Carta vs Eqvista vs Opagio: Platforms Compared
Carta vs Eqvista vs Opagio — three platforms compared. Cap table, 409A, intangible asset decomposition, and when each is the right fit.
Three credible platforms each strong in a different domain: Carta (dominant US venture-backed cap table + fund admin, 50,000+ companies, 2.5M shareholders), Eqvista (integrated cap table + 409A + Real-Time Company Valuation in one product, #1-rated on G2 and Clutch for 409A), Opagio (asset-level intangible decomposition via The Opagio 12 with continuous measurement across borrow, protect, fundraise, exit pathways).
| Criteria | Opagio | Carta / Eqvista |
|---|---|---|
| Primary question answered | What intangible assets are driving value, and how are they growing | Carta: who owns what, what is the cap table. Eqvista: what is the real-time share price tied to my equity register |
| Headquarters / primary market | UK-headquartered; UK-primary, multi-jurisdiction roadmap | Carta: US-headquartered, US-primary with UK expansion. Eqvista: US-headquartered, US-primary |
| Cap table / equity admin | Not a primary feature; integration roadmap | Carta: market leader, 50,000+ companies, 2.5M shareholders. Eqvista: core feature, full equity admin |
| 409A support (US) | Not a primary feature | Carta: core feature, paid add-on. Eqvista: core feature, top-rated on G2 and Clutch |
| Fund administration (VC funds) | Not a primary feature; portfolio architecture for value-creation tracking | Carta: core feature, widely used by US VC funds. Eqvista: not a primary feature |
| Intangible asset decomposition | Native — The Opagio 12 with comprehensive library of asset types | Not a primary feature in either Carta or Eqvista |
| Valuation methods | Asset-level: RFR, MPEEM, With and Without, Cost, DCF, market multiples — aligned to IFRS 3 / IAS 38 / ASC 805 | Carta: 409A. Eqvista: 409A and Real-Time Company Valuation |
| Audit-aligned PPA support | Asset Valuator output structured for IFRS 3 / IAS 38 / ASC 805 alignment | Not a primary use case in either Carta or Eqvista |
| IP-backed lending readiness (UK) | Lending Readiness Report — bank-agnostic, supports UK lending market | Not a primary use case in either Carta or Eqvista |
| Capital pathway coverage | Four pathways: borrow, protect, fundraise, exit | Carta: primarily fundraise + equity admin + fund admin. Eqvista: primarily fundraise + equity admin |
| Best fit when | Intangible asset management is continuous, taxonomy-wide, cuts across multiple capital pathways and stages | Carta: US venture-backed cap table + fund admin with ecosystem network effects. Eqvista: US-domiciled startup wanting cap table + 409A + Real-Time Company Valuation bundled at affordable price |
When to Use Each Approach
Opagio
- You need asset-level intangible decomposition for Series B+, exit prep, PE diligence, IP-backed lending, or audit-aligned PPA
- Your business is UK-domiciled or working under UK-IFRS / global IFRS / ASC 805 framing
- The cap table is handled separately and the question is about intangible asset management
- You need continuous measurement of intangible value across the asset base
Carta / Eqvista
- Carta fits when venture-backed cap table, fund admin, US ecosystem network effects are the priority
- Eqvista fits when you are US-domiciled and want cap table + 409A + Real-Time Company Valuation bundled at affordable price
- Either fits when intangible asset decomposition is not your immediate primary need
Our Verdict
Use Carta for venture-backed cap table management, fund administration, 409A, and equity plan administration. Use Eqvista for the bundled cap table + 409A + Real-Time Company Valuation product at affordable pricing. Use Opagio when the conversation requires asset-level intangible decomposition for Series B+, exit, PE diligence, IP-backed lending readiness, or audit-aligned PPA. The three platforms can also coexist — different platforms own different jobs.
Related Glossary Terms
Learn More
Ready to Value Your Intangible Assets?
Use Opagio's valuation tools to apply these methods to your own business.