Opagio vs Invalue: Valuation Platforms
Opagio vs Invalue — two intangible asset valuation platforms compared. Audience, scope, methodology, and when each is the right fit.
Introduction
Opagio and Invalue are the two specialist platforms most often shortlisted when buyers ask: who actually builds software for intangible asset valuation, rather than treating it as a general business-valuation feature. Both platforms are taxonomy-driven, both align to IFRS 3 / IAS 38 (and on the US side, ASC 805 / ASC 350), and both are designed to be used by professionals who understand what a purchase price allocation actually requires.
They are not identical products. The differences come down to three axes: who the platform is built for (post-deal accountants and auditors versus founders, CFOs, and the wider growth ecosystem), time horizon (engagement-based snapshot versus continuous SaaS platform), and breadth of taxonomy (statutory and adjacent intangibles versus a twelve-driver framework that covers customer, organisational, human, data, and supplier capital alongside statutory IP).
This page lays out what each platform does well, where they differ, and which platform fits which scenario. Invalue is a credible, well-regarded operator in its segment — none of what follows challenges that. The question is which platform fits which workflow.
TL;DR: Choose Invalue if your need is post-deal PPA, goodwill recognition, or impairment testing — Invalue is built explicitly for the financial professional, auditor, or M&A advisor working on the accountant's side of a transaction. Choose Opagio if you need a continuous twelve-driver platform that supports founders, CFOs, and PE/VC funds before, during, and after the deal — covering fundraising, exit-readiness, IP-backed lending, and ongoing growth measurement alongside formal valuation work.
About Invalue
Invalue is an intangible-specific valuation software platform built for financial professionals — auditors, M&A advisors, and the accountants who handle purchase price allocation, goodwill recognition, and impairment testing after a transaction completes. Its product surface is deliberately professional-grade:
- PPA workflow — guided allocation of acquisition consideration to identifiable intangible assets and residual goodwill, aligned to IFRS 3
- Intangible asset valuation — coordinated income, market, and cost approaches across the asset types most commonly identified in PPA work
- Goodwill recognition and impairment testing — calculation, audit trail, and reporting support
- IFRS compliance — guided workflow designed around IFRS 3 / IAS 38 reporting requirements
- Roadmap — impairment testing, standalone business valuations, and IFRS 16 lease valuations have been signposted publicly
Invalue is the only other platform that is specifically focused on intangible asset valuation as its primary product. Its credibility runs through its professional buyer base: financial professionals, auditors, and M&A advisors who already understand the methodology and are looking for a workflow tool that codifies it. The platform is European-focused, with an enterprise pricing model that is not publicly published.
All facts in this section are taken from Invalue's public materials. Pricing is enterprise and quote-based; buyers should request a current quote directly. The roadmap items above are publicly signposted but timing has not been independently verified.
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 and PPA-relevant intangibles 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 (Relief from Royalty, Multi-Period Excess Earnings, With and Without, Cost, DCF, and trading-comparable methods), Growth Plan, Value Drivers Register™, Normalised P&L, Intelligence, and Growth Accounting
Opagio's Asset Valuator module produces output structured for IFRS 3 / IAS 38 (UK and global) and ASC 805 / ASC 350 (US) alignment — the same standards Invalue is built around. The difference is that the valuation sits inside a continuous platform that also supports the discovery, growth tracking, lending-readiness, and exit-preparation work that happens before and after a formal PPA engagement.
Invalue is what the acquirer's accountant uses after they buy you. Opagio is what you use before — to build, measure, and communicate the intangible value that makes the acquisition attractive in the first place.
