Defense Tech BaseStart with the job you need done and the product you would evaluate. The default selection spans different mission areas; use the picker for a comparison relevant to your question.
Build your own comparison
Choose two to four companies. The curated selection remains available at the main comparison page.
Curated company comparison
| Company | Focus | Location | Disclosed private funding | Matched contracts | Matched SBIR/STTR |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Anduril IndustriesAutonomous systems for defense and national security. | Aircraft, autonomous systems and mission software Autonomous systemsMission softwareDefense hardware |
Costa Mesa, CA | Not listed | 211 | 5 |
| Palantir TechnologiesSoftware that empowers organizations to create and govern artificial intelligence across public and private networks. | Mission decision software Mission softwareSensing & intelligenceCybersecurity |
Denver, CO | Not listed | 94 | — |
| SaronicAutonomous surface vessels for the maritime domain. | Autonomous surface vessels and fleet control Autonomous systemsAdvanced manufacturingMaritime systems |
Austin, TX | Not listed | 1 | — |
| Shield AIAI pilots for the world’s most important missions. | V-BAT aircraft and autonomy integration Autonomous systemsMission softwareSensing & intelligence |
San Diego, CA | Not listed | 17 | 5 |
| SkydioAutonomous drones made in the USA. | Defense small aircraft and sensing payloads Autonomous systemsSensing & intelligence |
San Mateo, CA | Not listed | 138 | 2 |
Product scope and questions to investigate
Compare product scope and the questions to ask each company.
Anduril Industries
Aircraft, autonomous systems and mission software
Anduril's published portfolio includes Ghost and Altius aircraft and Lattice software. The product and integration scope matter more than the broad label 'drone company': compare the specific aircraft, payload, software and support being offered.
Questions for your shortlist
Ask which legal entity and product configuration would deliver the requirement, what integration is included, and which customer evidence applies to that configuration. An award matched to Anduril does not by itself identify the aircraft or software involved.
Palantir Technologies
Mission decision software
Palantir describes Gotham as software for defense decision-making, with workflows for situational awareness and sensor tasking. Its published examples span operations centers and use at the edge. For a founder evaluating an integration or partnership, the relevant unit is the specific workflow and deployment environment: what data enters, what decision the operator makes, and which systems exchange the output.
Questions for your shortlist
Ask which product and module the engagement covers, who supplies the data connectors, and what access controls and deployment constraints apply. Define a representative workflow and measurable acceptance criteria before comparing a platform engagement with a narrow application. A contract matched to Palantir supports company-level research; read its description to establish the purchased product and scope.
Saronic
Autonomous surface vessels and fleet control
Saronic presents Corsair, Mirage and Marauder as members of its autonomous surface-vessel family. It also describes Echelon as a command-and-control layer for planning, simulation and execution across one vessel or a fleet. The relevant comparison includes the vessel, its payload and operating support, together with the software and communications needed to run the mission.
Questions for your shortlist
Specify the vessel configuration, mission payload, launch and recovery arrangements, and intended operating conditions. Ask who provides communications, fleet-control software, maintenance and operator training. For a payload or software partnership, establish the integration interface and who is responsible for testing the combined system rather than treating every Saronic platform as interchangeable.
Shield AI
V-BAT aircraft and autonomy integration
Shield AI presents V-BAT as an aircraft product and Hivemind as autonomy technology. A platform purchase and an autonomy integration engagement can therefore have different deliverables, dependencies and acceptance tests.
Questions for your shortlist
Establish whether the proposed work covers an aircraft, software integration or both. Ask who owns integration testing and continuing software support. Check the underlying award description before treating a matched company award as evidence for a particular product.
Skydio
Defense small aircraft and sensing payloads
Skydio markets X10D for defense users. Evaluate the offered aircraft configuration together with its sensing payload, software and support package; a platform name alone does not identify everything included in a quote.
Questions for your shortlist
Ask which payload and software licenses are included, how deployment and training work, and what spare parts and support are available. Confirm the customer's acquisition and information-handling requirements against the exact offering rather than relying on general 'defense-ready' language.
How to use this comparison
Capability tags are a starting point, not a product evaluation. Funding appears only when a disclosed figure has been entered on the profile; “Not listed” does not mean zero. Award counts describe records matched within this site and are not a measure of total revenue, product quality or customer adoption.
Write a comparison question first
“Which aircraft could carry this sensor?” and “Which autonomy team could integrate with our platform?” produce different shortlists. A company can appear in the same capability category while supplying a different part of the mission. Record the actual offering, interface and support scope before comparing.
| Compare | Record for each candidate | Resolve before deciding |
|---|---|---|
| Mission and deliverable | Specific product, service or integration | Is each candidate solving the same problem? |
| Operating conditions | Environment, users, host platform and constraints | Which assumptions have been demonstrated for your use? |
| Interfaces and dependencies | Data, payload, power, communications and external systems | Who performs and accepts the integration? |
| Evidence | Source URL, date, tested configuration and scope | Is it a company claim, test result or purchased deliverable? |
| Commercial scope | Hardware, licenses, support, training and recurring costs | Are quotes covering the same period and exclusions? |
| Open questions | Named owner and next action | What evidence would change your choice? |
Use the relationship that fits your task
For a potential supplier, define a common requirement and compare delivery and support. For a partner, identify the interface and shared customer value. For competitor research, document the overlap and the meaningful differences; a large funding round or contract count alone says little about the exact product you will encounter.
Use the buyer research worksheet to turn award research into a source trail and next action. If you are purchasing outside help, the provider brief and comparison tools help you ask each candidate for the same scope.