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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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](/pricing) or [book a demo](/demo).

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](/compare/rfr-vs-mpeem-vs-with-and-without).

[Book a demo](/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.

Tool Comparison

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.

Sollomon and the Opagio Asset Valuator both apply income, market, and cost approach families to intangible asset valuation, but they differ in method depth, accounting-standards alignment, asset scope, and reusability of the output across downstream uses.

Criteria	Opagio Asset Valuator	Sollomon
Approach families covered	Income, market, cost — applied through specific asset-level methods	Income, market, cost — applied as a coordinated online tool
Specific methods covered	RFR, MPEEM, With and Without, Cost, DCF, market multiples	Cost, market, and income approaches; specific asset-level methods not publicly itemised
Accounting-standards alignment	IFRS 3 / IAS 38 (UK and global) and ASC 805 (US) explicit	UK and global IFRS framing; ASC 805 alignment not externally documented
Asset scope	Twelve value drivers — statutory IP plus non-statutory intangibles	Assets surfaced by Goldseam — approximately 80 asset types across 6 categories
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
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	Tiered SaaS subscription — included in the paid Opagio Intangibles platform	Per-tool licensing or bespoke engagement — quote-based, not publicly published
Best fit when	Method-appropriate per asset, audit-aligned to IFRS 3 / IAS 38 / ASC 805, reusable across lending, fundraising, exit, audit	An institutionally-recognised IP valuation tied to a specific NatWest or HSBC IP-backed lending application

When to Use Each Approach

Opagio Asset Valuator

You are completing a PPA under IFRS 3 / IAS 38 or ASC 805
Different assets need different methods (RFR for licensable IP, MPEEM for customer relationships)
The same valuation has to support lending, fundraising, exit, and audit
Your asset base extends beyond statutory IP into customer, organisational, brand, or data capital

Sollomon

Your immediate need is an IP-lending-aligned valuation tied to Inngot's workflow
You are in-flight on a NatWest or HSBC IP-backed lending application where the bank workflow is wired to Sollomon
Your asset base is concentrated in statutory IP
You prefer a per-engagement model over an ongoing platform subscription

Our Verdict

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-appropriate per asset, audit-aligned to IFRS 3 / IAS 38 / ASC 805, and reusable across multiple downstream uses.

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

Sollomon vs Opagio: IP Valuation Tools

When to Use Each Approach

Opagio Asset Valuator

Sollomon

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?