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
| Criterion | Opagio | Invalue |
|---|---|---|
| Primary audience | Founders, CFOs, PE/VC partners, M&A advisors, accountants — ten canonical ICPs across the corporate lifecycle | Financial professionals, auditors, M&A advisors — built for the accountant's workflow, not the founder's |
| Primary use case | Ongoing intangible asset management across discovery, valuation, lending, fundraising, and exit | Purchase price allocation, intangible asset valuation, goodwill recognition, impairment testing |
| Time horizon | Continuous platform — assets, values, drivers tracked over time with month-on-month change visibility | Engagement-based — outputs produced for a specific transaction or reporting cycle |
| Asset taxonomy | The Opagio 12™ — twelve value drivers, comprehensive library of asset types spanning statutory IP and non-statutory intangibles | Oriented to the asset categories typically identified in PPA work (customer relationships, technology, brand, contracts, IPR) |
| Valuation methodology | Asset Valuator: Relief from Royalty, Multi-Period Excess Earnings, With and Without, Cost Approach, DCF, market multiples — IFRS 3 / IAS 38 / ASC 805 aligned | Income, market, and cost approaches structured around PPA, goodwill, and impairment workflow |
| Output format | Continuous platform: dashboards, the Value Drivers Register™, Asset Valuator reports, Normalised P&L, scenario forecasts, Lending Readiness Report | PPA report, goodwill allocation, impairment-test working papers — structured for auditor review |
| Discovery layer | Guided asset discovery across all twelve drivers — identifies assets the business may not realise it holds | Assumes the asset list is already largely known from the deal data room or auditor's working file |
| Capital pathway coverage | Four pathways: borrow (IP-backed lending), protect, fundraise (investor packs), exit (M&A and PE diligence support) | Primarily post-deal accounting — PPA, goodwill, impairment |
| Jurisdictional scope | UK-primary, multi-jurisdiction roadmap (US, Canada, Australia, Ireland); IFRS and US GAAP coverage | European focus, IFRS-aligned |
| Pricing model (qualitative) | Tiered SaaS subscription — free Forecaster, mid-tier paid Forecaster Pro, paid Opagio Intangibles platform | Enterprise pricing, quote-based, not publicly published |
| Best fit when… | The buyer needs a structured ongoing view across the full intangible base, supporting growth, lending, fundraising, and exit preparation | The buyer is an auditor, M&A accountant, or financial professional running a discrete PPA, goodwill, or impairment workflow |
How the two platforms approach the same problem
Example — Where Opagio is the better fit: A B2B SaaS founder eighteen months out from a Series B is being asked by their board to track intangible value across customer capital (NRR, churn cohorts, contractual depth), organisational capital (proprietary processes, data assets), human capital (key-person exposure), and the brand. The board wants monthly visibility, not an annual report. Opagio's twelve-driver platform tracks all of that continuously, with the same data feeding the eventual fundraising pack and any IP-backed lending conversation. The work an Invalue user would do post-deal sits downstream of the work Opagio supports pre-deal.
Example — Where Invalue is the better fit: A Big 4 audit team is one week into a £180M acquisition's purchase price allocation. The deal data room already lists the customer relationships, the acquired technology, the trade name, and the non-compete agreement. The team needs a guided IFRS 3 workflow that allocates the consideration across those identifiable intangibles, calculates residual goodwill, and produces working papers structured for engagement-quality review. Invalue is built for exactly that workflow — purpose-fit for the auditor's job.
The right choice is governed by the role the buyer is playing, not by a feature checklist. Invalue is the right fit for accountants and auditors running formal post-deal work. Opagio is the right fit for founders, CFOs, and PE/VC funds running continuous intangible measurement across the corporate lifecycle. The two are not the same tool; they sit at different stages of the same value chain.
Audience Orientation
The clearest single difference between Opagio and Invalue is who the product is designed for.
Invalue is built for the accountant. The workflow, terminology, and output assume the user understands IFRS 3, knows how to identify the residual goodwill, can interpret a discount rate sensitivity table, and is producing artefacts that an audit partner will sign. The platform is a productivity layer on top of work the user already knows how to do. That orientation makes Invalue a strong fit for Big 4 valuation teams, mid-tier accounting firms running PPA engagements, and in-house finance teams at companies that complete frequent acquisitions.
