Tracker prices have declined significantly in recent years due to competitive pressure, with strong regional variation across markets
Steel remains the dominant cost component, limiting further material-based cost reductions and shifting focus to design and system optimization
The industry is gradually moving from price-driven competition toward value-based selection
While trackers improve yield, they remain capital-intensive mechanical systems and are often scrutinized in competitive tenders. Steel typically accounts for the largest share of tracker cost, making pricing sensitive to commodity fluctuations. The tracker’s cost structure is also sensitive to design complexity and regional supply chain constraints. Variations in site requirements, wind loads, terrain conditions, and domestic-content policies further influence pricing across markets. In the end, trackers are always more expensive than the standard fixed-tilt mounting solutions, which they are benchmarked against. The core application of a tracker lies in the utility segment of PV, which is highly cost/price-sensitive. Understanding these interrelated drivers is essential to assessing tracker competitiveness in different project environments.
In terms of CapEx, while a few companies have provided reference price points, these may not essentially reflect the prices of the respective companies and are for reference only. Trina provided the most comprehensive information on the subject. “Tracker prices have fallen by 20 to 30% over the past 2 years,” said YunHua (Kevin) Shu, Deputy Director of Product Management at TrinaTracker. This is driven by intense competitive pressure and, to a lesser extent, by the steep reduction in module pricing. The regional price variation in tracker prices is also substantial. Shu gave the reference prices of trackers for different leading markets as follows:
• Europe: around $0.05-0.06/W (DDP), including customs and delivery
• Middle East: below $0.05/W (DDP) with intense competition
• Latin America: around $0.045/W on FOB or CFR terms
As for costs, Shu notes that earlier cost reductions relied on material optimization, including reduced thicknesses and modified tube sections, but these measures have reached their limit. Thus, Trina is shifting its focus to technological optimization, including multi-drive systems that improve structural resilience without requiring heavier steel and smarter control algorithms that enhance performance without increasing material consumption.
Bringing the Indian perspective, Sunchaser’s CTO, Chintan Patel, emphasizes that trackers are typically priced about INR 40 lakh per MW (~$0.04/W). He further underscores that full in-house manufacturing allows tighter control of material procurement and process flow, enabling the company to remain cost-competitive even with multi-drive architectures. He adds that achieving sustainable cost levels may require Indian tracker suppliers to adopt vertically integrated, large-scale manufacturing strategies, comparable to those implemented by major Chinese manufacturers.
Axial provides more granularity according to the tracker configuration:
• 1P systems: €0.07-0.10/Wp
• 2P systems: €0.08-0.11/Wp
• Agrivoltaic trackers: €0.33-0.45/Wp
Rodolfo Sejas, Business Development Specialist at Axial Structural Solutions, emphasizes that the higher costs associated with agrivoltaic systems are due to elevated structures and increased steel requirements. Axial’s cost strategy focuses on steel procurement and efficient structural design rather than downsizing on materials. The company secures large annual steel purchase agreements with Alonso Group to capture volume-based pricing. Each project undergoes structural optimization to balance stiffness, weight, and transport efficiency. Axial has also established manufacturing bases in Spain, Brazil, Türkiye, and China to reduce logistics costs.
Iván Soto San Andrés, Corporate Market Intelligence Coordinator at Soltec, notes that tracker pricing is highly dependent on region and local-content requirements. Referencing Wood Mackenzie data, he approximates the tracker’s price in the US was about in $0.14/W in Q2 2025, while underscoring that it is significantly lower in other regions.
The other tracker makers that commented on the subject did not provide any reference price points but did provide briefs on cost-saving strategies. Antaisolar, for example, promotes its latest octagonal torque tube. The improved mechanical characteristics reduce pile count by about 20% and torque tube costs by 30%, claims the company. Antai also integrated snap-fit bearings and a flip-top design, which, according to the company, simplifies assembly and increases installation efficiency by approximately 25%.
However, most of the other tracker suppliers strongly voice out that hardware optimizations have hit their limits. Tracker structures need to be mechanically balanced and wind-optimized, reducing material usage without compromising durability, according to Anvitha Ravi, senior manager at the global market intelligence division. Axial’s Sejas adds that design standards, wind-tunnel results, and safety factors constrain further reductions in steel. As a result, cost-reduction efforts are shifting toward system- level integration, including expansion into eBOS components, storage-related BOS, and grid-interface solutions, for companies like Nextpower. Most tracker suppliers agree that future cost competitiveness will depend more on LCOE improvements – software intelligence, terrain adaptability, and high availability – than on further reductions in steel tonnage.
Solar Steel emphasizes that strategies vary by region. In markets with high labor costs, pre-assembly is a key lever. In other regions, reducing steel tonnage and optimizing foundations have a greater impact. The company stresses that the cost strategy must reflect local soil conditions, labor availability, and construction practices rather than a uniform global design. PVH says that since steel prices account for the lion’s share of tracker costs, its strategy involves bulk procurement, often purchasing steel in advance of large orders to secure favorable pricing and minimize market exposure.
Yes, price is important, but quality and reliability are equally important. Nextpower’s Ravi underscores that value in terms of energy yield, ease of installation, and lifecycle cost savings are equally critical.
Aggressive bidding in some tender-driven markets has pushed tracker pricing to unsustainable levels. And Ravi is optimistic about a gradual shift from pure price competition to value-based selection, as quality and long-term reliability are gaining prominence.
The text is an edited excerpt from TaiyangNews’ Market Survey on Solar Trackers 2026, which can be downloaded for free here.