VAKT

Name: VAKT
Brand: Shell Trading Rotterdam and Gunvor

VAKT is digitising the global oil trading industry, creating a secure, trusted ecosystem, powered by blockchain.

Est 2018|Valuation $151.2M|Raised $33M|25 Ref Customers

LinkedIn 8K|Website|FTEs 51|HQ London, England, GB

Published Oct 14, 2026

01Common complaints

1) You require a full CTRM/ETRM platform - If the primary need is comprehensive front-to-back trade capture, risk management, scheduling, settlement, and accounting, a CTRM/ETRM replacement or major upgrade may be necessary; this platform is primarily focused on post-trade confirmation and discrepancy management. 2) Your counterparties will not join the network - If principal counterparties do not adopt the platform, the expected network benefits will be limited and parallel processes may be required. 3) You cannot invest in integration and process redesign - The platform’s effectiveness depends on structured workflows and system integration; organizations unable to allocate resources for integration and change management may experience poor time-to-value. 4) You require publicly available attestations immediately - The vendor indicates certifications and attestation reports are available on request; if procurement requires immediate public downloads of certificates or reports, this may slow evaluation.

Deal disqualifiers (poor fit)

Low trade volumes or predominantly bilateral trading with counterparties unwilling to adopt networked confirmations.
Requirement for a full CTRM/ETRM replacement rather than an add-on post-trade confirmation solution.

Vendor-acknowledged limitations

The vendor does not publish a public product limitations list or a detailed public roadmap; procurement should request up-to-date product roadmaps and limitations.

Likely limitations based on evidence and market structure

Market coverage is evolving and has been documented initially in specific regional markets; expansion to broader markets is ongoing.
Dependence on counterparty participation is inherent to any shared-record ecosystem.
Public verification of ROI figures and time savings is limited; vendor-provided metrics should be validated via customer references and documented methodology.

02Why they buy

Unique selling points supported by available evidence

Digitized confirmations and discrepancy detection aiming to identify trade capture errors early and reduce disputes.
Permissioned architecture intended to limit data visibility to relevant counterparties and provide an immutable audit trail.
Early industry participation by several large firms in specific markets, indicating potentially useful network effects in those markets.

Where competitors have advantages

CTRM/ETRM suites provide a broader set of trading lifecycle functions and can consolidate vendors.
Trade finance networks may offer deeper bank connectivity and finance workflow support for transactions involving banks.

03Field reports

Coverage note: limited public user reviews

This product is a niche enterprise offering sold to a small set of large organizations. As a result, mainstream SaaS review platforms show minimal coverage for the product. Public evidence in this research set is composed primarily of vendor-issued press materials, trade press reporting, and limited social or community commentary.

Vendor-published and trade press statements (summarized)

- A large trading firm stated that it implemented the vendor's confirmation product to move to legally supported digital confirmations and cited expected improvements in contract management speed and security. This statement is presented as an adoption announcement; details such as measured outcomes, baseline metrics, or independent validation were not provided. - Trade press reporting described early live adoption by several major firms for particular regional trade types; these reports indicate participation by multiple market participants in specific markets.

Limitations of available testimonial evidence

No substantive listings or user reviews were found on mainstream SaaS review platforms in the research set; implementation experiences, support responsiveness, UI/UX scores, and operational reliability are therefore not publicly visible for independent assessment.
Vendor-published case stories are qualitative in nature and often lack quantified pre/post metrics, scope of integration, timeline, or resource commitment specifics.

Why customers appear to adopt the platform (inference)

To reduce post-trade errors and disputes by detecting discrepancies at trade entry.
To transition to legally supported digital confirmations and standardize confirmation data exchange with major counterparties.
To participate in an industry network where multiple market participants can share standardized confirmation flows; network utility is dependent on the degree of counterparty participation.

Why customers might avoid or leave (inference)

If key counterparties do not participate on the platform, the network benefits are limited.
If an organization already has mature confirmation workflows within an existing CTRM/ETRM stack, the incremental benefit may not justify integration and change-management costs.
Some organizations may question the value-add of distributed ledger approaches if workflows and processes are not redesigned in parallel.

Case study 1: Trading firm implements confirmation product (regional barge trades)

Summary of vendor description: - A trading firm implemented the confirmation product to digitize contract confirmations and reduce paper processes. - Implementation steps described at a high level include scoping, requirements analysis, testing, and go-live. Critical evaluation: - The public case narrative lacks quantified baseline metrics (pre/post error rates, dispute counts, cycle times, or headcount changes). - Timeline details (weeks vs months) and integration scope (specific ETRM systems, connectors) are not disclosed publicly. - Outcomes reported are qualitative; procurement should request the underlying implementation report including timelines, roles and responsibilities, and measurable benefits.

