Mitiga Solutions

Name: Mitiga Solutions
Brand: Mitiga Solutions

From science to climate risk decisions in seconds

Est 2018|Valuation $7.5M|Raised $37.1M|2 Ref Customers

LinkedIn 15K|Web traffic 8K|FTEs 71|HQ Barcelona, Spain

MarketsESG & Sustainability Investment Analytics

Published Sep 16, 2026

01Common complaints

Organizations that require widely available third-party customer reviews
- If a procurement process depends on robust G2/Capterra/TrustRadius feedback, the vendor currently has limited presence on those platforms.
Organizations that need fully public security documentation
- The vendor’s public site content reviewed does not provide detailed SOC 2 reports or a comprehensive security whitepaper; these items should be requested during procurement.
Organizations that need a general ESG suite rather than a specialized physical risk solution
- If the primary need is end-to-end ESG management (data collection, double materiality, carbon accounting, supplier engagement), broader ESG platforms may be more appropriate.
Organizations seeking only simple, low-cost screening
- If the requirement is basic hazard screening for a small number of sites, lighter-weight or lower-cost tools might suffice.

1. Organizations that require widely available third-party customer reviews - If a procurement process depends on robust G2/Capterra/TrustRadius feedback, the vendor currently has limited presence on those platforms. 2. Organizations that need fully public security documentation - The vendor’s public site content reviewed does not provide detailed SOC 2 reports or a comprehensive security whitepaper; these items should be requested during procurement. 3. Organizations that need a general ESG suite rather than a specialized physical risk solution - If the primary need is end-to-end ESG management (data collection, double materiality, carbon accounting, supplier engagement), broader ESG platforms may be more appropriate. 4. Organizations seeking only simple, low-cost screening - If the requirement is basic hazard screening for a small number of sites, lighter-weight or lower-cost tools might suffice.

Deal disqualifiers (poor fit)

Procurement requires public, independently validated security attestations (SOC 2) and cannot proceed without them being readily available.
The primary need is transition risk or carbon accounting rather than physical risk; the vendor is focused on physical risk outputs.
Selection criteria depend heavily on third-party review platform validation (G2/Capterra) as part of vendor justification.

Publicly visible limitations

Pricing transparency: no public price list for platform modules; the API is described as usage-based but without published rates.
Security documentation discoverability: no clear public SOC 2 or ISO certificate page was found in the reviewed official sources.
Third-party review scarcity: limited evidence from standard SaaS review platforms.

Roadmap / availability

No public roadmap dates were located in reviewed sources.

02Why they buy

Unique selling points supported by vendor claims (require buyer validation)

Simulations projecting future conditions from 1970–2100 with scenario analysis in five-year increments (vendor homepage).
Disclose is presented as a module that automates outputs aligned to CSRD/IFRS S2 physical risk reporting (vendor Disclose page).
API access with usage-based pricing and statements about SLAs and enterprise support (vendor API page).
Claims of global coverage across 180+ countries and monitoring station coverage.

Balanced view: where competitors may have an advantage

Public enterprise adoption proofs: some competitors publish more explicit penetration statistics.
Independent third-party validation: competitors with broader analyst coverage or review presence may be easier to justify to procurement.

03Field reports

Important limitation: limited third-party product reviews

As a substitute, this report uses:

Vendor-published testimonials and case studies (marketing evidence)
Employee reviews (employee review sites) as an indirect indicator of execution/support risk
Community/social content (LinkedIn posts)

For the vendor’s climate product (EarthScan/Disclose), independent review-platform coverage (G2/Capterra/TrustRadius) was not found during this research. This creates an evidence gap compared with more widely reviewed enterprise SaaS categories. As a substitute, this report uses: - Vendor-published testimonials and case studies (marketing evidence) - Employee reviews (employee review sites) as an indirect indicator of execution/support risk - Community/social content (LinkedIn posts)

Vendor-published testimonials (positive)

Examples from the vendor site include:

A testimonial stating EarthScan helped quantify climate risk across renewable assets, shaping investment decisions described at a substantial scale — from a head of ESG at a large infrastructure investor.
The vendor also shares a quote from leadership at a major technology company praising their approach.

Critical note: These are vendor-published testimonials and are not independently verified. The financial-scale reference describes decision scale rather than a measured financial return.

Examples from the vendor site include: - A testimonial stating EarthScan helped quantify climate risk across renewable assets, shaping investment decisions described at a substantial scale — from a head of ESG at a large infrastructure investor. - The vendor also shares a quote from leadership at a major technology company praising their approach. Critical note: These are vendor-published testimonials and are not independently verified. The financial-scale reference describes decision scale rather than a measured financial return.

Employee reviews (mixed; indirect but informative)

Employee reviews provide a mixed view:

Positive themes: perceived mission impact, culture, flexibility, growth opportunities.
Negative themes: statements about leadership, strategy, forecasting, and turnover; claims of sales difficulty and morale concerns.

Representative excerpts (employee review site):

Positive: "Qualified team, flexible working schedule, positive culture…"
Negative: "Deep issues with leadership, strategy and culture… very very high turnover…"

Why this matters to buyers: In smaller scale-ups, internal execution issues can translate into product roadmap volatility, support inconsistency, or slower issue resolution—particularly for regulated reporting deadlines.

Employee reviews provide a mixed view: - Positive themes: perceived mission impact, culture, flexibility, growth opportunities. - Negative themes: statements about leadership, strategy, forecasting, and turnover; claims of sales difficulty and morale concerns. Representative excerpts (employee review site): - Positive: "Qualified team, flexible working schedule, positive culture…" - Negative: "Deep issues with leadership, strategy and culture… very very high turnover…" Why this matters to buyers: In smaller scale-ups, internal execution issues can translate into product roadmap volatility, support inconsistency, or slower issue resolution—particularly for regulated reporting deadlines.

