. A hydraulic power unit can sit in a separate plant room, taking its heat and noise with it. On an electric installation the heat load belongs in the room's HVAC calculation from the start.

No. We build all-electric platforms using servo electric cylinders developed and manufactured in-house. If your requirement genuinely needs hydraulic drive we are not the right supplier, and we will say so. We are happy to review the specification first, because a significant share of requirements that assume hydraulic can in fact be met electrically.

Safety architecture differs rather than being better or worse. An electric platform has no high-pressure fluid, no hoses that can burst and no oil to catch fire, which removes several hazards outright. It introduces others: behaviour on power loss must be engineered deliberately, using brakes, controlled deceleration or self-locking mechanics, because there is no accumulator holding the load.

Including when the answer is no

Ask Us Whether Electric Actually Reaches Your Requirement

This is the question worth asking, and it has a real answer rather than a sales answer. Send the payload, trajectory and duty cycle, and we will tell you whether an electric platform meets them — including when it does not, in which case you will at least have a documented reason for choosing hydraulic.

What we need to answer it

With these, a feasibility answer usually takes one exchange:

Total moving mass and centre of gravity

Required travel per axis

Peak and sustained acceleration

Duty cycle and hours per day

Any shock or impact content

Room size, ceiling and HVAC capacity

Existing platform, if replacing one

Host interface and control requirements

Scroll to Top