Simon (R), as it happens I am a CEng FIET, FSarS, MIRSE, and CMgr MCMI. I am also an amateur musician. However, having spent a quarter of my professional engineering career in the music industry, and having many friends and family who are full time musicians, I would also point out that "professional" and "musician" are not mutually exclusive. 

That aside, Andrew proposed a very good analogy - many engineers struggle with understanding the distinction between the professional registration grades, and for those who understand musicians this analogy would work extremely well. (For people who are not of course other analogies would work better.) That analogy is on topic and relevant to understand how these professional registration grades work together. Although as Simon B absolutely points out, this is a discussion forum, sometimes discussions wander. 

Like Simon B, I'll repeat and clarify my answer to your question - they are NOT equal in terms of technical authority. That's the whole point. That does NOT, as Andrew's analogy tried to explain, mean that one is more or less valuable to an organisation, and I as point out above does not mean that a CEng is necessarily more senior in the organisation than an IEng.    

I believe the "equal but different" slogan was dropped some years ago for exactly the reason that it was well meaning but caused confusion.

P.S, I'd also suggest that the question has been pretty thoroughly explored and very well answered by the various posters here - in summary IEng probably does has slightly less value in the marketplace and so it's reasonable that EC might feel that registrants may not feel comfortable paying the same for both. It's hard enough getting people to register for IEng as it is, when you have standards one of which is sought by employers and one of which isn't it is going to be a difficult sales job. So I think we understand why this is what it is. Unless anyone has anything to add I think it's fair enough that we move to a coffee break and chat about Dylan if we want to. (Or indeed the Peatbog Faeries who I'm seeing tonight who are definitely at the extreme end of electrified acousticness...highland pipes meet techno!) However of course we'd want to discuss the original topic further if there's anything new to throw into it, I think we'd all agree it's a very important topic. 

Personally I feel that the differentiation between IEng and CEng is very confused.

The Engineering Council defined IEng as "Incorporated Engineers maintain and manage applications of current and developing technology, and may undertake engineering design, development, manufacture, construction and operation."

They then go to define CEng as "Chartered Engineers develop solutions to complex engineering problems using new or existing technologies, and through innovation, creativity and technical analysis."

In reality, we do a mix of these different activities throughout our working lives. I don't suddenly become a IEng because I'm on a project looking at current technology. Is someone a CEng if they are assisting on a complex engineering problem?

Effectively the difference between IEng and CEng is the educational requirements, which are:

• IEng: an accredited Bachelors degree
• CEng: an accredited integrated Masters degree or a combination of accredited Bachelors and Masters degree

(Note, you have to demonstrate equivalency, you don't need a Masters to be a CEng)

I recall that at one point in the 90's, IEng was marketed as a stepping stone to CEng.

But the musician analogy is apt. We work as a team, sometimes that technician can be just as important to the success of the project as the CEng providing the technical direction.

By the way, the Engineering Council fee is fixed by the Engineering Council, see here: Engineering Council. I think the difference you are seeing is due to showing 2024 fees vs 2025 fees.

As a separate point, anyone reading this discussion could quite reasonably start to question "what's the point of IEng then"? 

Let's be clear, probably the majority of graduate-level engineers are not working at a CEng level of technical authority - simplistically they are not taking final responsibility for technical decisions in areas of high novelty or high technical risk. However the industry, its customers, and the engineers themselves are all going to benefit from having confidence that all engineers are working professionally - they don't just have technical knowledge, but they apply that well in the interests of, and with an understanding of, the wider world they work in. They can be trusted to do the right job and a good job. And that's what IEng shows - and for those entering the profession gives clear guidance as to the standard they should be aiming at.

It's very frustrating that industry doesn't recognise this more (by making it a requirement in job adverts), but we are where we are - it's understandable why they need their final signatories to be CEng, because that could be a defence in court, it's less likely in a similar situation that anyone is going to ask for evidence of the same level of general professionalism evidence for the IEng staff. However ensuring staff have competence to IEng is going to add value to the business (because the more professional your staff are the more effective your business is). And for the individual, being clear what the professional standards expected of your working role is, and knowing that you have met them, is going to be a massive boost to your career - you'll be offering the professional skills that employers want. I've written that all very carefully, measuring yourself or your staff against that is hugely valuable, the interesting question is whether actually having the letters / certificate also adds value. That last one is, and has always been, the challenging sell.

P.S. I got IEng (many years ago) as a stepping stone to CEng. Been there, done that.

