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

01Competitive Landscape

Narrative analysis

Areas of relative strength for Resolve: - Immersive review workflows: the product is oriented around VR and web collaboration rather than being a purely desktop coordination tool. - Large model performance: vendor materials emphasize avoiding aggressive model downsizing and supporting federated models on standalone headsets. - Integration capabilities: help documentation describes linking models from BIM 360/ACC and Procore and improvements to BCF compatibility. Areas where competitors may be stronger: - Navisworks is commonly used for clash detection and has a large installed base in MEP coordination workflows. - BIMcollab (Nexus/Zoom) emphasizes OpenBIM/BCF governance and may better suit teams prioritizing model QA and transparent, self-serve pricing. - Revizto has a reputation in coordination communities for issue-centric workflows and broader adoption in some markets. Market adoption signals observed in public materials: - Vendor statements cite adoption by many company customers and substantial reviewed data center capacity; these claims should be validated during diligence. - A vendor customer story on an Autodesk platform describes Resolve’s integration with BIM 360 APIs, indicating participation in the broader Autodesk integration ecosystem.

	Resolve	Autodesk Navisworks (Manage / via AEC Collection)	BIMcollab Zoom (model checking)
Starting Price	Not publicly posted; described as team- or project-based pricing; vendor provides quotes	Reference snapshot shows AEC Collection pricing (includes Navisworks Manage); validate current pricing with Autodesk	Published per-license pricing available from the vendor (including floating options)
Best For	VR-centric BIM reviews and broad stakeholder alignment; large model navigation; early risk surfacing	Clash detection, model aggregation, and established coordinator workflows in the Autodesk ecosystem	Rules/QA and clash checking workflows; OpenBIM/BCF-oriented processes and transparent pricing
Key Strength	Standalone VR on Quest, large model handling, and integrations with ACC/Procore	Mature clash detection and wide installed base	Transparent pricing and OpenBIM governance
Key Weakness	Limited independent review footprint; program overhead for VR; pricing less transparent	Collaboration and issue tracking often require additional tools; legacy UX for some users	Less immersive; may not support the same spatial engagement for non-BIM stakeholders

01Competitive Landscape

Narrative analysis

Areas of relative strength for Resolve:

Immersive review workflows: the product is oriented around VR and web collaboration rather than being a purely desktop coordination tool.
Large model performance: vendor materials emphasize avoiding aggressive model downsizing and supporting federated models on standalone headsets.
Integration capabilities: help documentation describes linking models from BIM 360/ACC and Procore and improvements to BCF compatibility.

Areas where competitors may be stronger:

Navisworks is commonly used for clash detection and has a large installed base in MEP coordination workflows.
BIMcollab (Nexus/Zoom) emphasizes OpenBIM/BCF governance and may better suit teams prioritizing model QA and transparent, self-serve pricing.
Revizto has a reputation in coordination communities for issue-centric workflows and broader adoption in some markets.

Market adoption signals observed in public materials:

Vendor statements cite adoption by many company customers and substantial reviewed data center capacity; these claims should be validated during diligence.
A vendor customer story on an Autodesk platform describes Resolve’s integration with BIM 360 APIs, indicating participation in the broader Autodesk integration ecosystem.

	Resolve	Autodesk Navisworks (Manage / via AEC Collection)	BIMcollab Zoom (model checking)
Starting Price	Not publicly posted; described as team- or project-based pricing; vendor provides quotes	Reference snapshot shows AEC Collection pricing (includes Navisworks Manage); validate current pricing with Autodesk	Published per-license pricing available from the vendor (including floating options)
Best For	VR-centric BIM reviews and broad stakeholder alignment; large model navigation; early risk surfacing	Clash detection, model aggregation, and established coordinator workflows in the Autodesk ecosystem	Rules/QA and clash checking workflows; OpenBIM/BCF-oriented processes and transparent pricing
Key Strength	Standalone VR on Quest, large model handling, and integrations with ACC/Procore	Mature clash detection and wide installed base	Transparent pricing and OpenBIM governance
Key Weakness	Limited independent review footprint; program overhead for VR; pricing less transparent	Collaboration and issue tracking often require additional tools; legacy UX for some users	Less immersive; may not support the same spatial engagement for non-BIM stakeholders

Resolve

01Competitive Landscape

Narrative analysis

02Market Map

01Competitive Landscape

Narrative analysis

02Market Map