Compare
Six products, twenty capabilities, checked by hand against each vendor's own product pages on 31 August 2026. Two of them beat us outright on things we would like to claim as ours, one row we do not compete in at all, and five of our own entries still carry a beta badge. All of it is marked below. If a row here is wrong, tell us and we will change it.
Everything in the table below follows from one choice, and it is worth stating before you read a single row.
Most of these products are a system of record. Atlantic is a system of work.
A system of record is where you file things afterwards. Somebody does the thinking in Word, the planning in Excel and the deck in PowerPoint, then re-keys the outcome so the platform can report on it. A system of work is where the job is actually done: the charter is authored in it, the work plan is built in it, and workstream leads record delivery as it happens. Reporting stops being a layer bolted on afterwards and becomes a by-product of the work.
So we augment and automate the work, rather than track it.
That is why the rows that matter most below are the ones about drafting, not dashboards: the meeting that updates the plan, the stakeholder briefing written before you walk into the room, the steering pack assembled from live state. A tracker tells you a workstream is amber. It does not do anything about it.
The plan is written from your project, not chosen from a library.
Every product on this page ships playbooks and industry examples, because a library is what you can offer when the software cannot read the project. You find the closest template and spend the first two weeks bending it to fit. We read the documents, the deal context and the functions you have actually named, and draft the work plan for the whole program in minutes. A template is somebody else's project, adapted. A draft from your own context is yours from the first version, and you edit it rather than translate it.
The test to apply, to us and to them.
Ask any vendor on this page what a workstream lead does in their tool on a Tuesday afternoon. If the honest answer is that they update a status so the report comes out right, that is a system of record, and the real work is still happening somewhere else in a spreadsheet.
A mark means the vendor's own product pages describe that capability. An empty mark means they do not describe it, which is not the same as proving they cannot do it. We have applied that rule to ourselves more strictly than to them: where one of our capabilities is still in beta we say so in the cell, which is a distinction none of these vendors draws on their own pages.
| Capability | AtlanticM&A | General AI and shared drives | Midaxo | DealRoom | Devensoft | Shibumi | Conductor |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Transformation, not just the deal | |||||||
| Six project types: integration, divestiture (buy side or sell side), value creation, transformation, agentic transformation, cloud migration | Yes | Any, structured by hand | No | No | No | Yes | Partial |
| Cloud migration as a domain: MAP funding math, migration readiness review, TCO, wave plan, funding bundle | Yes, via AWS Marketplace | No | No | No | No | No | No |
| Portfolio and project dashboards, with presets for PE, corporate development, advisory and independent sponsor | Yes | Build your own in Excel or Power BI | Dashboards | No | Dashboards | Enterprise shape | Enterprise shape |
| Fund-level roll-up across separately held portfolio companies, with per-vehicle views | Yes, beta | Spreadsheet roll-up, kept by hand | No | No | No | No | No |
| Working across countries | |||||||
| Run the whole project in any of 16 languages. Work plans, tasks, milestones and risks translate, not just the interface, so each country team works in its own language. | Yes, project content too | Translate on request, copy back by hand | No | No | No | No | No |
| The deal itself | |||||||
| M&A integration execution | Yes | Tracker in Excel or Planner | Yes | Yes | Yes | Partial | Yes |
| Work plan drafted from your own project context in minutes, not adapted from a template | Yes | Drafts text; you build the plan | Find a playbook, adapt by hand | Find a playbook, adapt by hand | Find a playbook, adapt by hand | Find a playbook, adapt by hand | Find a playbook, adapt by hand |
| Deal sourcing and pipeline CRM | No | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | No |
| Diligence data room | Basic beta, add-on | Shared folders | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | No |
| TSA tracking and exit management | Yes | Spreadsheet | No | No | No | No | No |
| Value | |||||||
| Synergy and benefits tracking | Yes | Spreadsheet | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Value bridge from underwritten case to realized value | Yes, beta | Spreadsheet model, by hand | No | No | No | No | No |
| The half of the work that is not a task list | |||||||
| Stakeholder management: personas, briefings, simulation | Yes, simulation in beta | One-off prompts | Partial | No | No | No | No |
| Change management as a module | Yes | No | Partial | No | No | No | No |
| Meeting transcript becomes proposed task and RAID updates | Yes | Summary only; you update the plan | No | No | No | No | No |
| Contextual search across the project, meeting transcripts included, to find the root cause of an issue or risk | Yes | Searches files, not the plan or RAID | Not transcripts | Not transcripts | No | Not transcripts | Not transcripts |
| Output and access | |||||||
| Steering-committee decks generated on demand from live project data | Yes | Slides from pasted data | No | No | No | No | Yes |
| Connect your data to Claude or another AI assistant over MCP | Yes, beta | No project data to connect | No | Yes | No | No | Yes |
| Pull a current steering pack from your own AI assistant, on demand | Yes | From whatever you paste in | No | No | No | No | No |
| Before you talk to anyone | |||||||
| Prices published on the website | Yes, from $1,000 per project a month | Yes, per seat | No | No | No | No | No |
| Interactive demo with no signup | Yes | Free tier, account needed | No | No | No | No | No |
Two of the capabilities we are proudest of have already been built by someone else on this list. A comparison page that hid that would not be worth reading, so here it is first.
