When a PCN or EOL notice takes a component off the table, someone has to find what replaces it. Starting that search from a blank parametric filter throws away what the notice itself, your BOMs, and your own past decisions already tell you.
PCNshark surfaces the manufacturer-recommended replacement extracted from the notice and functional candidates ranked by specification similarity — and keeps sourcing context, datasheets, BOM exposure, and the final decision together on one organization-wide component record. Alternate recommendations are available on Team plans and above.
Available on Starter and Team. A payment method is required.
PCNshark narrows the search and organizes the evidence. Similarity is a prioritization signal, not engineering qualification — your engineering team owns compatibility review, qualification, and the final approval.
Select what applies. Your answers stay in your browser and are never transmitted.
0 of 9 selected
Discontinuation and change notices often name a successor — a recommended replacement or migration part, sometimes buried deep in the PDF. That suggestion is the single most useful starting point a replacement search has, and it is routinely lost in a folder.
A manufacturer recommendation is not drop-in compatibility. It tells you where the manufacturer expects migrations to go — your engineering team still verifies electrical, mechanical, and firmware fit before anything ships.
Sometimes the notice names no successor. Sometimes the named successor fails a voltage rail, a footprint, or a temperature grade. PCNshark ranks functional candidates by specification similarity — a percentage plus the specs that differ — so engineering starts from the closest matches instead of a blank search. Similarity is a prioritization signal, not engineering qualification.
The ranking gets the closest candidates onto the table in minutes. It does not qualify anything — the percentages order the engineering work; they never replace it.
PCNshark shows both, kept distinct, so the team knows exactly what each one does — and does not — tell them.
Named by the manufacturer in the PCN or EOL notice
Found by comparing published specifications
Where the manufacturer expects migrations to go
How close the published specs are, and which ones differ
As the notice's own suggestion, linked to its source
Ranked by similarity percentage, differences flagged
Nothing — it is not a drop-in claim
Nothing — it is a prioritization signal
Your engineering team
Your engineering team
Both signals appear on the same component record, next to the BOM exposure they would resolve — so the evaluation starts with everything the organization already knows.
Each candidate carries its lifecycle status and manufacturer, so a proposed replacement that is itself NRND gets caught before anyone spends qualification effort on it.
Package and the key specifications behind the similarity ranking, with differences flagged — the exact places engineering review should start.
Find and attach datasheets from available sources, or upload your own — so the side-by-side review works from documents, not memory.
Stock and minimum order quantities across ~15 distributors — distributor data, refreshed on demand, so the team sees whether a candidate is actually buyable.
Price breaks, a market median at 1k, and estimated lead time per candidate. Estimates, not quotes — inputs for comparison, not commitments.
Which offers come from authorized distributors and which from independent sources — context that changes how much weight a stock number deserves.
An illustrative alternate evaluation, from the part flagged by a notice to the starting point engineering sees. Illustrative data — not live inventory, and not a quote.
Illustrative data. Similarity is a prioritization signal, not engineering qualification. Sourcing figures are distributor data refreshed on demand — estimates, not quotes or guaranteed availability.
Spec similarity gets a credible shortlist onto the table faster. Everything that makes a replacement safe to ship stays with your engineering team.
Mfr-recommended replacement plus spec-ranked candidates
Deciding which candidates deserve evaluation
Published key specs with differences flagged
Electrical and mechanical compatibility
Package shown on each candidate
Pinout, footprint, and land-pattern verification
Datasheets attached for review
Firmware, driver, and toolchain impact
A place to record the plan, evidence, and outcome
Qualification requirements and testing
Notes and evidence kept on the record
Derating, thermal, and reliability analysis
The decision history showing what was reviewed
Customer approvals and regulatory requirements
The recorded disposition — never an automatic approval
The approval itself
PCNshark never marks an alternate as qualified or approved on its own. Manual reviewed decisions are never silently overwritten — a conflicting signal flags the record for review instead.
Six months later, "why didn't we use the cheaper one?" deserves a better answer than an email search. A practical checklist for what the component's decision record, notes, and evidence should capture when an evaluation closes — copyable and printable.
Your selections stay in your browser — nothing is uploaded, and no email is required to copy, print, or download.
In PCNshark this lives on the organization-wide component record — notes, attached evidence, and a part-level decision history of who decided what, when, old value to new, and why.
PCNshark organizes the alternate evaluation around your notices, BOMs, and engineering judgment — it narrows the search and preserves the decision; it does not make the decision.
See the successor the manufacturer named, rank the closest functional candidates, compare sourcing estimates and datasheets, and record what was accepted — and rejected — on the component record your whole organization shares. Alternate recommendations are available on Team plans and above.
EOL, last-time-buy, and BOM exposure — the events that trigger a replacement search.
Read →What to pull out of a discontinuation notice, including the suggested successor.
Read →Part search engine vs. an alternate decision workflow on your own BOMs.
Read →The org-wide component record the alternate decision lives on.
Read →Evidence, conflicts flagged for review, and part-level decision history.
Read →The role-level PCN review workflow that hands evaluations to engineering.
Read →Workflow and capability descriptions are based on PCNshark's current production capabilities. Distributor figures shown in examples are illustrative. Qualification requirements and approval authority vary by company, product, quality system, and regulatory environment.