Mark, in the PRA role a huge amount of my time is helping applicants understand the IEng / CEng boundary, it's often the biggest hurdle to getting CEng.

I ignore the whole Bachelors / Masters thing to be honest (and indeed the EC and IET are trying to downplay it, it doesn't really help anything). The critical question I work through with applicants is "are you taking technical responsibility for areas of novelty / risk?" Not responsibility for "doing it by the book", but responsibility where there is no book, no checklist, it's ending up with your technical judgement and experience between success and disaster. You might not have done the "Masters level" maths yourself, but you've taken responsibility and accountability for the competence of those who did.

My litmus test (we've probably had this discussion before) which I often ask applicants is, "if it all went wrong and you were in the dock, would you say it was your team's or your superior's or the standard's technical responsibility, or would you say it was your signature and your technical decision?" Because in the end that's what we employ CEng for (and why it's "valued"!), to be confident that the engineer who lands in that position is competent to be there.

And I think all I can say is that, where we've been able to show that, the applicant has achieved CEng! So it seems to be what the panels are looking for too. 

Can be a nightmare in a regulated industry or the military, but it tends to be a matter of showing that however many people and committees reviewed and endorsed the decision, the applicant had made the original judgement that was carried, and it definitely wasn't something that could just be done "by the book". 

Very good question which we all agonise for hours (years?) over...

As someone who PRAs for a different institution, I'm well aware of the pain.  As you state, education levels are not the deciding factor. I've had as many candidates without a degree gone on and achieve their CEng as I've had with fully accredited masters.

Ultimately the role being performed limits your ability to achieve IEng or CEng. But there are only so many roles with technical responsibility. Most roles have some form of personal responsibility over the work they are doing (but is this IEng or CEng). Its all very complicated and ultimately it comes down to how well they can evidence the specific items within UK-SPEC at the various levels.

The other aspect, because of the institutions I'm associated with as a PRA, I see some applications from forces personnel. They definitely have a route-path that takes them through EngTech, onto IEng and ultimately onto to CEng if they can achieve a suitable technical position. I've seen a suggest that some ranks (for engineering roles) are tied to achieving a specific registration category.

I have only recently attained IEng registration, a goal that has been on my radar since joining the IET in 2015. My background is in electrical installation, where I completed all relevant Level 3 certifications and subsequently pursued HNC/HND qualifications in 2015. Following this, I applied for and became a member of the IET.

Currently, I serve as the director of a medium-sized electrical contracting firm, where I oversee estimating, design, installation, and testing for commercial and industrial projects. I believe my expertise aligns with the IEng level, though not yet with CEng. for me, achieving IEng status fulfills my professional aspirations, and I do not intend to pursue CEng (Currently but this could change). The distinction between IEng and CEng responsibilities is clearly shown in the UK spec.

AMK said:

The distinction between IEng and CEng responsibilities is clearly shown in the UK spec.

But outside the Engineering Council, how many people take any notice of that?

Mark Tickner said:

The other aspect, because of the institutions I'm associated with as a PRA, I see some applications from forces personnel. They definitely have a route-path that takes them through EngTech, onto IEng and ultimately onto to CEng if they can achieve a suitable technical position. I've seen a suggest that some ranks (for engineering roles) are tied to achieving a specific registration category.

I'll admit that this is why I try to steer clear of acting as PRA for forces personnel now, I find it's important for those in that world to be advised by people who understand it. Specifically, I tend to find that in the civilian world it's much easier for engineers to take on additional responsibilities to show their competences (most of us who are / have been engineering managers are only too delighted if someone volunteers to do anything!) whereas, at least as an outsider, it feels as if it can be much harder in the forces for many personnel to show they are taking final technical responsibility for decisions - even though they are clearly in responsible positions. They can suggest, but - however technically competent and knowledgeable they are - they may not be in a position to decide. But, as I say, I think this is a matter of it being guided by a PRA who understands the constraints and possibilities.

I do come across very similar cases in railway signalling. Again it's a very constrained world, so I find I need to help as a PRA who understands that world by making sure that a CEng applicant is crystal clear why an apparently minor technical decision that they are taking responsibility for is actually very significant, because it involves a derogation against the standards. And actually that world I find fits the IEng / CEng divide quite neatly generally - lots of engineers are (quite rightly) doing it by the book and interpreting the book where required, and a few are coping with completely new or very complex situations. And yes (back to the thread) those few are the leading technical staff.