Who is the next Palantir?
In our defense tech market deck, you will find everything you need to understand the market
SUMMARY
Anduril is the next Palantir.
It is the strongest answer because it is no longer just selling promising defense technology. Governments are giving it responsibility for shared software infrastructure, complete military capabilities, production programs and the systems through which other suppliers operate.
The Palantir comparison is really about institutional expansion, not product similarity. The winner needs to enter through one difficult mission, spread into more workflows and become harder to remove with every deployment.
Anduril has several entry points into the same customer. It can begin with an aircraft, sensor or counter-drone system, connect it through Lattice, add third-party equipment and then sell more autonomous products into the network.
Lattice is the decisive part of the case. The U.S. Army is using Anduril as the integration layer for its next command-and-control architecture, while NATO has selected the platform to connect existing allied systems rather than replace them all.
Hardware makes Anduril less attractive financially than Palantir, but stronger inside defense. Factories, supply chains, flight testing and production experience create barriers that another software startup cannot copy with a better demo.
Helsing is the strongest European answer. Its advantage comes from combining military artificial intelligence, weapons production and the political value of keeping critical defense technology under European control.
Scale AI has the best route across commercial and government artificial intelligence, but the Meta transaction weakened the neutrality that helped Palantir become trusted across competing institutions.
Shield AI could own an important layer of military autonomy without becoming a full Palantir successor. Hivemind may become standard software inside many vehicle classes, but its role remains narrower than the data, planning and operational footprint Palantir controls.
Among smaller companies, Air looks most like early Palantir. It started with fragmented defense data and is now trying to connect acquisition, suppliers, production, maintenance, readiness and operations into one institutional system.
No candidate yet matches Palantir’s commercial reach, customer expansion or 87% gross margin. The next company with Palantir-level power will probably look less like a software company and more like a defense prime built around a software core.
That is why Anduril leads. Palantir became powerful by controlling the software through which governments understand and decide; Anduril is adding the machines, weapons and factories through which those decisions are carried out.
This market map, featured in our defense tech market deck, highlights top companies and startups in the defense tech market
Why is everyone looking for the next Palantir now?
People are looking for the next Palantir now because defense startups have finally moved beyond interesting demonstrations and small experimental contracts.
Anduril generated approximately $2.2 billion in revenue in 2025 and recently raised $5 billion at a $61 billion valuation. Helsing raised $1.8 billion at an $18 billion valuation. Shield AI secured $2 billion in new financing at a $12.7 billion valuation. Scale AI’s Pentagon agreement was expanded from a $100 million ceiling to a potential $500 million.
Those valuations would have looked absurd when Palantir was founded. For years, venture investors avoided defense because government sales took too long, procurement favored established contractors and successful startups struggled to turn prototypes into production contracts.
That picture has changed. Anduril is producing autonomous aircraft, missiles, counter-drone systems and military software. Helsing has received orders covering 10,000 strike drones for Ukraine while supplying artificial intelligence for European aircraft programs. Shield AI’s autonomy software has reached a U.S. Air Force production program. Scale AI is selling artificial intelligence infrastructure across the Pentagon.
Investors are now asking which company will gain the same kind of institutional power that Palantir built. The question is much larger than deciding which startup has the best defense technology.
What would being “the next Palantir” actually require?
The next Palantir would need to become a system that governments depend on, rather than a supplier they occasionally buy from.
A company can sell billions of dollars of drones without becoming Palantir-like. Another company may build software that looks almost identical to Palantir’s products but remain too small to shape how major institutions work.
We are looking for a company that keeps gaining responsibility after its first deployment. It should begin with one difficult mission, connect more data and systems over time, and become useful to a growing number of people inside the customer. Each new project should strengthen a common product instead of becoming a separate consulting assignment.
Government access is only part of the test. Palantir eventually proved that technology developed for intelligence agencies and militaries could also run factories, hospitals, airlines, energy networks and financial operations. A successor needs some credible path beyond one military buyer or one weapons program.
| What we need to see | Why it matters |
|---|---|
| Repeated production use | Pilots can disappear without changing how an institution operates |
| A shared software platform | Separate products do not create the same lock-in or learning effect |
| Expansion inside customers | Palantir became powerful by taking on more work after entering an organization |
| Connections to third-party systems | A platform becomes more valuable when competitors also have to plug into it |
| A market beyond one program | One large contract can create revenue without creating a lasting institution |
As this chart shows, and as featured in our defense tech market deck, search interest in defense tech has risen sharply
Why is Palantir so difficult to copy today?
