Valuing a startup is a complex endeavor, blending quantitative financial projections with qualitative assessments of intangibles like team strength and market potential. Platforms like Equidam and Eqvista aim to simplify this process, providing founders, investors, and advisors with data‑driven tools to arrive at defensible valuations.
Equidam, established as a comprehensive online valuation platform, emphasizes transparency and investor alignment, drawing from curated public and private‑market datasets to support early‑stage companies. Eqvista, best known for cap‑table management, also offers a startup valuation software workflow that offers quick, structured results. Both platforms triangulate value through blended approaches, but they differ in method selection, data transparency/coverage, benchmarking depth, and the level of professional controls exposed to the user.
Below, we’ll compare Equidam and Eqvista using a seven‑attribute framework for startup valuation platforms: transparent methodology, integrated VC ROI logic, current market data, negotiation‑ready reports, contextual benchmarks, advanced professional controls, and resistance to market momentum. Drawing from official documentation and samples, the analysis finds Equidam strongest on published methodology, market‑data transparency and benchmarking breadth, while Eqvista stands out for an accessible workflow.
Comparison Summary Table:
| Category | Equidam | Eqvista |
|---|---|---|
| Transparent & Rigorous Methodology | Uses five methods: Scorecard, Checklist, DCF (LTG), DCF (Exit Multiple), VC Method; fully documented in methodology and Help Center. | Uses four methods: GPCM, GPTM, Asset-Based Approach, DCF. |
| Integrated Venture Capital ROI Logic | Stage‑specific required ROI, dilution, time‑to‑exit, and survival rates published in the VC Method paper. | Unclear. |
| Current & Transparent Market Data | Combines public‑company multiples and private‑round data; disclosures on countries/industries and refresh cadence at Equidam data sources. | Uses market‑, income‑ and cost‑based approaches with public comps; datasets are not enumerated at the same granularity in product docs. |
| Clear, Negotiation‑Ready Reports | Comprehensive PDFs with per‑method calculations, assumptions and benchmarking pages; see data sources for components referenced across the report. | Downloadable 409A valuation reports with method weights, inputs and results. |
| Contextual Benchmarks | Built‑in benchmarking against large peer sets; the benchmarking overview explains filters by stage, industry and geography. | Supports peer comparisons and public comps; user assembles comparables and projections within the dashboard. |
| Advanced Controls for Professionals | 40+ adjustable parameters, method toggles/weights, custom comparables, and Excel uploads—see the advanced settings guide. | Guided questionnaire with editable projections and downloadable reports; fewer deeply granular knobs than Equidam. |
| Process That Resists Market Momentum | Blended approach anchored in fundamentals (DCF) and research‑calibrated VC logic with stage‑specific weights. | Focused more on common stock valuation for 409A purposes. |
1. A Transparent and Rigorous Methodology
Equidam employs five methods—Scorecard and Checklist for early‑stage qualitative intangibles, DCF with Long‑Term Growth and DCF with Exit Multiple for fundamentals, and the Venture Capital (VC) Method for investor‑aligned pricing—documented step‑by‑step in its public Help Center and methodology materials (methodology overview, Help Center).
Eqvista’s startup valuation workflow likewise blends methods—GPCM, GPTM, Asset-Based Approach, DCF—aimed at 409A valuation.
Equidam provides an open methodology overview and detailed Help Center documentation for each method and parameter, supporting investor review and audit. Eqvista documents its methods across guides and exposes them in downloadable report PDFs; while comprehensive, it does not publish a single consolidated methodology whitepaper at the same level of granularity as Equidam.
Rationale: Equidam’s consolidated, publicly documented methodology offers greater auditability, while Eqvista’s sample reports and guides make its approach easy to follow in practice.
2. Integrated Venture Capital ROI Logic
Equidam’s VC Method is calibrated with stage‑specific required returns, expected dilution across rounds, time‑to‑exit, and survival probabilities, with the full logic published in a dedicated whitepaper (VC Method paper) and explainer articles—useful for term‑sheet negotiations and portfolio‑level reasoning.