Case study 2: Regional market adoption example

Summary of vendor description:

The vendor describes a client transition from paper confirmations to digitized confirmations in a regional market segment.

Critical evaluation:

The public case material is high-level; buyers should request full case documentation that includes legal enforceability approach, counterparty coverage, and measurable reductions in disputes or processing time.

Vendor-published ROI figures (note on verification)

The vendor publishes per-market ROI estimates and time-savings figures. These numbers are presented without public methodology, sample size, or assumptions. Treat such figures as vendor-provided estimates until the vendor supplies a reproducible calculation model, audited customer evidence, and defined scope.

04Best fit

Company size

Best fit is mid-to-large commodity trading and supply organizations with dedicated middle and back office functions and significant physical throughput. An enterprise orientation suggests organizations with substantial operational scale.

Industries / verticals

Physical energy commodity markets (crude and refined products), particularly waterborne oil trades and region-specific markets where early adoption has been observed.
Supporting ecosystem participants: inspectors, terminals, and logistics providers where vendor modules indicate ecosystem coverage.

Roles / personas

Decision-makers: Heads of Operations, COOs for Trading/Supply, Heads of Middle Office, Heads of Contracts, and CIO/CTO for trading technology.
Primary users: Contract analysts, operations coordinators, demurrage and claims teams, and back office invoicing teams.

Qualification criteria (good fit)

High cost exposure from trade capture errors and disputes; frequent reconciliation workloads.
Willingness and capacity to standardize confirmation processes and to onboard counterparties.
Budget and resource availability to fund integration and change management.

05The pitch

What the product does (objective value proposition)

VAKT is an enterprise platform that supports digitizing post-trade processing in physical energy and commodity markets. It replaces email/fax/PDF-based confirmations, reconciliation, and downstream operational workflows with structured data workflows and a shared record between counterparties. The platform operates as a permissioned ecosystem where trade data and documents can be agreed, affirmed, and updated across trading partners, with an immutable audit trail supported by distributed ledger technology. Key workflow focus areas presented by the vendor: - Trade confirmation/affirmation and discrepancy management (vSure): detect trade capture errors early, compare trade terms, and enable digitally supported confirmations. - Ecosystem integration: APIs to connect to ETRM/CTRM systems and internal systems. - Broader ecosystem modules referenced by the vendor: vLogistics, vTerminals, vActuals, and a product database (VPD) with inspection partner integration.

Target market and positioning

- Target customers: commodity and energy trading and supply organizations and operational teams covering contracts, middle/back office, logistics, and finance. Also relevant to firms running major ETRM platforms that require structured confirmations and reconciliation with counterparties. - Positioning: the vendor describes the product as an enterprise-focused platform combining distributed ledger concepts with cloud enterprise technologies and emphasizing interoperability, privacy, and permissioned data sharing.

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

Download full report →

Published Oct 14, 2026

01Common complaints

You require a full CTRM/ETRM platform

If the primary need is comprehensive front-to-back trade capture, risk management, scheduling, settlement, and accounting, a CTRM/ETRM replacement or major upgrade may be necessary; this platform is primarily focused on post-trade confirmation and discrepancy management.

Your counterparties will not join the network

If principal counterparties do not adopt the platform, the expected network benefits will be limited and parallel processes may be required.

You cannot invest in integration and process redesign

The platform’s effectiveness depends on structured workflows and system integration; organizations unable to allocate resources for integration and change management may experience poor time-to-value.

You require publicly available attestations immediately

The vendor indicates certifications and attestation reports are available on request; if procurement requires immediate public downloads of certificates or reports, this may slow evaluation.

Deal disqualifiers (poor fit)

Low trade volumes or predominantly bilateral trading with counterparties unwilling to adopt networked confirmations.
Requirement for a full CTRM/ETRM replacement rather than an add-on post-trade confirmation solution.

Vendor-acknowledged limitations

The vendor does not publish a public product limitations list or a detailed public roadmap; procurement should request up-to-date product roadmaps and limitations.

Likely limitations based on evidence and market structure

Market coverage is evolving and has been documented initially in specific regional markets; expansion to broader markets is ongoing.
Dependence on counterparty participation is inherent to any shared-record ecosystem.
Public verification of ROI figures and time savings is limited; vendor-provided metrics should be validated via customer references and documented methodology.

02Why they buy

Unique selling points supported by available evidence

Digitized confirmations and discrepancy detection aiming to identify trade capture errors early and reduce disputes.
Permissioned architecture intended to limit data visibility to relevant counterparties and provide an immutable audit trail.
Early industry participation by several large firms in specific markets, indicating potentially useful network effects in those markets.