Palantir is harder to copy than its “government software” label suggests, because almost all of its latest growth came from customers already using the platform.
Palantir generated $1.63 billion in its latest reported quarter, an 85% increase from the same period one year earlier. Its filing shows that $719 million of the $749 million increase came from existing customers. Roughly 96% of the growth came from organizations that had already bought something from Palantir.
That is the engine competitors need to reproduce. Palantir enters through one problem and then spreads into more teams, datasets and decisions. Its customer count grew from 769 to 1,007 in one year, but the largest contribution still came from deeper use inside existing accounts.
The business is also much broader than government intelligence. Government customers generated $858 million in the latest quarter, while commercial customers generated $774 million. Commercial revenue grew 95%, faster than the 76% increase in government revenue. At the end of 2025, commercial contracts represented $6.8 billion of Palantir’s remaining deal value, compared with $4.4 billion from government contracts.
Palantir achieved that expansion while reporting an 87% gross margin. The company can put engineers near customers, adapt software to difficult environments and still retain the economics of a software platform.
The Ontology, Foundry, Gotham and Apollo are important, but the harder advantage to copy is the loop around them. Palantir learns how organizations operate, turns that knowledge into reusable software and uses the improved product to win larger deployments.
Winning several defense contracts does not recreate that loop.
Is Anduril currently the closest company to Palantir?
Anduril is the closest overall successor because it already combines meaningful scale, major government programs and software that connects products built by other companies.
Anduril’s approximately $2.2 billion in 2025 revenue was already close to half of Palantir’s $4.5 billion. The comparison is imperfect because Anduril sells expensive physical systems, but it shows that the company has moved far beyond startup-sized government experiments.
Its growth has spread across several layers of defense. Anduril began with surveillance and counter-drone systems. It now works on autonomous combat aircraft, underwater vehicles, tactical communications, rocket motors, cruise missiles and command-and-control software.
The products reinforce one another. Anduril can sell an aircraft, connect it through Lattice, add data from third-party sensors and later introduce other autonomous systems into the same network. That gives the company several ways to enter a military customer and several more ways to expand.
Recent contracts show that buyers increasingly trust Anduril with complete capabilities. The U.S. Air Force moved its collaborative combat aircraft into production. The U.S. Army selected Anduril to lead the shared data foundation for its next command-and-control architecture. NATO chose Lattice for an allied air-operations data platform. New production agreements also envisage thousands of Barracuda vehicles being delivered annually.
Helsing, Scale AI and Shield AI each beat Anduril on one part of the comparison. None matches its combination of revenue, software, manufacturing and access to major programs.
If you want more recent data on this point, please see our latest defense tech market report.
This chart, included in our defense tech market deck, shows annual VC investment in defense tech startups
Is Anduril’s Lattice becoming a real military operating system?
Lattice is now the strongest reason to compare Anduril with Palantir, because the U.S. Army is using it as shared infrastructure rather than software limited to Anduril equipment.
The Army selected Anduril to lead the common data baseline for Next Generation Command and Control. Lattice sits between applications, sensors, artificial intelligence models, communications systems and battlefield users.
During a recent divisional exercise, the network connected 40 applications, 36 data feeds and 37 sensors or effectors across nine hardware formats. Soldiers used the system across the formation instead of watching a controlled company demonstration.
The composition of the project is equally revealing. Palantir participates as one of the companies inside the Anduril-led team. In this program, Anduril controls the integration layer while Palantir provides part of the technology connected to it.
Lattice has also started moving internationally. NATO selected it for a modular air-command data platform that connects existing allied systems and shares operational information across countries. Anduril does not need NATO to replace every current product. Lattice becomes useful by allowing those products to work together.
