Opagio vs Inngot — Platforms Compared

Introduction

Opagio and Inngot are the two UK-headquartered platforms most often shortlisted by businesses, advisors, and lenders looking to identify, classify, and value intangible assets. Both serve a market the financial system has historically struggled to measure — the 60-70% of enterprise value that does not appear on a conventional balance sheet — and both have a working presence in the UK IP-backed lending ecosystem.

They are not identical products. The differences come down to four axes: scope of the asset taxonomy, breadth of valuation methodology, ongoing monitoring versus point-in-time snapshot, and the way the output is structured for the buyer. A founder preparing for an exit, a CFO completing a purchase price allocation, and a PE partner running diligence will each weigh those four axes differently.

This page lays out what each platform does well, where they differ, and the scenarios where one is the better fit than the other. It is written for buyers, not as a marketing position. Inngot is a credible operator with a 15-year track record in UK IP policy and bank partnerships — none of what follows challenges that. The question is which platform fits which workflow.

TL;DR: Choose Inngot if your need is a discrete, snapshot-style IP profile and valuation aligned to a specific NatWest or HSBC IP-backed lending application — Inngot's institutional integration there is mature and well-documented. Choose Opagio if you need a broader intangible asset taxonomy across all twelve value drivers, ongoing measurement rather than a one-off output, and a single platform that supports borrowing, fundraising, exit-readiness, and PE diligence within the same data model.

About Inngot

Inngot is a UK-based intangible asset identification and valuation platform founded by Martin Brassell, co-author of the UK IPO's "Hidden Value" report and a long-standing voice in UK IP policy. Its public product suite comprises three online tools and a bespoke advisory service:

• Goldseam® — IP profiling tool that helps an organisation identify the intangible assets it owns through a drag-and-drop discovery interface, linked to patent and trademark database lookups
• Sollomon® — online IP valuation tool that applies cost, market, and income approaches to the assets surfaced by Goldseam, positioned by Inngot as the world's first online IP valuation tool
• Hallmarq™ — collateral suitability check that assesses separability, saleability, and legal strength for assets being considered as lending collateral
• Bespoke services — custom IP valuation, IP audit, IP strategy, and research engagements led by the Inngot team

Inngot's institutional credibility runs through Martin Brassell's relationships with the UK IPO, ACCA, and WIPO, and its commercial credibility runs through bank partnerships — Inngot's tools underpin the NatWest IP-backed lending programme launched in January 2024 (which had originated £27M+ by February 2026) and the HSBC IP lending proposition (which facilitated a £700K deal for EAMS Group). Inngot's stated client list includes BDO, government departments, and innovation agencies.

About Opagio

Opagio is a UK-headquartered intangible asset platform organised around Opagio 12™ — a proprietary taxonomy of twelve value drivers covering customer capital, organisational capital, brand and reputation, human capital, technology, data, supplier and partnership capital, design and aesthetic capital, financial structure, regulatory and IP capital, sustainability and ESG capital, and innovation pipeline. Within those twelve drivers sits a comprehensive library of intangible asset types — the breadth that distinguishes the platform from tools focused on statutory IP alone.

Opagio is delivered as a SaaS platform with two paid products and one free tier:

• Opagio Growth Forecaster (free) — accessible scoring of intangible exposure for a single company
• Opagio Growth Forecaster Pro — paid Explore-zone product layering benchmark and competitive context onto the free forecaster
• Opagio Intangibles (paid platform) — the full discovery, valuation, and management environment, with modules including the Asset Valuator (RFR, MPEEM, With and Without, Cost, DCF, and trading-comparable methods), Growth Plan, Value Drivers Register™, Normalised P&L, Intelligence, and Growth Accounting

Opagio's methodology is documented academically (SSRN paper aligning the taxonomy to the Corrado-Hulten-Sichel framework) and protected via patent filing GB2607796.6 with UK IPO and a registered design (6518475) covering the radar-chart visualisation. The platform supports IFRS 3 / IAS 38 (UK and global) and ASC 805 (US) under its accounting-standards mapping.