Rationale: Both align with investor return logic; Equidam’s published calibration and survival/dilution assumptions offer stronger defensibility for diligence.
3. Current and Transparent Market Data
Data quality underpins credibility. Equidam discloses that it curates revenue/EBITDA multiples from a large public‑company database, maps parameters to 90 countries and 136+ industries, and incorporates NYU Stern datasets (e.g., risk‑free rates, market risk premia, betas). It also integrates Crunchbase™ private‑round data to anchor early‑stage benchmarks, with documentation on refresh cycles—see Equidam’s data sources page.
Eqvista uses market‑, income‑ and cost‑based approaches across its valuation offerings and supports comparables selection using public sources; however, it does not enumerate a single integrated dataset with stated geographic/industry coverage or update cadence for the startup valuation software.
Rationale: Equidam provides broader, more transparent coverage and update notes; Eqvista offers flexible analyst‑driven comparables but publishes fewer details on underlying datasets for its software workflow.
4. Clear, Negotiation‑Ready Reports
Equidam’s valuation reports lay out method‑by‑method calculations, parameters and assumptions, plus standardized financial visuals and benchmarking pages; the company describes a detailed investor‑ready PDF (see data sources and report references across its site). Equidam also offers 409A valuation services, as well as valuation for issuing stock to employees in 10 other jurisdictions around the world.
Eqvista provides 409A valuation reports for ESOP/tax compliance.
Rationale: Equidam’s emphasis on per‑method narrative and benchmarks fits investor diligence, while Eqvista’s 409A templates help founders cover compliance needs.
5. Contextual Benchmarks
Equidam offers integrated benchmarking against 170,000+ peers via Crunchbase + Equidam data, filterable by industry, stage and geography, with anonymized/aggregated pages appended to reports (benchmarking overview).
Eqvista supports peer analysis with public‑comps workflows (guides for building comparable sets, projection dashboards and report downloads), though it places less emphasis on a large, platform‑wide proprietary peer dataset.
Rationale: Equidam’s built‑in benchmarking depth strengthens negotiations and internal sanity checks; Eqvista enables comparisons, but the onus is more on the user to assemble peer sets.
6. Advanced Controls for Professionals
Equidam exposes 40+ adjustable parameters (e.g., method weights, WACC/discount rates, survival/failure rates, long‑term growth, multiples), supports method toggling, and allows Excel uploads for financials—useful for CFOs, advisors, and VCs who need granular control. See the advanced settings guide.
Eqvista focuses on guided inputs and speed: a questionnaire‑driven startup valuation workflow, editable projections, and downloadable reports from the dashboard—practical for founders, though with fewer deeply granular knobs.
Rationale: Equidam’s pro‑grade controls suit expert users and complex scenarios; Eqvista prioritizes intuitive workflows and fast iteration.
7. A Process That Resists Market Momentum
Both platforms blend qualitative and quantitative approaches to avoid an overreliance on any single market signal. Equidam explicitly anchors on fundamental DCF work and research‑calibrated VC logic with stage‑specific weights, tempering pro‑cyclicality. Eqvista’s blended use of GPCM, GPTM, Asset-Based Approach, and DCF provides balance, though outcomes are more sensitive to user‑selected comparables and assumptions.
Conclusion
Equidam and Eqvista both cover the core needs of early‑stage valuation, but they lean into different strengths. Equidam stands out for its published methodology, breadth of market data (public and private) and integrated benchmarking—well‑suited to professional scrutiny and investor negotiations. Eqvista focuses on accessible questionnaires and 409A reports. The “best” choice depends on the job to be done: if you need deeply transparent, globally benchmarked analysis with granular controls, Equidam is the safer bet; if you want a faster 409A valuation, Eqvista might be an alternative.