Opagio is built for the operator. The platform's onboarding walks a founder, CFO, or PE partner through what intangible assets they own across all twelve drivers, scores their exposure, surfaces hidden value, and structures the output for the conversation they actually need to have — with a board, an investor, a lender, or an acquirer. Where formal valuation work is needed (PPA, lending readiness, impairment), the Asset Valuator module produces output structured for review by a qualified valuer. The platform does the mechanical work; the qualified specialist signs the report.
For audit-sensitive deals, the right pattern is to use Opagio for discovery, ongoing measurement, and pre-deal asset-value tracking, and to engage a qualified valuer (often using Invalue or its equivalent) to produce the formal post-deal PPA. The two tools cover different stages of the same lifecycle.
Scope of the Underlying Taxonomy
Both platforms organise intangible assets into a taxonomy, but the taxonomies reflect different jobs.
Invalue's taxonomy is oriented toward the categories typically identified in PPA work — customer relationships and contracts, acquired technology and software, brand and trade names, licensing and franchise agreements, non-compete agreements, and the residual goodwill that remains after individual intangibles have been allocated. The taxonomy maps directly to the categories an IFRS 3 reviewer expects to see in a PPA working paper.
Opagio's taxonomy (The Opagio 12™ — twelve value drivers with a comprehensive library of intangible asset types underneath) covers the PPA-relevant categories and extends meaningfully into non-statutory intangibles: customer relationships and contractual depth at the operational level (not only at the deal-data-room snapshot), organisational capital (proprietary processes, ways of working, internal IP), human capital (key-person concentration, 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 across the corporate lifecycle, not only the assets an acquirer will name in a PPA.
For a buyer whose use case is strictly PPA, that breadth is overhead. For a buyer whose use case is operator-facing — fundraising preparation, exit-readiness, PE portfolio management, ongoing growth tracking — the broader taxonomy is the point.
Valuation Methodology
Invalue applies the three classical income, market, and cost approaches in a workflow structured for PPA, goodwill recognition, and impairment testing. The output is structured for auditor review.
Opagio's Asset Valuator module covers the full set of asset-level methods used in PPA, impairment, and lending work: Relief from Royalty, Multi-Period Excess Earnings, 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 / ASC 350 (US).
Note (jurisdiction): Both platforms align to IFRS 3 / IAS 38. Opagio additionally supports ASC 805 / ASC 350 (US GAAP) for cross-border deals. For UK GAAP under FRS 102 Section 18, see IAS 38 vs FRS 102 Section 18. For the IFRS 3 vs ASC 805 differences, see IFRS 3 vs ASC 805.
For complex or audit-sensitive PPA work, both platforms produce output a qualified valuer can review. The methodology is recognisably the same family; the orientation, depth, and downstream defensibility format differ to match the buyer.
Continuous Platform vs Engagement-Based Output
A practical difference between the two platforms is the time horizon of the output.
Invalue's outputs are produced for a specific engagement — a PPA at deal close, an annual impairment review, a goodwill recognition test. Re-running the analysis later is a re-engagement. For audit-driven, transaction-driven work where the deliverable is a single artefact at a specific point in time, this is exactly the right model.
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 three specific buyer types: PE/VC funds running portfolio-level reviews of multiple investee companies; growth-stage businesses where the intangible base is the part of the business changing fastest; and CFOs whose board reporting cycle is monthly rather than annual.
For a one-off PPA, the engagement 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 Invalue?
Answer
We work in the same broad space — intangible asset valuation — but with materially different product orientations. Invalue is built for the accountant's workflow: PPA, goodwill recognition, impairment testing, IFRS 3 compliance. Opagio is built for the operator's workflow: continuous intangible asset management across twelve value drivers and four capital pathways (borrow, protect, fundraise, exit). For a strictly post-deal PPA engagement, Invalue is purpose-fit. For pre-deal growth measurement, exit preparation, fundraising, and lending readiness, Opagio is the platform-shaped fit.
Can I use Opagio for purchase price allocation?
