Equidam is a company-level startup valuation platform — its primary product is a benchmark-grounded valuation number. Eqvista is a cap table + 409A + real-time valuation platform — its primary product is integrated equity management. Opagio is an intangible asset platform — its primary product is the asset-level decomposition that drives enterprise value. Different jobs, different platforms.

By Series B the investor's diligence team is probing intangibles asset-by-asset — customer cohorts, organisational capital, brand, IP, key-person exposure. Opagio's twelve-driver decomposition and method-specific Asset Valuator output are built for this conversation. Equidam's company-level methods produce a top-line number useful as a headline but do not produce the asset-level decomposition. Eqvista is not a Series B fundraising tool per se — its primary use case is cap table and 409A.

Eqvista, per its public materials, is the #1-rated 409A and equity management product on G2 and Clutch. For a US-domiciled startup needing 409A bundled with cap table and a real-time valuation view, Eqvista's integrated product is the natural fit. Equidam and Opagio are not 409A-focused platforms.

Opagio. The exit-stage and PE-diligence conversation is about which intangible assets sit underneath the deal price, the appropriate method per asset, and the audit-aligned PPA cross-check (IFRS 3 / IAS 38 in the UK and globally, ASC 805 in the US). Opagio's Asset Valuator is built for this work. Equidam's company-level valuation supports the round-pricing precursor but not the asset-level diligence detail; Eqvista's cap table and 409A serve the post-close equity admin but not the intangible asset decomposition.

Yes — the three platforms are complementary at different stages. A founder might use Equidam at pre-seed for round pricing, layer in Eqvista as the equity register expands (particularly if US-domiciled), and bring on Opagio as the intangible register matures toward Series B and exit preparation. Different platforms for different jobs.

Per the platforms' respective public materials, Equidam uses a one-off engagement model with 12-month access; Eqvista uses tiered subscription pricing for equity admin plus a 409A add-on; Opagio uses tiered SaaS subscription with a free Growth Forecaster, paid Forecaster Pro, and paid Opagio Intangibles platform. For accurate current pricing, check each platform's pricing page or quote directly. Subscription models tend to be more cost-effective over a 2-3 year horizon when the valuation work is continuous; per-engagement models tend to be more cost-effective for one-off transactional needs.

Opagio is UK-primary with explicit UK-IFRS, global IFRS, and ASC 805 alignment, plus integration with the UK IP-backed lending market via the Lending Readiness Report. Equidam is Amsterdam-headquartered with global positioning — useable from the UK but not UK-specific. Eqvista is US-primary with 409A as a core US-specific feature — useable from the UK but the 409A feature is less relevant. For UK-domiciled founders, Opagio is the jurisdictional fit.

Opagio's primary product is intangible asset management — the asset-level decomposition that drives enterprise value. Cap table functionality is on the integration roadmap rather than a primary build, recognising that founders typically already have a cap table system in place (Carta, Eqvista, Pulley, SeedLegals for UK EMI work) and the valuable integration is between the intangible register and the cap table, not duplication of cap-table functionality inside Opagio.

[Book a demo](/demo) and a member of the Opagio team will walk through The Opagio 12™ taxonomy, the Asset Valuator, and the Value Drivers Register™ with a worked example relevant to your context — typically a Series B preparation, exit window, PE portfolio, or PPA case. The demo is run by an Opagio team member and is typically 30-40 minutes.

Tool Comparison

Equidam vs Eqvista vs Opagio: Valuation

Equidam vs Eqvista vs Opagio — a three-way comparison of startup valuation platforms: methods, equity infrastructure, and intangible decomposition.

Three credible platforms each strong in a different domain: Equidam (company-level startup valuation at scale, 160,000+ companies benchmarked), Eqvista (US cap table + 409A + real-time valuation in one product), Opagio (asset-level intangible decomposition via The Opagio 12 with continuous measurement across borrow, protect, fundraise, exit pathways).

Criteria	Opagio	Equidam / Eqvista
Primary question answered	What intangible assets are driving value, and how are they growing	Equidam: what is my startup worth. Eqvista: what is the real-time share price of my company
Headquarters / primary market	UK-headquartered; UK-primary, multi-jurisdiction roadmap	Equidam: Amsterdam, global. Eqvista: US-primary
Valuation methods	Asset-level: RFR, MPEEM, With and Without, Cost, DCF, market multiples — aligned to IFRS 3 / IAS 38 / ASC 805	Equidam: Berkus, Payne Scorecard, Startup Rating, VC Method, Revenue Multiples. Eqvista: 409A and Real-Time Company Valuation
Intangible asset decomposition	Native — The Opagio 12 taxonomy with comprehensive library of asset types	Not a primary feature in either Equidam or Eqvista
Cap table / equity infrastructure	Not a primary feature; integration roadmap	Equidam: adding via Share Council merger. Eqvista: core feature — full equity admin
409A support (US)	Not a primary feature	Equidam: not a primary feature. Eqvista: core feature, top-rated on G2 and Clutch
Ongoing measurement	Continuous — assets and values tracked month-on-month	Equidam: per-engagement with 12-month access. Eqvista: real-time platform
Audit-aligned PPA support	Asset Valuator output structured for IFRS 3 / IAS 38 / ASC 805 alignment	Not a primary use case in either Equidam or Eqvista
Capital pathway coverage	Four pathways: borrow, protect, fundraise, exit	Equidam: primarily fundraise. Eqvista: primarily fundraise + equity admin lifecycle
Best fit when	Intangible asset management is continuous, taxonomy-wide, cuts across multiple capital pathways and stages	Equidam: benchmark-grounded round pricing at pre-seed/seed/Series A. Eqvista: US-domiciled startup needing cap table + 409A + real-time valuation in one platform

When to Use Each Approach

Opagio

You are preparing for Series B+ or exit and need asset-level decomposition
Your work spans multiple capital pathways (lending, fundraising, exit, audit)
You need continuous month-on-month measurement of intangible value
You are UK-domiciled and want explicit UK-IFRS / global IFRS / ASC 805 alignment

Equidam / Eqvista

Equidam fits when your need is benchmark-grounded round pricing at pre-seed, seed, or Series A
Eqvista fits when you are US-domiciled and need cap table + 409A + real-time valuation in one bundled product
Either fits when intangible asset decomposition is not your immediate primary need

Our Verdict

Use Equidam for benchmark-grounded round pricing at early stage. Use Eqvista for US cap table + 409A + real-time valuation. Use Opagio when the conversation requires asset-level intangible decomposition across Series B+, exit, PE diligence, lending, or audit-aligned PPA. The three platforms can also coexist — different platforms own different jobs at different stages of the corporate journey.

Related Glossary Terms

Learn More

View lesson →

Ready to Value Your Intangible Assets?

Use Opagio's valuation tools to apply these methods to your own business.

Try the Valuator Browse All Comparisons

Equidam vs Eqvista vs Opagio: Valuation

When to Use Each Approach

Opagio

Equidam / Eqvista

Our Verdict

Related Glossary Terms

Learn More

Related Comparisons

Opagio Intangibles vs Manual Excel Valuation

Opagio vs Brand Finance: Approaches Compared

AI-Powered vs Traditional Intangible Valuation

Ready to Value Your Intangible Assets?