The full set, in one place: how the platform works, what it costs, how your data is handled, and what changes for each market. Every answer states what OmniAxis does, how it grades the evidence, and where that evidence comes from.
What the engine does, where the evidence comes from, and how each grade is anchored to it.
No. The shared library grades independent third-party evidence, and a grade tells you how strong that proof is. Test reports and trial results you upload are held as tenant-private evidence beside it. Product behaviour on a bench is a question for your own validation, and every score names the evidence it rests on.
Documented records alone: the filings regulators require, funding announcements, and leadership changes on the documented record. Private financial data has no way into the pipeline, and we treat rumour as noise.
The library refreshes on a platform-managed cadence as the market moves, and every assessment carries the date it was last refreshed. Treat each one as a dated snapshot of the documented record.
No. Agents do the gathering and grading, and they flag where sources disagree. Scoring authority and final decisions stay with people. Your company profile is read as authoritative and is never overwritten by an agent.
Review platforms aggregate user opinion. Analyst houses publish authoritative research on a periodic cycle. Generic AI tools answer without graded sources. OmniAxis does a narrower job with more discipline: it grades each capability claim on the evidence behind it, sets that beside what the marketing asserts, calibrates to the true peer group, and keeps provenance on every data point.
Because a published method is a method a vendor can game, and a graded library that can be gamed is worth nothing to the buyer relying on it. What we do publish is the basis of every individual score: the evidence behind a claim, its source, and its date, all inspectable in your own account.
Every tenant inherits the full shared, evidence-graded vendor library the day they join, so there is no cold start and no re-research. Anything you add on top (tracked vendors, private uploads, your own edits) stays private to your tenant.
No, and none are presented as such. Every figure carries an evidence-class label: illustrative, modelled, value hypothesis or measurement target. No verified customer outcomes exist yet; when they do, they will be labelled as measured results and nothing will be promoted early.
Using your tenant intelligence inside the AI client your team already runs. Live, tenant-scoped, and bounded by your own role and plan.
The Model Context Protocol is how an AI agent calls an outside system. The OmniAxis MCP connection lets the assistant your team already runs query your tenant's evidence-graded intelligence directly, so a vendor's graded profile comes back sourced and tiered inside your agent instead of you opening the Hub or the Evaluation portal.
Teams who would rather work in the AI client they already use, Claude, Cursor, or any MCP-capable assistant, than switch into a separate portal. You bring your own agent and OmniAxis provides tools scoped to your tenant, so it works with your role and plan just as you would in the portal.
Yes. There is no OmniAxis-hosted chat in this mode. You point your own MCP client at the OmniAxis endpoint and authenticate with a per-tenant key. Your agent and your tokens do the reasoning; OmniAxis runs the action and returns the evidence with its source attached.
It works with the intelligence you already hold. It reads your tracked vendors, their graded capability profiles with the evidence behind each claim, financial-viability signals, and the sources; makes the changes your role allows, such as tracking a vendor or updating your own record; and triggers the analytics your plan includes. Access is bounded to your tenant, to your subscription, and to your own role, so it acts as you and can never reach data or actions you could not use in the portal. The shared vendor library stays read-only over the connection.
You generate a per-tenant key from your workspace, shown once like a personal access token, and you can label, rotate, or revoke it at any time. Revoking a key ends access immediately, and every call re-enters your tenant's permission and subscription checks.
Real numbers, stated plainly. These answers mirror the pricing page.
Pricing is provided on application. Vendor and MSP subscriptions run on tiers that differ by refresh cadence and how many vendors you track, and buying teams can either subscribe or commission a single evaluation as a one-off. Tell us which of those fits and we will send the figures.
Because a published price list is one a competitor prices against, and at this stage that costs us more than the friction it saves you. It is a short conversation, not a negotiation tactic, and the numbers do not change based on who is asking.
Yes. Every engagement starts with a tailored working session on synthetic data, so you see the workflow, the evidence trail, and the reporting before any commitment. Request one through the demo form.
Yes. The single-evaluation option covers one vendor shortlist end to end: criteria you define, every capability graded on independent evidence, an evidence-backed comparison report, and a committee-ready evidence pack. It is a one-off engagement, with no subscription.
Less than you would expect, because there is no cold start. Every tenant inherits the full shared, evidence-graded vendor library on day one. You choose the vendors or competitors to track, confirm your own company profile as the grounding record, and the first working session starts from populated intelligence.
How we isolate your data, how we govern access, and how we describe our own posture.
Every tenant operates in a private space. Your tracked vendors, uploads, annotations, and evaluation work are invisible to other tenants, and the shared research library never contains tenant-private data.
They stay tenant-private and never enter the shared library. Within your tenant, each upload is extracted and compared against the documented record; where your document contradicts a graded claim, the conflict is surfaced for your team to act on.
No. Your curated profile is the ground truth agents read, and no agent can write to it. If independent evidence disagrees with something you have curated, you see the discrepancy and decide what to do with it; the profile stays exactly as you left it.
From the independent documented record rather than from vendor marketing. We keep the source catalogue private by design, because a published list is one a vendor can work backwards from. The source behind any single claim is visible to you at the point that claim is made, and documentation you upload adds a tenant-private evidence lane beside it.
No. Financial-viability signals derive from documented records only.
No. OmniAxis does not claim a certified SOC 2; certification is an open decision. The trust overview we share on request records the current status.
Yes. Processing is GDPR-aligned, and a Data Processing Agreement, including sub-processor detail, is available on request.
Each certification a vendor claims is graded by the evidence behind it. Where the evidence falls short, the gap becomes a validation question you can put to the vendor directly.
You choose them. The library is already profiled, so you select the vendors you actually compete against rather than accepting a segment someone else drew. Scoring is then calibrated within that peer group, because a specialist measured against a hyperscaler can only lose.
That is precisely the case the product is built for. The marketing-claim score and the evidence-backed score sit side by side, so a wide gap is visible rather than averaged away, and it becomes the question your sales team puts in front of a prospect.
No. Your tracked list, your uploads, your annotations, and your own company profile are isolated to your tenant. A vendor profiled in the shared library has no visibility into any tenant that tracks it, including its own tenant if it is also a customer.
Your curated company profile is the ground truth agents read and can never overwrite. Where independent evidence disagrees with it, you see the discrepancy and decide what to do; you can also upload documentation that is held as tenant-private evidence beside the shared record.
Yes. Reports and exports are built for that, IP-marked and permission-gated section by section so what leaves the platform is deliberate. A client-facing stack review carries the evidence and its source, which is what makes it hold up in the room.
Financial-viability signals are drawn from the documented record: regulator filings, funding history, and leadership changes. They surface as early warning across the vendors you track, so a supplier weakening becomes a planned transition rather than a scramble.
No. You subscribe once and apply it to the vendor stack you resell or assess. Evaluations you run on a client's behalf sit inside your own tenant.
It produces the artefacts that process already asks for: criteria you define and weight, a scored comparison across the shortlist, and a decision record capturing the selection and its rationale. The difference is that every score links to the evidence behind it.
You do. The platform can prefill from graded evidence and will flag where a claim is unsupported, but the rating against your criteria is your committee's, and the decision record captures that it was.
Yes. RFP responses, trial results, and vendor documentation are held as tenant-private evidence beside the shared library. Where an upload contradicts a graded claim, the conflict is surfaced for your team rather than quietly resolved.
It stays isolated to your tenant and never enters the shared library. Your shortlist, your scores, and your rationale are visible only to your own team.
Ask us directly. A tailored walkthrough on synthetic data answers the questions a FAQ cannot.