The comparison still has limits. Palantir models hospitals, factories, supply chains, financial transactions and military operations. Lattice concentrates on sensors, weapons, communications and autonomous systems.
| Question | Palantir | Anduril |
|---|---|---|
| What does the platform connect? | Data, people, workflows and decisions across whole organizations | Sensors, applications, communications, weapons and autonomous systems |
| Can it use third-party products? | Yes, this is central to Foundry and Gotham | Increasingly, especially through Army and NATO programs |
| Where does it operate? | Government and many commercial industries | Primarily defense and border security |
| What strengthens the platform? | More users, data models and operational workflows | More connected systems, vehicles, sensors and effectors |
| What remains unproven? | Continued growth at its present scale | Whether Lattice can spread beyond military operations |
Does Anduril’s hardware make it stronger or less Palantir-like?
Anduril’s hardware makes the company less Palantir-like financially but much harder to challenge inside defense.
Aircraft, missiles and underwater vehicles require factories, materials, testing facilities, inventories and complicated suppliers. Anduril cannot distribute those products at the near-zero marginal cost of software. Its long-term margins should therefore remain well below Palantir’s.
The manufacturing burden also introduces more ways to fail. A software update can often be corrected quickly. A delayed aircraft, defective rocket motor or unavailable component can disrupt an entire contract and consume large amounts of capital.
Yet hardware gives Anduril an advantage that Palantir never had. Every Anduril vehicle or sensor creates another possible endpoint for Lattice. The company can design the physical product, control the software connecting it and manage the factory producing it.
Recent production developments show why that combination is powerful. Anduril signed agreements designed to support thousands of Barracuda vehicles per year. During another recent operation, it delivered more than one normal month of Pulsar production in less than a week to two government customers.
Those developments say more about Anduril’s position than another prototype announcement would. The company is learning to respond quickly to real demand while competitors are still trying to enter production.
Palantir became difficult to remove because its software spread across customer operations. Anduril can create similar dependence through a mixture of software, hardware and manufacturing capacity.
The result will look more like a modern defense prime than an enterprise software company.
This chart, included in our defense tech market deck, shows why Anduril is winning in defense tech
Could Helsing become Europe’s Palantir?
Helsing is Europe’s strongest Palantir candidate because it combines defense software with something American companies cannot easily manufacture: European political legitimacy.
European governments increasingly want control over military data, software updates, production and intellectual property. Even a technically strong American platform can face resistance when it becomes too central to national defense.
Helsing was built around that concern. Its early software helped military systems interpret sensor data, identify threats, manage electronic warfare and support battlefield decisions. The company then gained positions inside major European programs.
Saab and Helsing have tested the Centaur artificial intelligence pilot on the Gripen fighter. Helsing is supplying the artificial intelligence for a Eurofighter electronic-warfare upgrade under a contract worth several hundred million euros. It is also involved in the artificial intelligence infrastructure for Europe’s Future Combat Air System.
Helsing has lately expanded much further into hardware. The company received an order to produce 6,000 HX-2 strike drones for Ukraine after an earlier order for 4,000 HF-1 drones. Its Altra software can coordinate reconnaissance systems, artillery and groups of HX-2 drones. Helsing is also developing the CA-1 Europa autonomous combat aircraft with its Grob Aircraft subsidiary.
That progression gives Helsing a coherent position. Software sits inside existing European aircraft, coordinates battlefield systems and powers weapons that Helsing manufactures itself.
Europe’s fragmented procurement market will make expansion slower than in the United States. Helsing may need to satisfy several governments, industrial partners and national production requirements for each large program.
Its European identity nevertheless creates a protected opening. Helsing does not need to defeat Anduril everywhere. Becoming the preferred software-defined defense company for Europe would already create a very large business.
If you want more recent data on this point, please see our latest defense tech market report.
Has Helsing’s valuation run ahead of the company?
Helsing’s $18 billion valuation has run ahead of its current revenue, although the business underneath that valuation is clearly real.
Helsing recently raised $1.8 billion, only a short period after its previous €600 million round. The Financial Times reported projected 2026 revenue of approximately €441 million. On that basis, its valuation before the latest investment was around 32 times projected revenue.
That is an aggressive price even for a fast-growing technology company. The same Financial Times comparison placed Anduril at roughly 13 times expected revenue and Shield AI at about 21 times.
