Resolve

Name: Resolve
Brand: Resolve

AI Native

Build as fast as the future demands. Find issues earlier, reduce rework, and accelerate delivery.

Est 2021|Valuation $1.7M|Raised $1.6M

LinkedIn 5K|Web traffic 2K|FTEs 16|HQ Brooklyn, New York, US

Published Jul 14, 2026

01Common complaints

- If the primary requirement is best-in-class automated clash detection: Navisworks, Solibri, or BIMcollab may be preferable starting points. - If immersive review workflows are unlikely to be adopted in the organization (no internal champions, limited time to run sessions, or unwillingness to manage headsets): licensing and hardware costs may not be justified. - If fully transparent, self-serve pricing is a procurement requirement: Resolve typically uses a quote-based model while some alternatives publish clear pricing. - If the organization has standardized strictly on a single platform (for example, a strict Autodesk ACC mandate): introducing another coordination layer may add governance overhead unless integrations and processes are carefully managed. - If an air-gapped or strictly on-premises deployment is required: the vendor emphasizes cloud integrations; buyers with strict air-gapped requirements should validate deployment options early.

Deal disqualifiers (poor fit)

Small firms with sporadic BIM usage or no appetite for VR hardware and associated administration.
Workstreams that are primarily 2D or lack reliable federated models.
Buyers that require abundant third-party reviews on Gartner/G2/TrustRadius as a procurement prerequisite.

Publicly visible limitations and unknowns

Pricing is not fully public; buyers should expect sales engagement for detailed quotes.
Independent third-party reviews are limited or ambiguous due to naming collisions across review platforms.
Some enterprise security disclosures are partial: SOC 2 Type II is vendor-reported but other common enterprise items (ISO certifications, data processing agreements, and a detailed data residency matrix) are not clearly published.

Roadmap signals

AI Spatial Assist is a recent launch (February 2026) according to vendor communications, indicating active product development and feature expansion.

Scale and architecture constraints to validate in technical diligence

Maximum model sizes and recommended federated model practices.
Concurrency limits for live presence and overall performance on different headset models.
Audit logging capabilities, retention policies, and administrative controls for multi-company project teams.

02Why they buy

Features highlighted by vendor materials

Standalone VR reviews for large BIM models: referenced across vendor pages and case studies.
Integrations intended to reduce manual model export steps: documented links to ACC/BIM 360 and Procore in support material.
AI Spatial Assist / natural-language navigation: a recent vendor launch (February 2026) intended to assist model navigation without deep BIM expertise.

Where competitors have advantages

Established coordination suites (for example, Revizto and Autodesk ecosystem tools) offer more mature issue workflows and broader market penetration in some segments.
OpenBIM-first governance (BIMcollab) can be more suitable for teams prioritizing BCF/IDS and model QA over immersive review features.

03Field reports

Review availability and naming ambiguity

Research uncovered a name-collision issue across public review platforms: several listings titled "Resolve" appear to represent different products (for example, IT automation or project management products) and are likely not the Resolve product listed on the vendor's site. As a result, mainstream review platforms do not provide clearly attributable, high-volume third-party reviews for Resolve BIM. This complicates independent sentiment analysis based on G2/Capterra/Gartner Peer Insights entries.

Sources usable for sentiment

Given the limited third-party review coverage, the available public evidence for customer experience comes primarily from vendor-published case studies and limited community mentions. Vendor-published materials carry a bias and should be treated as directional. #### Vendor-published testimonial (excerpt) From a vendor case study, a Fortis Construction senior MEP project manager is quoted as saying: "Resolve is different. We have been able to reduce processes by adopting Resolve. Subcontractors and design consultants have flocked to the VR review sessions because it saves them time in completing their design reviews and sign-offs." (Todd Andersen, Fortis) This quote appears in vendor-published material and represents the customer's perspective as presented by the vendor. The same case study includes commentary about initial skepticism and a subsequent efficiency improvement: "Resolve software had a tough start with staff members being skeptical... But after a couple of sessions... When you get the hang of it... [it’s] a faster workflow than the traditional way of coordination." (Trols Bisbjerg, BIM Manager, Cundall). These statements are vendor-published and should be validated in diligence interviews. #### Community and social mentions (limited) - Thread comments in VR and developer communities reference Resolve positively in the context of alternatives to discontinued tools (such as IrisVR Prospect). These comments are anecdotal and not independently verified buyer reviews.

