Operation of fully integrated pumping stations (FIPS) in open areas involves risks of electronics overheating, corrosion of metal structures, and unauthorized access, necessitating the use of reliable protective shelters. This article presents a detailed comparative analysis of two fundamentally different types of rapidly assembled structures, considered by the researchers of the Federal State Budgetary Scientific Institution All‑Russian Research Institute «Raduga» within the framework of a research and development project: a frame‑tent shelter and a sliding fiberglass casing. The comparison is conducted across a range of criteria, including manufacturing and operational costs, durability, ease of maintenance, thermal regulation efficiency, wind resistance, and protection against unauthorized access. The results of the analysis demonstrate that frame‑tent shelters, despite their minimal cost and rapid installation, provide basic protection against precipitation and direct sunlight. However, they are susceptible to UV‑induced degradation, fail to address the issue of internal air overheating (greenhouse effect), and offer no protection against forced entry. In contrast, sliding fiberglass casings, despite high initial investments and the need for specialized transport for delivery and installation, offer a comprehensive solution: complete environmental sealing, mechanical strength, the possibility of integrating active climate control systems, and access to equipment during adverse weather conditions via their sliding design. The article substantiates recommendations for application. Tent shelters are deemed optimal for temporary, seasonal, or guarded facilities with limited budgets. Fiberglass casings are recommended for stationary automated stations in hot climate regions and in unguarded areas, where additional investments are recouped through increased reliability, reduced downtime, and extended service life of the equipment. It is concluded that the choice of shelter type should be determined not only by initial cost but also by a techno‑economic assessment of the product’s full lifecycle.