Side-by-Side Comparison

The table below sets out a buyer-grade view of the two platforms across the criteria that come up most often in shortlist conversations.

Side-by-side criteria

How the two platforms approach the same problem

Example — Where Opagio is the better fit: A B2B SaaS founder preparing for a Series B is being asked by investors to articulate the intangible value of the business. The founder needs more than a patent or trademark list — they need to show customer capital (NRR, churn cohorts, contractual depth), organisational capital (the data assets and proprietary processes), human capital (key-person exposure and team strength), and the brand. Opagio's twelve-driver taxonomy gives the founder a structured way to present all of that to the investor in one consistent framework, refreshed monthly as the business grows.

Example — Where Inngot is the better fit: A UK manufacturing business with two granted patents and a registered trademark is six weeks into a NatWest IP-backed lending conversation. The bank's internal process is already integrated with Inngot's outputs, and the relationship manager has specifically asked for an Inngot-format IP profile and valuation aligned to the Hallmarq collateral suitability framework. Inngot is the path of least friction — the institutional integration shortens the path to credit committee. (Opagio's Lending Readiness Report supports the same kind of conversation, particularly with other UK lenders, but where a specific bank workflow is already wired to Inngot the calculation is procedural rather than methodological.)

Scope of the Underlying Taxonomy

Both platforms organise intangible assets into a taxonomy, but the taxonomies differ in breadth and orientation.

Inngot's taxonomy (publicly described as approximately 80 asset types across 6 categories) is oriented toward statutory IP and adjacent intangibles — the kinds of asset most commonly relevant to IP-backed lending and to the UK IPO's policy work. Goldseam's drag-and-drop interface helps users identify which of those assets they own, with database lookups for granted patents and registered trademarks.

Opagio's taxonomy (The Opagio 12™ — twelve value drivers, with a comprehensive library of intangible asset types underneath) covers the same statutory IP space but extends meaningfully into non-statutory intangibles: customer relationships and contractual depth, organisational capital (proprietary processes, data assets, ways of working), human capital (key-person concentration, skills inventory, succession exposure), supplier and partnership capital, sustainability and ESG capital, and innovation pipeline. The wider taxonomy reflects a different orientation: Opagio is designed to capture the assets that drive enterprise value, not only the assets a lender can secure against.

For a buyer whose use case is bank-financing-driven, that breadth is overhead. For a buyer whose use case is investor-facing, exit-readiness, or PE portfolio management, the broader taxonomy is the point — it covers the assets the acquirer's diligence will eventually probe.

Valuation Methodology

Inngot's Sollomon tool applies the three classical income, market, and cost approaches in a coordinated online interface. The output is a valuation report scoped to the assets surfaced by Goldseam.

Opagio's Asset Valuator module covers the full set of asset-level methods relevant to PPA, impairment, and lending work: Relief from Royalty (RFR), Multi-Period Excess Earnings (MPEEM), With and Without, Cost Approach, DCF for income-producing intangibles, and trading multiples for benchmark cross-checks. Each method is documented with the contributory asset inventory, royalty-rate or comparable-transaction support, and audit-trail evidence in a format aligned to IFRS 3 / IAS 38 (UK and global) and ASC 805 (US).

The output is structured for review by a qualified valuer — the methodology, defensibility narrative, and supporting evidence are produced in a format that maps to the regulator's expectations under either standard. For complex or audit-sensitive deals, the right pattern is to automate the mechanical work in Opagio and have a qualified specialist review and sign the report.

UK IP-Backed Lending Readiness

This is the area of most direct overlap. Both platforms produce outputs that support a business's case for an IP-backed lending facility in the UK.

Inngot's position is built on first-mover institutional integration. Inngot's tools underpin the NatWest IP-backed lending programme that launched in January 2024 and had originated £27M+ by February 2026, and the HSBC IP lending proposition that facilitated a £700K deal for EAMS Group. Where a borrower is already in conversation with NatWest or HSBC and the relationship manager expects an Inngot-format profile, the procedural path is shortest with Inngot.

