Atlan vs Patsnap

By valuation, Patsnap is the larger company at $1B versus $750M — a 1.3x difference. Size can also be measured by team: Atlan employs 200-500 people while Patsnap has 500-1000 employees.

Patsnap has raised more in total funding at $300M, compared to Atlan's $206M — a gap of $94M. Combined, the two companies have completed 3 known funding rounds.

Patsnap leads with an Awaira Score of 80/100, while Atlan sits at 68/100. That 12-point gap reflects real differences in funding, scale, and traction — it's not a vanity metric.

Atlan was founded by Prukalpa Sankar in 2018. Patsnap was founded by Jeffrey Tiong in 2007. Visit each company's profile on Awaira for a full founder biography.

Atlan: Atlan is an active metadata platform and data workspace that enables data teams to discover, understand, and govern data assets across cloud warehouses, lakes, BI tools, and pipelines through an AI-powered catalog interface. The platform automatically crawls data infrastructure to build lineage graphs, enables natural language search over data assets, and enforces data governance policies through automated tagging and access controls.\n\nThe company raised approximately $78M in Series C funding from investors including Insight Partners and Sequoia India, and has built a global customer base of data-forward technology companies and enterprises. Atlan has emerged as a recognized leader in the data catalog market, competing with Alation, Collibra, and DataHub in the modern data stack ecosystem.\n\nAs cloud data infrastructure has proliferated, data discoverability and governance have become critical operational problems for engineering teams managing hundreds of data sources. Atlan's modern metadata-first approach and deep integrations with the contemporary data stack — Snowflake, dbt, Fivetran, Looker — position it well in a market where legacy catalog vendors have struggled to keep pace with infrastructure evolution. Patsnap: Patsnap provides an AI-powered patent analytics and intellectual property intelligence platform that enables R&D teams, IP lawyers, and corporate strategy teams to search, analyse, and monitor global patent databases using machine learning to surface technology trends, competitor patent activity, and freedom-to-operate insights from over 170 million patent documents. The Singapore company integrates patent data with scientific literature and chemical structure databases to provide a comprehensive IP and technology intelligence environment.\n\nThe company raised approximately $300 million including a Series E round from investors including SoftBank Vision Fund 2, Tencent, and CPE Yunji, reaching a valuation exceeding $1 billion. Patsnap serves over 10,000 companies globally including R&D-intensive organisations in pharmaceuticals, semiconductors, automotive, and consumer electronics that use patent landscape analysis to inform technology strategy and investment decisions.\n\nPatsnap competes in the IP analytics market against Derwent Advancement (Clarivate), Questel Orbit, and Minesoft, as well as general enterprise search platforms that include patent data. Its AI capabilities for patent claim analysis, technology trend extraction, and cross-domain IP search differentiate it from traditional Boolean-search patent databases, enabling R&D strategy questions to be answered through AI-assisted analysis rather than manual patent review. The Singapore base provides access to both the Southeast Asian technology market and a sophisticated legal and financial services market for IP monetisation and licensing analytics.

Patsnap got there first, launching in 2007 — that's 11 years of extra runway. Atlan didn't arrive until 2018. In AI, that kind of head start means more training data, deeper customer relationships, and a bigger talent moat.

Atlan has about 200-500 employees; Patsnap has about 500-1000. A bigger team usually means more revenue or heavier VC backing, but in AI, small teams can build at massive scale.

Yes — they're direct rivals. Both Atlan and Patsnap compete in AI Data, targeting many of the same buyers. If you're evaluating one, you should be looking at the other.