Helsing’s investors are already pricing in several future successes. The HX-2 needs to turn initial Ukrainian demand into repeated orders from multiple countries. The Eurofighter work needs to lead to larger roles across European aircraft fleets. Altra must become a common battlefield platform. The CA-1 program must move from development into funded procurement.
There is evidence that the drones are gaining genuine user interest. After reports questioned Ukrainian demand, Helsing said more than six Ukrainian units had requested the HX-2 and that the unit conducting frontline tests had asked for more than 1,000 additional systems. Those figures are company disclosures rather than independent procurement records, but they carry more weight than a laboratory demonstration.
Helsing’s valuation leaves very little room for slow adoption. Several projects must become substantial businesses at the same time.
The company looks expensive today. The technology, contracts and production behind the valuation keep it out of the pure-hype category.
This chart, included in our defense tech market deck, shows annual funding in defense tech startups
Could Scale AI become the Pentagon’s Palantir?
Scale AI is the best candidate for a Palantir-like business spanning the Pentagon and commercial artificial intelligence, but its government position remains less deeply embedded.
The Pentagon recently expanded Scale’s enterprise agreement from a $100 million ceiling to a potential $500 million. Defense organizations can use the contract to access Scale’s data infrastructure, model evaluation, engineering services and Donovan platform across classified and unclassified environments.
Scale also leads Thunderforge, which applies artificial intelligence to military planning and operational decisions. A separate Army agreement provides up to $99 million for artificial intelligence research and development.
The pieces resemble Palantir’s model. Scale can organize difficult data, test models, connect them to secure systems and build applications around specific decisions. Donovan gives government teams a controlled environment for deploying specialized artificial intelligence agents.
Scale also has something most defense startups lack: a substantial commercial customer base. Its technology serves artificial intelligence laboratories, large companies, healthcare organizations and other enterprises. That provides a natural route between government and commercial work.
The size of the Pentagon agreements needs careful interpretation. A $500 million ceiling allows agencies to place orders up to that amount; it does not mean Scale has already received $500 million in revenue. Thunderforge and Donovan also remain narrower than the operational footprint Palantir has built across agencies.
Scale has the right ingredients. It still needs to show that customers keep expanding their use after the initial deployment.
Did Meta make Scale AI a weaker Palantir candidate?
Meta made Scale AI wealthier and less neutral, which weakens Scale’s claim to become the next independent Palantir.
Meta invested $14.3 billion for a 49% economic stake in Scale, valuing the company at approximately $29 billion. Scale remained a separate business, but founder Alexandr Wang left the chief executive role to lead Meta’s superintelligence effort.
The deal created an obvious concern for Scale’s commercial customers. Artificial intelligence laboratories share sensitive information about their training data, model weaknesses, evaluation results and future development with infrastructure providers. A supplier closely tied to Meta becomes less comfortable for companies competing directly against Meta.
Time reported that major laboratories including OpenAI and Google began moving some work away from Scale after the transaction. Rival data providers subsequently reported stronger demand.
The Pentagon may worry less about rivalry between commercial model developers. Meta’s money also gives Scale more resources for secure infrastructure, acquisitions and expensive government deployments. Scale recently acquired ICG Solutions to deepen its national-security capabilities.
Even so, Palantir’s independence became part of its strategic value. It could work across cloud providers, industries, intelligence agencies and technology partners without belonging to a larger platform company.
Scale can still build a large defense artificial intelligence business. The Meta relationship makes it harder for Scale to occupy the unusually neutral position that helped Palantir spread across competing institutions.
For the Palantir comparison, the Meta transaction was a net negative.
If you want more recent data on this point, please see our latest defense tech market report.
This chart, included in our defense tech market deck, compares the main business model options for defense AI contractors
Could Shield AI own the military autonomy market?
Shield AI could become the main software layer for autonomous military vehicles, although that prize is narrower than the role Palantir plays across entire organizations.
Shield AI’s Hivemind software allows aircraft and other vehicles to operate in contested environments where communications or GPS may be unavailable. The company now says Hivemind has piloted 30 classes of vehicles, including F-16s, helicopters, jet-powered drones, boats and ground systems.