Common criticisms and complaints (synthesized from available sources)

Low visibility on mainstream third-party review platforms due to naming collisions and potential misattribution.
Learning curve and adoption effort: case study materials and community comments indicate an initial period of skepticism and a ramp to achieve speed improvements.
VR ecosystem constraints: headset compatibility, device management needs, and the administrative overhead of supporting VR hardware were mentioned in community and operational notes.

Why customers choose Resolve (inferred from sources)

Ability to open and review very large or federated models without extensive preprocessing.
Support for standalone VR headsets that avoid tethering to high-end PCs.
Integrations intended to reduce manual steps for keeping models updated from ACC/BIM 360 and Procore.

Why some customers might leave (inference)

Plausible churn drivers include:

Preference to consolidate workflows in a single, broader platform (for example, a team standardized on Autodesk ACC).
VR not achieving sustained adoption, reducing the perceived value relative to licensing and hardware costs.
Need for more advanced clash automation or mature rule-based checking that is typically handled by Navisworks, Solibri, or BIMcollab in many shops.

Fortis Construction — vendor-published savings estimate

What happened (as described by the vendor): - Fortis used Resolve to run collaborative VR reviews on a complex, fully federated Navisworks model for an 11-story facility. - The vendor asserts that Resolve reduced the need to tether headsets to high-powered PCs and reduced time spent downsizing models. Quantified vendor-presented claims: - A large number of potential issues were flagged over a multi-month period. - Fortis estimates substantial monetary savings from rework avoidance over that period (vendor-published). - The case study includes contextual estimates about the cost of misplaced equipment and schedule impacts. Critical evaluation and methodology gaps: - Savings are vendor-published estimates with no independent audit presented in public materials. - The distribution of issue severity is not disclosed; high counts of potential issues could include many low-severity items. - The case study provides operational detail that increases plausibility, but buyers should request supplemental data such as before/after cycle times, issue severity breakdowns, and how much resolution was attributable to the platform versus concurrent process changes.

04Best fit

Company sizes

Most plausible fits, inferred from the product motion and deployment patterns:

Mid-market to large enterprise construction organizations with multi-project portfolios and repeated coordination needs.
Teams large enough to justify headset procurement, training, and a repeatable review cadence.

Industries/verticals

Vendor materials and case studies emphasize applicability to:

Data centers and other mission-critical facilities
Pharmaceutical/clean rooms
Water treatment
Healthcare facilities

Roles and personas

Decision makers: VDC directors, digital delivery leaders, preconstruction leaders, owners’ representatives, operations leaders.
End users: BIM/VDC coordinators, MEP coordinators, superintendents, design managers, and trade partners.

Pain points addressed

Late discovery of constructability and maintainability issues.
Slow signoffs and extensive coordination meetings.
Situations where only BIM experts can effectively navigate models.

Qualification criteria (good fit)

Projects with dense MEP and tight access or maintenance constraints.
Organizations already using ACC/BIM 360 and/or Procore that can benefit from integration.
Teams willing to standardize issue capture and close-out processes.

05The pitch

What the product does (core value proposition)

Resolve is a BIM review and coordination platform oriented toward aligning design and delivery workflows for construction teams. In practical terms, it provides capabilities to: - Review complex 3D BIM models collaboratively via a web viewer and immersive VR. - Capture constructability and operability feedback earlier than some traditional coordination workflows. - Track issues and review comments and integrate them into existing construction technology stacks (notably Autodesk Construction Cloud/BIM 360 and Procore). - Offer AI-based natural-language navigation ("AI Spatial Assistant") intended to reduce reliance on BIM/VDC specialists for locating objects and areas within models. Resolve’s differentiation is associated with performance on large models (vendor’s "Wellington Engine") and a focus on standalone VR workflows on headsets such as Meta Quest, rather than positioning itself primarily as a general-purpose clash detection tool or a full common data environment. Vendor-reported headline metrics (treated as vendor statements unless independently verified): - Significant data center capacity reviewed and delivered, and adoption by several hundred companies are presented on the vendor homepage. - Other vendor-presented claims include substantially more constructability and operability risks discovered and several weeks cut from coordination schedules; these claims are not accompanied by publicly documented methodologies.