Opagio's position is built on the Lending Readiness Report — an asset-level mapping of which of the borrower's intangibles meet the separability, saleability, and legal-strength tests that UK lenders apply, with the underlying valuation traceable to the same methodology used elsewhere in the platform. The report is bank-agnostic by design, supporting borrower conversations across the wider UK lending market and the emerging set of non-bank IP lenders.

Note (jurisdiction): UK IP-backed lending references in this section apply to the UK regulatory and lending environment. US, EU, and Commonwealth IP-backed lending operate under different rules and counterparties. See our IP lending hub for UK-specific guidance and a jurisdictional walkthrough.

Ongoing Monitoring vs Snapshot

A pragmatic difference between the two platforms is the time horizon of the output. Inngot's tools are structured around a discrete engagement — the Goldseam profile, the Sollomon valuation, the Hallmarq collateral assessment are each produced for a specific moment, typically driven by a transaction or lending event. Re-running the analysis later is a re-engagement.

Opagio is built as an ongoing platform. Assets, values, drivers, and benchmarks are tracked continuously, with month-on-month change visibility. A business using Opagio to track customer-capital growth over twelve months will see how that growth has shifted the asset's underlying value at each step. This matters for two specific buyer types: PE/VC funds running portfolio-level reviews of multiple investee companies, and growth-stage businesses where the intangible base is the part of the business changing fastest.

For a one-off IP-backed lending application or a discrete IP audit, the snapshot model is fit for purpose. For value-creation tracking, PE portfolio monitoring, or exit preparation that runs over 18-36 months, the continuous model is the right architecture.

FAQ

Is Opagio a direct competitor to Inngot?

Answer

We work in the same broad space — intangible asset identification, valuation, and lending readiness — but with materially different product orientations. Inngot is built around the IP-lending workflow, with strong institutional integration into NatWest and HSBC. Opagio is built as a continuous intangible asset platform covering twelve value drivers and four capital pathways (borrow, protect, fundraise, exit). For a single IP-backed lending application where the bank workflow is already wired to Inngot, Inngot is the path of least friction. For ongoing measurement across the full intangible base, Opagio is the platform-shaped fit.

Which is better for an IP-backed loan application?

Answer

It depends on which lender. If the borrower is already in conversation with NatWest or HSBC and the relationship manager has asked for an Inngot-format profile, Inngot is the procedurally lower-friction path because the bank's internal process is integrated with Inngot's outputs. For borrowers approaching other UK lenders, non-bank IP financiers, or where the borrower wants the same valuation to support multiple downstream uses (fundraising, exit preparation), Opagio's Lending Readiness Report is bank-agnostic and tied to the wider platform output. Both approaches produce credible material — the question is workflow fit.

Does Inngot or Opagio cover more asset types?

Answer

Inngot's Goldseam tool publicly identifies approximately 80 asset types across 6 categories, oriented toward statutory IP and adjacent intangibles. Opagio's taxonomy (The Opagio 12™) covers a comprehensive library of intangible asset types across twelve value drivers, including non-statutory intangibles such as customer capital, organisational capital, human capital, supplier and partnership capital, and sustainability and ESG capital. The right question is not "more" but "matched to your use case" — for a discrete IP audit, Inngot's narrower taxonomy is on-target; for a fundraising or exit-readiness conversation that has to address the assets driving enterprise value, Opagio's wider taxonomy is on-target.

How does pricing compare?

Answer

Inngot's tool pricing is not published; engagements are quote-based via the bespoke services pathway. Opagio's pricing is published and tiered: a free Growth Forecaster, a paid Growth Forecaster Pro in the Explore zone, and a paid Opagio Intangibles platform subscription with the full discovery, valuation, and management environment. For accurate, current pricing the buyer should obtain a quote from Inngot direct and consult the Opagio pricing page (or book a demo) for Opagio.

Can I use both platforms?