Reasons customers may choose Mitiga (inferred from positioning and published materials)

Need for asset-level, forward-looking projections rather than historical averages (vendor homepage).
Desire for standardized outputs and automated reporting aligned with CSRD/IFRS S2 via Disclose (vendor Disclose page).
Preference for API-first automation and usage-based data access (vendor API page).

Potential churn drivers (inferred)

Because independent customer reviews are scarce, churn reasons are inferred from typical climate risk tooling procurement:

Methodology acceptance: internal climate science teams may prefer providers with extensive public scientific documentation or existing regulator familiarity.
Procurement friction: buyers may require transparent security documentation (SOC 2, detailed security whitepaper) to proceed more quickly.
Budget/commitment: enterprise climate risk tools can be expensive; lack of public pricing can complicate early-stage fit testing.

Because independent customer reviews are scarce, churn reasons are inferred from typical climate risk tooling procurement: - Methodology acceptance: internal climate science teams may prefer providers with extensive public scientific documentation or existing regulator familiarity. - Procurement friction: buyers may require transparent security documentation (SOC 2, detailed security whitepaper) to proceed more quickly. - Budget/commitment: enterprise climate risk tools can be expensive; lack of public pricing can complicate early-stage fit testing.

Vendor-published infrastructure investor case study

The vendor describes an infrastructure investor using EarthScan to embed climate risk into due diligence.

Claimed outcome: Investment decisions at a substantial scale were influenced by quantified risk (vendor testimonial).

Critical evaluation / methodology gaps:

No independent verification of the stated business impact.
The financial-scale reference is presented as the scale of decisions affected rather than a measured financial return.
Implementation detail (time-to-value, internal staffing, validation steps) is not fully described publicly.

The vendor describes an infrastructure investor using EarthScan to embed climate risk into due diligence. Claimed outcome: Investment decisions at a substantial scale were influenced by quantified risk (vendor testimonial). Critical evaluation / methodology gaps: - No independent verification of the stated business impact. - The financial-scale reference is presented as the scale of decisions affected rather than a measured financial return. - Implementation detail (time-to-value, internal staffing, validation steps) is not fully described publicly.

Technology asset acquisition (contextual, not a case study)

Public communications note the acquisition of certain intangible assets from another climate intelligence provider intended to strengthen the vendor’s product capabilities.

Critical evaluation:

This may strengthen capabilities, but integrations can also create short-term product complexity.
Buyers should ask what was integrated, what remains legacy, and how that affects roadmap and support.

04Best fit

Company sizes

Likely best fit:

Mid-market to enterprise organizations managing multiple physical sites (dozens to thousands of assets).
Organizations under reporting pressure for CSRD / IFRS S2 / TCFD and seeking scalable physical risk assessments.

Industries / verticals

Infrastructure and renewables investors/operators
Banks and insurers (especially those building stress testing, underwriting, or credit overlays)
Sustainability consultancies scaling client delivery

Roles & personas

Risk management / ERM leaders
ESG / sustainability reporting leads
Infrastructure investment teams (due diligence / asset management)
Cat risk / underwriting teams (insurance)
Data/analytics teams integrating via API

Qualification criteria (strong fit)

The organization has reliable asset location data (or can produce it quickly).
The organization needs forward-looking projections through 2100 and scenario-based analysis.
The organization values automated reporting outputs for compliance or requires repeatable template workflows.

05The pitch

What the product does (objective value proposition)

In practical terms, Mitiga positions EarthScan to:

Evaluate multi-hazard physical risk (e.g., flood, heat, wildfire, wind) for individual assets or large portfolios.
Support investment due diligence, portfolio screening, adaptation planning, and (in some cases) insurance/underwriting workflows.
Produce outputs designed to support regulatory-aligned climate reporting (e.g., CSRD / ESRS E1, IFRS S2, TCFD) through Disclose.

Mitiga Solutions provides physical climate risk intelligence for organizations that need forward-looking, asset-level quantification of climate hazards and their potential financial impact. Its core product family centers on EarthScan (SaaS platform) plus an EarthScan API, and a reporting module called Disclose for regulatory-aligned reporting. In practical terms, Mitiga positions EarthScan to: - Evaluate multi-hazard physical risk (e.g., flood, heat, wildfire, wind) for individual assets or large portfolios. - Support investment due diligence, portfolio screening, adaptation planning, and (in some cases) insurance/underwriting workflows. - Produce outputs designed to support regulatory-aligned climate reporting (e.g., CSRD / ESRS E1, IFRS S2, TCFD) through Disclose.

Target market and positioning

Mitiga targets mid-market and enterprise teams in:

Finance / investment (asset managers, infrastructure funds, banks)
Insurance (risk assessment/underwriting support)
Energy & infrastructure developers/operators
Sustainability/ESG consultancies delivering climate risk work at scale

Positioning theme: described by the vendor as based on scientific methods and forward-looking climate intelligence, using high-performance computing and machine learning, and emphasizing traceability, documented uncertainty ranges, and alignment to standards rather than simple hazard maps.

Mitiga targets mid-market and enterprise teams in: - Finance / investment (asset managers, infrastructure funds, banks) - Insurance (risk assessment/underwriting support) - Energy & infrastructure developers/operators - Sustainability/ESG consultancies delivering climate risk work at scale Positioning theme: described by the vendor as based on scientific methods and forward-looking climate intelligence, using high-performance computing and machine learning, and emphasizing traceability, documented uncertainty ranges, and alignment to standards rather than simple hazard maps.

Get a comprehensive analysis of Mitiga Solutions including market position, competitive landscape, adoption trends, and peer benchmarks.

Download full report →