Target market and positioning

Vendor materials indicate the product is positioned primarily for: - Construction programs with high operational or reliability requirements (examples cited include data centers and other complex industrial/infrastructure projects). - Stakeholder-heavy coordination scenarios where immersive reviews are used to reduce the number of meetings and accelerate signoffs. - Organizations using Autodesk Construction Cloud/BIM 360 and/or Procore, where available integrations are intended to reduce manual model export steps. Based on web content and vendor case studies, the product is marketed more toward owners, general contractors, and MEP coordination teams than toward architects focused on early-stage design.

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

Download full report →

Published Jul 14, 2026

01Common complaints

If the primary requirement is best-in-class automated clash detection: Navisworks, Solibri, or BIMcollab may be preferable starting points.
If immersive review workflows are unlikely to be adopted in the organization (no internal champions, limited time to run sessions, or unwillingness to manage headsets): licensing and hardware costs may not be justified.
If fully transparent, self-serve pricing is a procurement requirement: Resolve typically uses a quote-based model while some alternatives publish clear pricing.
If the organization has standardized strictly on a single platform (for example, a strict Autodesk ACC mandate): introducing another coordination layer may add governance overhead unless integrations and processes are carefully managed.
If an air-gapped or strictly on-premises deployment is required: the vendor emphasizes cloud integrations; buyers with strict air-gapped requirements should validate deployment options early.

Deal disqualifiers (poor fit)

Small firms with sporadic BIM usage or no appetite for VR hardware and associated administration.
Workstreams that are primarily 2D or lack reliable federated models.
Buyers that require abundant third-party reviews on Gartner/G2/TrustRadius as a procurement prerequisite.

Publicly visible limitations and unknowns

Pricing is not fully public; buyers should expect sales engagement for detailed quotes.
Independent third-party reviews are limited or ambiguous due to naming collisions across review platforms.
Some enterprise security disclosures are partial: SOC 2 Type II is vendor-reported but other common enterprise items (ISO certifications, data processing agreements, and a detailed data residency matrix) are not clearly published.

Roadmap signals

AI Spatial Assist is a recent launch (February 2026) according to vendor communications, indicating active product development and feature expansion.

Scale and architecture constraints to validate in technical diligence

Maximum model sizes and recommended federated model practices.
Concurrency limits for live presence and overall performance on different headset models.
Audit logging capabilities, retention policies, and administrative controls for multi-company project teams.

02Why they buy

Features highlighted by vendor materials

Standalone VR reviews for large BIM models: referenced across vendor pages and case studies.
Integrations intended to reduce manual model export steps: documented links to ACC/BIM 360 and Procore in support material.
AI Spatial Assist / natural-language navigation: a recent vendor launch (February 2026) intended to assist model navigation without deep BIM expertise.

Where competitors have advantages

Established coordination suites (for example, Revizto and Autodesk ecosystem tools) offer more mature issue workflows and broader market penetration in some segments.
OpenBIM-first governance (BIMcollab) can be more suitable for teams prioritizing BCF/IDS and model QA over immersive review features.

03Field reports

Review availability and naming ambiguity

Sources usable for sentiment

Vendor-published testimonial (excerpt)

From a vendor case study, a Fortis Construction senior MEP project manager is quoted as saying:

"Resolve is different. We have been able to reduce processes by adopting Resolve. Subcontractors and design consultants have flocked to the VR review sessions because it saves them time in completing their design reviews and sign-offs." (Todd Andersen, Fortis)

This quote appears in vendor-published material and represents the customer's perspective as presented by the vendor.

The same case study includes commentary about initial skepticism and a subsequent efficiency improvement: "Resolve software had a tough start with staff members being skeptical... But after a couple of sessions... When you get the hang of it... [it’s] a faster workflow than the traditional way of coordination." (Trols Bisbjerg, BIM Manager, Cundall). These statements are vendor-published and should be validated in diligence interviews.

Community and social mentions (limited)

Thread comments in VR and developer communities reference Resolve positively in the context of alternatives to discontinued tools (such as IrisVR Prospect). These comments are anecdotal and not independently verified buyer reviews.

Common criticisms and complaints (synthesized from available sources)

Low visibility on mainstream third-party review platforms due to naming collisions and potential misattribution.
Learning curve and adoption effort: case study materials and community comments indicate an initial period of skepticism and a ramp to achieve speed improvements.
VR ecosystem constraints: headset compatibility, device management needs, and the administrative overhead of supporting VR hardware were mentioned in community and operational notes.