Answer

Yes — and some advisors do exactly that. A borrower might commission an Inngot-format profile for a specific NatWest application and use Opagio to maintain a continuous view of the wider intangible base for investor reporting and exit preparation. The two outputs are not fungible — Inngot's profile is bank-specific, Opagio's register is value-creation-driven — but they are not contradictory. For most buyers, one platform is sufficient; for some, the two coexist for different stages of the corporate journey.

Which platform is better for PE / venture diligence?

Answer

Opagio is structured for portfolio-level use: PE funds and VCs can hold multiple investee companies in the same workspace, refresh asset values quarterly, and run benchmark comparisons across the portfolio. Inngot's outputs are oriented to per-company engagement work, which is well-suited to a discrete diligence event but not designed as a portfolio dashboard. For a one-off diligence on a single target, Inngot's IP profile can be a useful input alongside the wider deal work. For ongoing post-investment value-creation tracking, Opagio's portfolio architecture is the better fit.

Are the valuation methods the same?

Answer

Both platforms apply income, market, and cost approaches grounded in standard valuation theory. Opagio's Asset Valuator module supports the full set of asset-level methods used in PPA and impairment work — Relief from Royalty, Multi-Period Excess Earnings, With and Without, Cost, DCF, and trading multiples — with output structured for IFRS 3 / IAS 38 / ASC 805 alignment. Inngot's Sollomon applies cost, market, and income approaches as a coordinated online tool oriented to its specific IP use case. The methods are recognisably the same family; the orientation, depth, and downstream defensibility format differ.

Where can I see Opagio in action?

Answer

Book a demo and we will walk through the Opagio 12™ taxonomy, the Asset Valuator module, the Lending Readiness Report, and the platform's portfolio views with a worked example relevant to your use case. The demo is run by a member of the Opagio team and typically takes 30-40 minutes.

When to Switch from Inngot to Opagio

If you are already using Inngot and considering Opagio, the questions to walk through are:

1. Is the use case still one-off bank lending, or has it expanded into ongoing value tracking? Snapshot fits Inngot; continuous fits Opagio.
2. Is the asset base still primarily statutory IP, or does the business depend materially on customer, organisational, human, or data capital? The wider the asset base, the better Opagio's taxonomy fits.
3. Are you running diligence on a portfolio rather than a single company? Portfolio architecture is an Opagio strength.
4. Do you need the same valuation methodology to support multiple downstream uses — lending, fundraising, exit, audit? Opagio's bank-agnostic, methodology-traceable approach supports the multi-use case in one place.

For a deeper walkthrough of the migration scenario, see our companion piece: Inngot alternative — when and how to evaluate switching.

Closing

Inngot is a credible operator with a 15-year track record in UK IP policy, a leading position in the NatWest and HSBC IP-backed lending programmes, and an established place in the UK IP advisory ecosystem. For a buyer whose immediate need is an institutionally-recognised IP profile tied to a specific UK bank lending workflow, Inngot's procedural fit is hard to match.

Opagio is the platform-shaped fit for buyers whose intangible asset management is continuous, taxonomy-wide, and cuts across multiple capital pathways. The proprietary twelve-driver taxonomy, the patent-protected methodology, and the portfolio architecture are designed for ongoing value-creation work rather than a single transaction.

The best way to know which is right for your business is to see both in action and pressure-test the output against a specific use case. For Opagio, book a demo and bring a real scenario to the conversation — a fundraising round, an exit-prep window, a portfolio review, or a lending application. The team will walk you through the platform against your actual context.

Already using Inngot? Read our companion guide: Inngot alternative — when and how to evaluate switching.

Related reading

• RFR vs MPEEM vs With and Without — Asset Valuation Methods Compared
• IP-backed lending in the UK — eligibility, lenders, and the application process
• Intangible asset glossary — Customer Relationships
• Intangible asset glossary — Relief from Royalty
• Intangible asset glossary — Multi-Period Excess Earnings

Related Glossary Terms

Learn More

• View lesson →