Passive House comparisons
Passive House and EnerPHit standards, certification routes and design decisions, compared.
Passive House designEnerPHit vs New-Build Passive House
Passive House (classic) is the new-build standard; EnerPHit is its retrofit counterpart, with slightly relaxed targets that reflect the constraints of working with an existing building. The principles — continuous insulation, airtightness, thermal-bridge-free detailing, MVHR and modelling in PHPP — are the same; the numbers and the route differ.
Read comparisonPassive House vs Building Regulations
Building Regulations set the legal minimum a building must reach; Passive House sets a measured performance standard far above it. Regulations are demonstrated through compliance modelling and are satisfied once the threshold is met; Passive House specifies verified heating-demand and airtightness targets and proves them in PHPP and on site. The well-known performance gap — buildings using far more energy than their compliance figures imply — is largely why a measured standard like Passive House delivers comfort and efficiency that minimum compliance does not.
Read comparisonPassive House Methodology vs Standard Building Practice
Passive House methodology predicts and verifies performance; standard building practice builds to convention and hopes the result is good enough. The methodology models the building in PHPP, designs out thermal bridges, details the air barrier and verifies with testing — so performance is known in advance and proven on completion. Standard practice relies on assumptions and experience, which can work, but leaves real performance unmeasured. The difference is engineering versus hope.
Read comparisonEnerPHit vs Standard Retrofit
EnerPHit applies verified Passive House targets and a whole-house plan to retrofit; standard retrofit fits individual measures without that framework. EnerPHit models the building in PHPP, sets airtightness and fabric targets, manages condensation risk and verifies the result — staged or not, it follows a coherent plan. Standard retrofit can improve a home, but uncoordinated measures risk thermal bridges, interstitial condensation and lock-in that a planned approach avoids. The difference is a verified system versus piecemeal improvement.
Read comparison