The U.S. Air Force recently awarded Shield AI a production contract to supply Hivemind mission autonomy for the Collaborative Combat Aircraft program. Treating autonomy as a separate production capability is important. It means an aircraft manufacturer can potentially choose Hivemind instead of developing every autonomous behavior internally.
Shield AI is also building the tools around that software. Its acquisition of simulation company Aechelon brings military-grade visual environments used for training and mission preparation. Hivemind Enterprise lets customers develop, test and deploy their own autonomous agents.
Recent flight tests have moved beyond basic navigation. In one demonstration with L3Harris, autonomous aircraft detected electromagnetic threats, adjusted their routes and guided additional aircraft through a safer area without direct human control.
That creates a credible platform business. More vehicle manufacturers may adopt Hivemind, which would produce more operational data, more tested behaviors and greater confidence in the software.
Shield AI remains focused on how machines move and fight. Palantir reaches much further into budgeting, logistics, intelligence, planning and organizational decisions.
Shield AI may eventually become the standard autonomy provider inside military vehicles. That would make it extremely valuable without making it a full Palantir successor.
Which smaller company looks most like an early Palantir?
Air, formerly Govini, looks most like an early Palantir because it is turning fragmented defense data into a shared operating picture for acquisition, production and readiness.
The company recently changed its name from Govini to Air as it expanded beyond defense acquisition. Its new Enterprise Readiness platform is designed to connect development, suppliers, production, maintenance, logistics and military operations.
Air says its platform is already used across programs including the F-35, Patriot, Minuteman, B-52, F-16 and several naval systems. According to the company, more than $140 billion of defense programs are managed through the platform.
There are also narrower examples of real workflow adoption. One Air application reduced supplier due diligence from roughly 120 hours to less than 24 hours. The U.S. Army recently extended Air’s role in the Next Generation Command and Control program, and the company secured a $31 million software contract supporting the intercontinental ballistic missile supply chain.
The evolution is strikingly Palantir-like. Air started with difficult government data, built applications around specific decisions and is now trying to coordinate a larger part of the institution.
Vannevar and Primer remain credible alternatives. Vannevar has moved from a Defense Innovation Unit prototype into a production contract with a potential $99 million ceiling. Its software and artificial intelligence agents support intelligence, strategic competition and battlefield decisions. Primer helps defense and intelligence teams process unstructured information, monitor threats and produce traceable analysis inside secure environments.
Air has the broadest institutional ambition of the three. Vannevar appears closer to active military missions, while Primer is strongest in intelligence analysis.
All remain far smaller than Anduril, Helsing or Scale. Their software-first models are still worth watching because early Palantir also looked small beside established defense contractors.
If you want more recent data on this point, please see our latest defense tech market report.
This chart, featured in our defense tech market deck, shows the share of revenue generated by each customer segment in the defense tech market
Can any startup match Palantir’s commercial reach and margins?
No current candidate matches Palantir’s combination of commercial reach, customer expansion and software margins.
Commercial customers now generate nearly half of Palantir’s quarterly revenue. They also represent more of its remaining deal value than government customers. That balance gives Palantir access to budgets far beyond national defense.
The 87% gross margin reported in the latest quarter shows that Palantir has escaped the economics of traditional government contracting. Heavy customer involvement has not prevented the company from producing mature software margins.
Scale AI comes closest on commercial reach. It already works with major companies and artificial intelligence laboratories, while its government business is growing. Human data work, specialized evaluations and engineering services may prevent parts of Scale’s business from reaching Palantir’s margins. The Meta relationship has also damaged its appeal to rival laboratories.
Air, Vannevar and Primer have more software-like economics, but their disclosed scale remains much smaller. Anduril, Helsing and Shield AI can become larger through hardware, although every aircraft, drone or missile carries production costs.
The next company with Palantir-like institutional power may look very different financially.
| Company | Commercial reach today | Likely economics at scale |
|---|---|---|
| Anduril | Very limited outside security and defense | Stronger than traditional defense, well below pure software |
| Helsing | Almost entirely government and defense | Mixed software and manufacturing margins |
| Scale AI | Large commercial and growing government presence | Closest candidate to software-platform margins |
| Shield AI | Mostly defense, with possible industrial autonomy uses | Mixed software and aircraft economics |
| Air | Concentrated in U.S. defense | Attractive software economics if adoption expands |
| Vannevar and Primer | Mostly government and national security | Software-like, but current scale remains limited |
Which Palantir rival has the strongest moat today?
