Sollomon vs Opagio: IP Valuation Tools
Sollomon vs Opagio Asset Valuator — two online IP valuation tools. Methods, accounting alignment, asset scope, and when each is the better fit.
Introduction
Sollomon® and Opagio's Asset Valuator module both occupy the same niche — online tools that apply income, market, and cost approaches to estimate the value of intangible assets. The two tools share a methodological lineage in standard valuation theory, but they differ in scope, depth of method, jurisdictional alignment, and the way the output is structured for review by a qualified valuer or auditor.
For a buyer choosing between them, the practical question is rarely "which one is more accurate" — both produce defensible numbers within their intended scope — but rather "which output fits the downstream use" and "which methodology depth matches the asset under valuation". A founder valuing a portfolio brand for an investor pack has different needs from a CFO completing a purchase price allocation under IFRS 3 or ASC 805, who in turn has different needs from a borrower assembling a NatWest IP-backed lending application.
This page compares the two tools on the valuation slice specifically. The wider platform comparison sits at Opagio vs Inngot.
TL;DR: Choose Sollomon when your immediate need is a discrete IP valuation tied to an Inngot-format workflow — typically a NatWest or HSBC IP-backed lending application where the bank has asked for an Inngot output. Choose the Opagio Asset Valuator when the valuation needs to be method-specific (RFR for licensing-analogue assets, MPEEM for primary income-generating customer relationships, With and Without where appropriate), audit-aligned to IFRS 3 / IAS 38 / ASC 805, and reusable across multiple downstream uses (lending, fundraising, exit, audit).
About Sollomon
Sollomon® is Inngot's online IP valuation tool — the second stage of their three-tool suite (Goldseam → Sollomon → Hallmarq). Inngot describes Sollomon as the world's first online IP valuation tool, applying cost, market, and income approaches to the intangible assets surfaced by Goldseam. The output is a valuation report scoped to the engagement and typically used to support an IP-backed lending application, an IP audit, or a transaction-specific valuation event.
Sollomon was developed under Martin Brassell's IP valuation team and reflects the institutional fit with UK IP-backed lending. The combined Goldseam → Sollomon → Hallmarq workflow underpins the NatWest IP-backed lending programme (live since January 2024) and the HSBC IP lending proposition.
All facts in this section are taken from Inngot's public materials. Pricing for Sollomon is not published; engagements typically follow Inngot's bespoke services pathway.
About the Opagio Asset Valuator
The Asset Valuator is the valuation module inside the paid Opagio Intangibles platform. It applies the full set of asset-level methods used in purchase price allocation, impairment testing, and lending work:
- Relief from Royalty — value derived from hypothetical royalty savings; suited to assets with observable licensing analogues (trademarks, patents, technology with comparable transactions)
- Multi-Period Excess Earnings (MPEEM) — value derived from excess earnings attributable to the asset after deducting returns on contributory assets; suited to primary income-generating assets (customer relationships, customer contracts)
- With and Without — value derived from the difference in cash flows in scenarios with and without the asset; used where a counterfactual is the cleanest framing
- Cost Approach — replacement-cost or reproduction-cost valuation; suited to internally developed assets where income attribution is problematic
- DCF — discounted cash flow for income-producing intangibles where the asset has its own identifiable cash stream
- Market multiples — trading-comparable 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.
Sollomon coordinates three classical approaches online; the Opagio Asset Valuator applies six specific asset-level methods, with output structured to align directly with IFRS 3 / IAS 38 (UK and global) and ASC 805 (US). The method choice in the Asset Valuator is asset-driven — RFR for assets with licensing analogues, MPEEM for primary income-generating customer assets, and so on. The structural difference reflects the buyer use case: Sollomon for a single IP-lending-aligned output; Asset Valuator for outputs reusable across lending, fundraising, exit, and audit work.
Side-by-Side Comparison
The table below sets out a buyer's view of the two tools across the criteria that come up most often in valuation-tool shortlists.