Where competitors have advantages

CTRM/ETRM suites provide a broader set of trading lifecycle functions and can consolidate vendors.
Trade finance networks may offer deeper bank connectivity and finance workflow support for transactions involving banks.

03Field reports

Coverage note: limited public user reviews

Vendor-published and trade press statements (summarized)

A large trading firm stated that it implemented the vendor's confirmation product to move to legally supported digital confirmations and cited expected improvements in contract management speed and security. This statement is presented as an adoption announcement; details such as measured outcomes, baseline metrics, or independent validation were not provided.
Trade press reporting described early live adoption by several major firms for particular regional trade types; these reports indicate participation by multiple market participants in specific markets.

Limitations of available testimonial evidence

No substantive listings or user reviews were found on mainstream SaaS review platforms in the research set; implementation experiences, support responsiveness, UI/UX scores, and operational reliability are therefore not publicly visible for independent assessment.
Vendor-published case stories are qualitative in nature and often lack quantified pre/post metrics, scope of integration, timeline, or resource commitment specifics.

Why customers appear to adopt the platform (inference)

To reduce post-trade errors and disputes by detecting discrepancies at trade entry.
To transition to legally supported digital confirmations and standardize confirmation data exchange with major counterparties.
To participate in an industry network where multiple market participants can share standardized confirmation flows; network utility is dependent on the degree of counterparty participation.

Why customers might avoid or leave (inference)

If key counterparties do not participate on the platform, the network benefits are limited.
If an organization already has mature confirmation workflows within an existing CTRM/ETRM stack, the incremental benefit may not justify integration and change-management costs.
Some organizations may question the value-add of distributed ledger approaches if workflows and processes are not redesigned in parallel.

Case study 1: Trading firm implements confirmation product (regional barge trades)

Summary of vendor description:

A trading firm implemented the confirmation product to digitize contract confirmations and reduce paper processes.
Implementation steps described at a high level include scoping, requirements analysis, testing, and go-live.

Critical evaluation:

The public case narrative lacks quantified baseline metrics (pre/post error rates, dispute counts, cycle times, or headcount changes).
Timeline details (weeks vs months) and integration scope (specific ETRM systems, connectors) are not disclosed publicly.
Outcomes reported are qualitative; procurement should request the underlying implementation report including timelines, roles and responsibilities, and measurable benefits.

Case study 2: Regional market adoption example

Summary of vendor description:

The vendor describes a client transition from paper confirmations to digitized confirmations in a regional market segment.

Critical evaluation:

The public case material is high-level; buyers should request full case documentation that includes legal enforceability approach, counterparty coverage, and measurable reductions in disputes or processing time.

Vendor-published ROI figures (note on verification)

04Best fit

Company size

Best fit is mid-to-large commodity trading and supply organizations with dedicated middle and back office functions and significant physical throughput. An enterprise orientation suggests organizations with substantial operational scale.

Industries / verticals

Physical energy commodity markets (crude and refined products), particularly waterborne oil trades and region-specific markets where early adoption has been observed.
Supporting ecosystem participants: inspectors, terminals, and logistics providers where vendor modules indicate ecosystem coverage.

Roles / personas

Decision-makers: Heads of Operations, COOs for Trading/Supply, Heads of Middle Office, Heads of Contracts, and CIO/CTO for trading technology.
Primary users: Contract analysts, operations coordinators, demurrage and claims teams, and back office invoicing teams.

Qualification criteria (good fit)

High cost exposure from trade capture errors and disputes; frequent reconciliation workloads.
Willingness and capacity to standardize confirmation processes and to onboard counterparties.
Budget and resource availability to fund integration and change management.

05The pitch

What the product does (objective value proposition)

Key workflow focus areas presented by the vendor:

Trade confirmation/affirmation and discrepancy management (vSure): detect trade capture errors early, compare trade terms, and enable digitally supported confirmations.
Ecosystem integration: APIs to connect to ETRM/CTRM systems and internal systems.
Broader ecosystem modules referenced by the vendor: vLogistics, vTerminals, vActuals, and a product database (VPD) with inspection partner integration.

Target market and positioning

Target customers: commodity and energy trading and supply organizations and operational teams covering contracts, middle/back office, logistics, and finance. Also relevant to firms running major ETRM platforms that require structured confirmations and reconciliation with counterparties.
Positioning: the vendor describes the product as an enterprise-focused platform combining distributed ledger concepts with cloud enterprise technologies and emphasizing interoperability, privacy, and permissioned data sharing.

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

Download full report →