Answer
Yes — Opagio's Asset Valuator module supports the full set of asset-level methods used in PPA, with output aligned to IFRS 3 / IAS 38 (UK and global) and ASC 805 (US). For complex or audit-sensitive deals, the right pattern is to use the platform to automate the mechanical work and have a qualified specialist review and sign the final report. Where the buyer's organisation already runs PPA on Invalue, the two tools can coexist — Opagio for pre-deal and operator-side work, Invalue for the accountant-side post-deal work.
Can I use Invalue for ongoing growth measurement?
Answer
Invalue is engagement-based by design — its outputs are produced for a specific transaction, audit, or impairment cycle. Re-running the analysis later is a re-engagement, which fits PPA and audit work but is not how continuous growth measurement works. For a CFO who needs monthly visibility into how the intangible base is changing, or a PE fund tracking 10-30 portfolio companies, a continuous platform model is the right architecture.
How do the taxonomies compare?
Answer
Invalue's taxonomy is oriented to the asset categories typically identified in PPA work — customer relationships, acquired technology, brand and trade names, licensing agreements, non-competes, and residual goodwill. The Opagio 12™ covers those categories and extends into non-statutory intangibles such as customer capital at the operational level, 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 PPA, Invalue's PPA-shaped taxonomy is on-target; for operator-side intangible management across the corporate lifecycle, Opagio's wider taxonomy is on-target.
Which platform is better for PE / VC 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. Invalue is oriented to per-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, Invalue's PPA workflow can be a useful input on the accountant's side. For ongoing post-investment value-creation tracking across the portfolio, Opagio's architecture is the better fit.
How does pricing compare?
Answer
Invalue's pricing is enterprise, quote-based, and not publicly published; buyers should request a current quote directly. 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 consult the Opagio pricing page (or book a demo) for Opagio and contact Invalue direct for their equivalent.
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 covers the full asset-level method set 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. Invalue applies the same family of methods within a workflow structured for the PPA, goodwill, and impairment use cases. The methods are recognisably the same; the orientation and downstream 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 Opagio and Invalue Coexist
For larger organisations and advisory firms, the two platforms are not mutually exclusive — they cover different stages of the same lifecycle.
- Pre-deal: Opagio supports the founder, CFO, or PE partner in measuring intangible value, building investor or lender material, and tracking growth.
- Deal close / post-deal: Invalue (or its equivalent) supports the acquirer's accountant in producing the formal PPA, goodwill allocation, and audit-ready working papers.
- Post-investment: Opagio supports the PE fund or strategic acquirer in tracking the acquired business's intangible value over the hold period.
If your organisation is on the accountant side of every transaction, Invalue's specialist workflow is purpose-fit. If your organisation is on the operator side, or covers both, the case for adding Opagio strengthens.
Closing
Invalue is a credible, well-regarded specialist platform built explicitly for the post-deal financial professional — auditors, M&A accountants, and the finance teams running PPA, goodwill, and impairment work. For that buyer, the workflow is purpose-fit.
Opagio is the platform-shaped fit for the operator side of intangible asset management — founders, CFOs, PE/VC funds, and advisors whose work spans discovery, growth measurement, lending readiness, fundraising preparation, and exit-readiness. The proprietary twelve-driver taxonomy, the continuous monitoring model, and the multi-pathway architecture are designed for ongoing value-creation work, not a single post-deal engagement.
The best way to know which is right for your business is to pressure-test the platform against a specific use case. For Opagio, book a demo and bring a real scenario — 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.
Related reading
- RFR vs MPEEM vs With and Without — Asset Valuation Methods Compared
- IFRS 3 vs ASC 805 — Business Combinations Compared
- Purchase Price Allocation — The Complete PPA Guide
- Intangible asset glossary — Customer Relationships
- Intangible asset glossary — Goodwill
- Intangible asset glossary — Relief from Royalty
Related Glossary Terms
Learn More
Ready to Value Your Intangible Assets?
Use Opagio's valuation tools to apply these methods to your own business.