Conductor also generates steering-committee decks.They got there too
Their AI layer generates presentations from live program data. Ours are drawn from work done in the system itself: the charters, the plan and the delivery recorded by the people doing it. But the category is not ours alone, and we will not pretend it is.
DealRoom and Conductor also connect AI assistants over MCP.They got there too
Both describe an MCP server that brings their data to assistants such as Claude, ChatGPT and Microsoft Copilot. We were not first. What differs is what is on the other end of the connection: theirs is the deal and the diligence, or a governed portfolio; ours is the live work plan, the risks and the report queue.
Three rows in the matrix where none of the other five describes the capability at all. The rest of our advantages are in the table; these are the ones worth the space.
The deal value bridge, not only a synergy list.
All five track synergies as line items against a target. The bridge decomposes equity value between entry and exit into typed legs, organic growth and margin, revenue and cost synergies, acquisitions, cash generation, multiple expansion and disposals, and separates what the business earned from what the market did. Each initiative is tagged to the leg it targets, and quarterly actuals restate the case beside it. A tag records intent, not an amount, so the same pound is never counted twice. This area is in beta.
Stakeholders and change are modules, not an audience label.
Personas, a briefing pack per stakeholder, and a simulation of how a named person is likely to react before you walk into the room. Midaxo lists change management as a team that uses the product; nobody else describes it as something the product itself does. The simulation is in beta.
The meeting updates the plan.
Put a transcript in, or a notetaker on the call, and the work plan and RAID log come back with proposed updates you accept or skip. Not a summary emailed round afterwards: changes queued against the actual tasks. Nothing else on this list describes anything like it, and a plan going stale between meetings is the most common way a program quietly stops being true.
No grid here, because a certification is a yes or a no and ours is about to change. This is where we are, in our own words, on 31 August 2026.
SOC 2 Type II: observation period 18 August to 18 November 2026.
Preparation and the internal audit are complete. The report follows the close of that window. Until it is issued we have no report, and we will not imply otherwise.
ISO/IEC 27001:2022: controls implemented, certification audit underway.
Stage 1 and Stage 2 both sit ahead of a certificate. We are not certified today and will say so until we are.
Independent penetration test: passed, nothing open.
A third-party firm completed a full test in Q3 2026. No critical, high or medium-severity findings, and none outstanding. Our SOC 2 and ISO 27001 controls are monitored continuously, which is our own readiness position, not an auditor's opinion.
Most of the products on this page already hold a completed certification. We do not, yet.
If your procurement requires a finished SOC 2 report or an ISO certificate before 18 November 2026, we do not meet it and you should buy elsewhere. You would find that out in a security review anyway, so better to read it here.
Subprocessors, the data model and the full detail on the trust portal
What each one is genuinely good at, and the condition under which we would tell you to buy it instead of ours. Strengths are drawn from their own product pages.
Deal lifecycle
Good at
One connected system from sourcing and pipeline through to integration. They are also the only vendor here who names their security auditor and audit date rather than just asserting a badge, which is the standard the rest of us should be held to.
Buy theirs if
You want sourcing, pipeline and diligence in the same tool as integration. We start where the deal becomes work, so we cover less of the lifecycle.
Diligence forward
Good at
Diligence: document control, the data room and the buy-side request workflow are their heritage. Their commercial model is kinder than most, priced by deal volume with unlimited users rather than per seat.
Buy theirs if
Your bottleneck is diligence. Their data room is mature and ours exists in beta as an add-on. If the room is the reason you are buying, that decides it.
End to end M&A
Good at
Breadth of deal type in one platform, covering acquisitions, divestitures and joint ventures, with published case studies, which is more homework than most of this list gives a buyer.
Buy theirs if
You want a longer customer track record behind the software than a company at our stage can honestly show you.
Portfolio governance
Good at
Enterprise-scale program governance, and zero-code configurability deep enough to model almost any operating model you already run. At the top end they are formidable.
Buy theirs if
You are governing a portfolio far wider than M&A, or you need the assurance and scale of a large enterprise vendor.
Strategic programs
Good at
Governance for a large program office: dependencies, KPIs and benefits in one place, and an AI layer that assembles steering-committee presentations from live data.
Buy theirs if
You want governance over a program office and are content to write the strategy, the charters, the work plans and the analysis yourselves. We are built for every transformation type, integration, divestiture, value creation, transformation, agentic transformation and cloud migration through AWS Marketplace, and our AI drafts those artifacts from your own program, so a smaller team gets further in less time.
Every competitor cell came from a page you can open. Our side you can open too, without giving anyone your email.
