NavJun vs Claude
Claude is better than most at saying when it isn't sure. That helps, but it doesn't solve the underlying problem. The IEC, EN and ISO texts that decide whether your product passes are sold, not published, so Claude has never read them either. NavJun answers from the licensed documents, and cites the clause.
Start your free trial →AT A GLANCE
WHEN TO PICK WHICH
Claude is the right tool if…
→ You're scoping, not deciding. You want a rough sense of which directives and standards are in play before anyone commits budget.
→ You're drafting, not citing. Summarising a directive for an internal deck, or turning your own notes into something readable.
→ The question isn't really regulatory. A test plan template, a supplier email, a block of firmware. Claude is good at all of it.
→ You already own the standards and know them well. You want somewhere to think out loud, and you'll catch an error yourself.
You should choose NavJun if…
→ A wrong answer costs real money. One failed test campaign or customs hold is worth more than years of any subscription.
→ You need to show your work. Every answer names the clause it came from, so a reviewer can check it instead of trusting it.
→ You work in hardware or electronics specifically. NavJun is built on 8 years of Your Main Guy consulting in lighting, electrical, IoT, and electronics.
→ Editions and amendments matter. Quoting the superseded revision of a standard is the expensive kind of wrong.
SCENARIO
A Vancouver-based team is designing a connected commercial lighting controller. They're planning to sell in the EU (CE + EU CRA), US (FCC Part 15, UL listing through a lab partner), and eventually the UK (UKCA).
With Claude
Their engineer asks Claude whether the EU Cyber Resilience Act applies to a connected lighting controller shipping in Q4 2026. Claude reasons through it carefully and will often say which parts it is unsure about.
That caution is worth something. It still cannot tell you which document the sentence came from, because it never had access to the standard. Knowing an answer might be wrong is not the same as knowing which clause makes it right, and a hedged answer still needs verifying before it goes in a technical file.
With NavJun
The same engineer opens a chat, types “Does the EU Cyber Resilience Act apply to a connected lighting controller shipping to EU in Q4 2026?”, and gets a cited answer referencing Article 3 of Regulation (EU) 2024/2847 with the reasoning.
Follow-up: “And FCC Part 15 for the US version?” Same dialogue, same window. Where the licensed text doesn't settle the question, NavJun says so rather than filling the gap.
Both answer in seconds. The difference is how long it takes to find out whether the answer was right.
BEING HONEST
Everything outside compliance
Claude writes code, summarises meetings, drafts emails and works through long documents you give it. NavJun does one thing. If you want a single tool for all of it, this isn't that tool.
Drafting and rewriting
Long-form reasoning and writing, and working through a document you already own, are things Claude does better than any specialist tool.
Open-ended thinking
Questions with no authoritative source to cite, like naming a product or weighing a design trade-off, play to Claude's strengths rather than NavJun's.
Costing next to nothing
Claude has a free tier and is already open in another tab. NavJun costs more because licensing the standards costs more.
Keep using Claude for those. Use NavJun for the answers you would have to defend.
Ask a hardware compliance question about your actual product. Get a cited answer. See the difference.
Start your free trial →