Why customers choose Resolve (inferred from sources)

Ability to open and review very large or federated models without extensive preprocessing.
Support for standalone VR headsets that avoid tethering to high-end PCs.
Integrations intended to reduce manual steps for keeping models updated from ACC/BIM 360 and Procore.

Why some customers might leave (inference)

Plausible churn drivers include:

Preference to consolidate workflows in a single, broader platform (for example, a team standardized on Autodesk ACC).
VR not achieving sustained adoption, reducing the perceived value relative to licensing and hardware costs.
Need for more advanced clash automation or mature rule-based checking that is typically handled by Navisworks, Solibri, or BIMcollab in many shops.

Fortis Construction — vendor-published savings estimate

What happened (as described by the vendor):

Fortis used Resolve to run collaborative VR reviews on a complex, fully federated Navisworks model for an 11-story facility.
The vendor asserts that Resolve reduced the need to tether headsets to high-powered PCs and reduced time spent downsizing models.

Quantified vendor-presented claims:

A large number of potential issues were flagged over a multi-month period.
Fortis estimates substantial monetary savings from rework avoidance over that period (vendor-published).
The case study includes contextual estimates about the cost of misplaced equipment and schedule impacts.

Critical evaluation and methodology gaps:

Savings are vendor-published estimates with no independent audit presented in public materials.
The distribution of issue severity is not disclosed; high counts of potential issues could include many low-severity items.
The case study provides operational detail that increases plausibility, but buyers should request supplemental data such as before/after cycle times, issue severity breakdowns, and how much resolution was attributable to the platform versus concurrent process changes.

04Best fit

Company sizes

Most plausible fits, inferred from the product motion and deployment patterns:

Mid-market to large enterprise construction organizations with multi-project portfolios and repeated coordination needs.
Teams large enough to justify headset procurement, training, and a repeatable review cadence.

Industries/verticals

Vendor materials and case studies emphasize applicability to:

Data centers and other mission-critical facilities
Pharmaceutical/clean rooms
Water treatment
Healthcare facilities

Roles and personas

Decision makers: VDC directors, digital delivery leaders, preconstruction leaders, owners’ representatives, operations leaders.
End users: BIM/VDC coordinators, MEP coordinators, superintendents, design managers, and trade partners.

Pain points addressed

Late discovery of constructability and maintainability issues.
Slow signoffs and extensive coordination meetings.
Situations where only BIM experts can effectively navigate models.

Qualification criteria (good fit)

Projects with dense MEP and tight access or maintenance constraints.
Organizations already using ACC/BIM 360 and/or Procore that can benefit from integration.
Teams willing to standardize issue capture and close-out processes.

05The pitch

What the product does (core value proposition)

Resolve is a BIM review and coordination platform oriented toward aligning design and delivery workflows for construction teams. In practical terms, it provides capabilities to:

Review complex 3D BIM models collaboratively via a web viewer and immersive VR.
Capture constructability and operability feedback earlier than some traditional coordination workflows.
Track issues and review comments and integrate them into existing construction technology stacks (notably Autodesk Construction Cloud/BIM 360 and Procore).
Offer AI-based natural-language navigation ("AI Spatial Assistant") intended to reduce reliance on BIM/VDC specialists for locating objects and areas within models.

Resolve’s differentiation is associated with performance on large models (vendor’s "Wellington Engine") and a focus on standalone VR workflows on headsets such as Meta Quest, rather than positioning itself primarily as a general-purpose clash detection tool or a full common data environment.

Vendor-reported headline metrics (treated as vendor statements unless independently verified):

Significant data center capacity reviewed and delivered, and adoption by several hundred companies are presented on the vendor homepage.
Other vendor-presented claims include substantially more constructability and operability risks discovered and several weeks cut from coordination schedules; these claims are not accompanied by publicly documented methodologies.

Target market and positioning

Vendor materials indicate the product is positioned primarily for:

Construction programs with high operational or reliability requirements (examples cited include data centers and other complex industrial/infrastructure projects).
Stakeholder-heavy coordination scenarios where immersive reviews are used to reduce the number of meetings and accelerate signoffs.
Organizations using Autodesk Construction Cloud/BIM 360 and/or Procore, where available integrations are intended to reduce manual model export steps.

Based on web content and vendor case studies, the product is marketed more toward owners, general contractors, and MEP coordination teams than toward architects focused on early-stage design.

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

Download full report →