Side-by-side criteria
| Criterion | Opagio Asset Valuator | Sollomon® |
|---|---|---|
| Approach families covered | Income, market, and cost — applied through specific asset-level methods | Income, market, and cost — applied as a coordinated online tool (per Inngot's public materials) |
| Specific methods covered | RFR, MPEEM, With and Without, Cost, DCF, market multiples | Sollomon applies cost, market, and income approaches; specific asset-level method documentation not publicly itemised |
| Accounting-standards alignment | IFRS 3 / IAS 38 (UK and global) and ASC 805 (US) explicit | UK and global IFRS framing primarily; not externally documented as ASC 805-aligned in Inngot's public materials |
| Jurisdiction coverage | UK-primary; ASC 805 (US), Canada, Australia, Ireland on roadmap | UK-primary, with international engagement via UK IPO and WIPO |
| Asset scope | Twelve value drivers — statutory IP plus non-statutory intangibles | Assets surfaced by Goldseam — approximately 80 asset types across 6 categories, oriented to statutory and adjacent IP |
| Output format | Asset-level valuation report inside the Opagio Intangibles platform, exportable for investor packs, lending submissions, audit | Sollomon valuation report scoped to the engagement, typically passed forward to Hallmarq or to the bank |
| Audit-trail support | Contributory asset inventory, royalty-rate or comparable-transaction support, audit-trail evidence documented per method | Engagement-based audit trail; specific structure not publicly itemised in Inngot's materials |
| Reusability across downstream uses | One valuation supports lending, fundraising, exit, audit — same methodology, multiple uses | Tool-specific outputs primarily oriented to the IP-lending workflow |
| Pricing model (qualitative) | Tiered SaaS subscription — included in the paid Opagio Intangibles platform | Per-tool licensing or bespoke engagement — quote-based, not publicly published |
| Underlying discovery | Opagio's twelve-driver Value Drivers Register™ feeds the Valuator | Goldseam profile feeds Sollomon |
| Best fit when… | The valuation needs to be method-appropriate (RFR for licensable IP, MPEEM for customer relationships), audit-aligned, and reusable across lending, fundraising, exit, audit | The buyer needs an institutionally-recognised IP valuation tied to a specific NatWest or HSBC IP-backed lending application |
How the two tools handle the same valuation question
Example — Where Opagio Asset Valuator is the better fit: A CFO is completing a purchase price allocation under IFRS 3 after acquiring a SaaS business. The acquired intangibles include customer relationships (significant — primary income-generating asset), developed technology (a granted patent with a licensing analogue in the market), and a brand. The right method choice is asset-specific: MPEEM for customer relationships, RFR for the technology and brand, with cost-approach cross-checks for internally developed components. Each method needs a documented contributory asset charge schedule and audit-trail evidence. The Asset Valuator is purpose-built for this work; the output is structured to align with IFRS 3 / IAS 38 (UK and global) and ASC 805 (US) and to support review by a qualified valuer.
Example — Where Sollomon is the better fit: A UK manufacturing business with three granted patents and a registered trademark is in-flight on a NatWest IP-backed lending conversation. The bank's process is integrated with Inngot's Goldseam → Sollomon → Hallmarq workflow, and the relationship manager has specifically asked for a Sollomon valuation feeding Hallmarq for collateral suitability. Sollomon is the procedurally lower-friction path — the workflow is bank-integrated and the institutional fit shortens the path to credit committee. (The Opagio Asset Valuator could also support this case, particularly with other UK lenders or non-bank IP financiers, but where a specific bank workflow is wired to Inngot the calculation is procedural rather than methodological.)
The right tool is governed by the downstream use. For a bank-integrated IP-lending workflow already wired to Inngot, Sollomon is the path of least friction. For audit-aligned PPA work, multi-use outputs, or asset-specific method choices across both statutory IP and non-IP intangibles, the Asset Valuator is the platform-shaped fit.
Methodology Depth
The most material difference between the two tools is the depth of method-specific structure.
Sollomon, per Inngot's public materials, applies the three classical approaches — income, market, and cost — coordinated as an online tool. The output is a valuation report for the IP assets surfaced by Goldseam.
The Opagio Asset Valuator applies six specific asset-level methods, with the right method chosen per asset type. The method choice is not optional — for an audit-aligned PPA, the appropriate method for customer relationships is MPEEM, for licensable IP is RFR, for a non-compete agreement is typically With and Without, and so on. The asset-method pairing follows IVSC guidance and is what auditors expect to see in the working papers. For a deeper walkthrough of method choice see our comparison RFR vs MPEEM vs With and Without.
For a borrower whose use case is an IP-backed lending application — where the lender's interest is primarily in collateral suitability and a defensible valuation, not in the specific method-asset pairing — Sollomon's coordinated approach is fit for purpose. For a CFO whose use case is PPA, impairment, or audit-aligned valuation — where the working papers need to demonstrate the appropriate method per asset — the Asset Valuator's method-by-method structure is the right shape.
Accounting Standards Alignment
For valuations that feed audit, PPA, or impairment work, the standards alignment of the output matters as much as the numerical result.
The Opagio Asset Valuator is documented as aligning with IFRS 3 / IAS 38 (UK and global) and ASC 805 (US). The output structure — contributory asset charge schedule, royalty-rate or comparable-transaction support, asset-level audit trail — is built to match what an auditor expects under those standards. For multi-jurisdiction work (e.g., a UK parent with US subsidiary, or a Big 4 valuation review under either standard), the same Asset Valuator output supports both.
Sollomon's primary publicly described context is UK and global IFRS framing for the IP-lending use case. Where the valuation is for IP-backed lending purposes (the dominant Sollomon use case), the standards alignment question is less material — the lender's credit decision is not an audit. Where the valuation feeds an audit-aligned PPA, the working-papers shape and standards alignment of the output is more critical and is where the Asset Valuator's structure has a clearer advantage.
Note (jurisdiction): UK IFRS and global IFRS are not identical — UK-adopted IFRS reflects the UK's regulatory framework post-Brexit. ASC 805 (US) is a separate standard with different mechanics. For multi-jurisdiction work, the Asset Valuator's explicit dual-standard output is the practical advantage.
Asset Scope
Sollomon values the assets surfaced by Goldseam — approximately 80 asset types across 6 categories per Inngot's public materials, oriented toward statutory and adjacent IP. Where the asset base under valuation is concentrated in statutory IP, the scope matches.
The Opagio Asset Valuator values the wider asset base inside Opagio 12™ — twelve value drivers including customer capital, organisational capital, brand and reputation, human capital, technology, data, and the rest. For a business whose enterprise value sits largely in non-IP intangibles (most modern SaaS, services, and consumer businesses), the wider scope is the point. The CFO completing a PPA under IFRS 3 needs MPEEM for customer relationships, RFR for the brand, and Cost for internally developed technology — assets that Goldseam's narrower scope does not surface comprehensively.
For deeper context on the scope difference, see our comparison Goldseam vs Opagio Discovery.
FAQ
Is Sollomon the same as the Opagio Asset Valuator?
Answer
No. Both apply the income, market, and cost approach families grounded in standard valuation theory, but they differ in method depth, accounting-standards alignment, asset scope, and output reusability. Sollomon, per Inngot's public materials, is a coordinated online tool applying three approaches to the IP assets surfaced by Goldseam. The Opagio Asset Valuator applies six specific asset-level methods (RFR, MPEEM, With and Without, Cost, DCF, market multiples) with output structured for IFRS 3 / IAS 38 (UK and global) and ASC 805 (US) alignment, supporting reuse across lending, fundraising, exit, and audit.
Which is better for a NatWest IP-backed lending valuation?
Answer
If the borrower is already in conversation with NatWest and the relationship manager has specifically asked for a Sollomon output feeding Hallmarq, the procedurally lower-friction path is Sollomon — the bank's workflow is integrated with Inngot's tools. For borrowers approaching other UK lenders, non-bank IP financiers, or where the same valuation needs to support fundraising or exit work as well, the Opagio Asset Valuator's bank-agnostic, methodology-traceable output supports the multi-use case.
Which is better for a PPA under IFRS 3 or ASC 805?
Answer
The Opagio Asset Valuator is purpose-built for this work. The asset-method pairing (MPEEM for customer relationships, RFR for licensable IP, With and Without where appropriate), the contributory asset charge schedule, the standards-aligned audit trail, and the dual IFRS 3 / ASC 805 documentation are structured to align with what an auditor expects under either standard. Sollomon's primary publicly described context is the IP-lending workflow, not PPA work.
Do the two tools produce the same valuation number?
Answer
For an identical asset under valuation with identical assumptions, the numbers will be in the same family — both apply income, market, and cost approaches grounded in standard valuation theory. Differences will emerge where the method choice differs (the Asset Valuator typically applies an asset-specific method per asset; Sollomon applies the three-approach mix), where the underlying taxonomy differs (Asset Valuator covers a wider asset base), or where assumptions differ. For audit-defensibility, the structural shape of the working papers matters as much as the numerical result.
Can I use Opagio's Asset Valuator output to support a NatWest application?
Answer
Yes — the output is bank-agnostic by design, and the Lending Readiness Report (which uses the Asset Valuator as the underlying valuation) supports IP-backed lending conversations across the UK lending market. Where the bank's internal process is specifically integrated with Inngot's outputs, the borrower may need to provide additional context on how the Opagio output maps to the bank's criteria. For borrowers approaching NatWest or HSBC for the first time with an Opagio output, that is increasingly a workable path; for borrowers already six weeks into a conversation wired to Inngot's outputs, Sollomon is the procedural fit.
How does pricing compare?
Answer
Inngot's tool pricing is not publicly published; Sollomon engagements are quote-based via the bespoke services pathway. Opagio's pricing is published and tiered: the free Growth Forecaster provides a lighter scoring view, and the paid Opagio Intangibles platform includes the full Asset Valuator module under subscription. For an accurate side-by-side cost view, request a quote from Inngot directly and consult the Opagio pricing page or book a demo.
What methods does the Opagio Asset Valuator support?
Answer
Relief from Royalty (RFR), Multi-Period Excess Earnings (MPEEM), With and Without, Cost Approach, DCF, and trading-comparable multiples. 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). For a deeper walkthrough see RFR vs MPEEM vs With and Without.
Where can I see the Opagio Asset Valuator in action?
Answer
Book a demo and a member of the Opagio team will walk through the Asset Valuator with a worked example relevant to your context — PPA work, IP-backed lending, fundraising preparation, or exit readiness. The demo is typically 30-40 minutes.
Closing
Sollomon® is a focused online IP valuation tool with strong institutional fit into the UK IP-backed lending workflow. For a borrower whose immediate need is a coordinated income/market/cost valuation tied to NatWest or HSBC, the procedural fit is hard to match.
The Opagio Asset Valuator is built for buyers whose valuation has to be method-appropriate per asset, audit-aligned to IFRS 3 / IAS 38 (UK and global) and ASC 805 (US), and reusable across multiple downstream uses. The asset-method pairing, the dual-standard output, and the contributory asset charge structure together make the Asset Valuator the platform-shaped fit for audit-aligned valuation work and for buyers whose downstream use cuts across lending, fundraising, exit, and audit.
The best way to know which is right for your business is to test the output against a real scenario. For Opagio, book a demo and bring a real context — a PPA, an IP-backed lending application, an investor pack, or an exit window — and we will walk through the Asset Valuator against your actual case.
Companion pieces: Opagio vs Inngot — Intangible Asset Platforms Compared | Goldseam vs Opagio Discovery | Hallmarq vs Opagio Lending Report
Related reading
- RFR vs MPEEM vs With and Without — Asset Valuation Methods Compared
- IFRS 3 vs ASC 805 — How Acquired Intangibles Are Recognised
- IP-backed lending in the UK — eligibility, lenders, and the application process
- Intangible asset glossary — Relief from Royalty
- Intangible asset glossary — Multi-Period Excess Earnings
- Intangible asset glossary — Customer Relationships
- Purchase Price Allocation — Complete PPA Guide
Related Glossary Terms
Learn More
Ready to Value Your Intangible Assets?
Use Opagio's valuation tools to apply these methods to your own business.