Anduril has the strongest overall moat because competitors would need to challenge its software, installed systems, factories and government-program relationships at the same time.
Lattice gives Anduril the software layer. Aircraft, sensors, missiles and underwater vehicles create a growing installed base. Manufacturing facilities and suppliers add another barrier. Production contracts then give the company operating experience and procurement credibility that newer entrants cannot quickly reproduce.
The layers support one another. A military customer may first buy an autonomous vehicle, later connect outside sensors through Lattice and then add more Anduril products to the same network. Switching suppliers becomes increasingly difficult as those systems begin working together.
Helsing is building a similar position in Europe. Its strongest protection comes from sovereignty, access to European military platforms and the political desire for domestic defense technology.
Shield AI’s moat is narrower but potentially deep. Every additional vehicle class, flight test and autonomous mission makes Hivemind easier to trust and harder for a new software provider to match.
Air has a different advantage. Its readiness graph becomes more useful as it connects additional suppliers, programs, maintenance records and operational requirements. That resembles Palantir’s data and workflow moat more closely than the hardware companies do.
Scale AI has broad technology and customer relationships, but artificial intelligence data, evaluations and agent platforms remain crowded markets. Meta’s involvement has also made neutrality harder to defend.
| Company | Strongest moat | Main weakness |
|---|---|---|
| Anduril | Software, hardware, manufacturing and program access reinforce one another | Capital intensity and dependence on defense budgets |
| Helsing | European sovereignty plus growing control of software and hardware | Fragmented procurement and a demanding valuation |
| Shield AI | Operational autonomy tested across many vehicle classes | Narrower role inside the wider defense organization |
| Air | Proprietary defense data and deeply embedded readiness workflows | Heavy concentration in one government |
| Scale AI | Commercial reach, data infrastructure and model evaluation | Competitive neutrality after the Meta investment |
This chart, included in our defense tech market deck, shows how tactical networking platform technology has evolved over time
Who is the next Palantir?
Anduril is the next Palantir.
The comparison works because Anduril is gaining the kind of institutional responsibility that once separated Palantir from ordinary government contractors. The military is asking Anduril to connect systems, lead major programs, produce weapons at scale and provide software through which other companies operate.
As we saw above, the Army has placed Anduril at the center of its new command-and-control data architecture. NATO is beginning to use Lattice as shared infrastructure. Production agreements now cover autonomous aircraft, counter-drone systems and mass-produced strike vehicles.
Anduril will not reproduce Palantir’s financial model. Manufacturing will consume more capital and keep margins lower. Its commercial market also remains small. Calling Anduril a direct copy would miss the interesting part.
The company is building a different route to the same destination.
Palantir became powerful by controlling the software through which governments understand data and make decisions. Anduril is combining that software role with the machines, weapons and factories through which those decisions are carried out.
Helsing is the strongest answer for Europe. Scale AI remains the best candidate for a government and commercial artificial intelligence platform. Air looks closest to the younger, software-only Palantir.
Anduril has the clearest path to Palantir-level power. The next Palantir will probably sell more metal, carry lower margins and look much more like a defense manufacturer. Today, it already looks like Anduril.
If you want more recent data on this point, please see our latest defense tech market report.
OUR METHODOLOGY
This analysis asks which startup is most likely to build the kind of institutional power Palantir created. We first identified the characteristics that made Palantir distinctive, then compared the candidates across production use, shared software infrastructure, expansion inside customers, third-party integration, commercial reach and the ability to move beyond one contract or weapons program.
We used repeated operational adoption as the clearest test. Demonstrations, pilot programs and contract announcements can show technical promise, but they do not prove that a customer has reorganized important work around a platform. Production awards, exercises involving real units, follow-on deployments and broader responsibility inside an institution carried more weight.
Revenue and valuation were treated as different kinds of evidence. Revenue helped establish operating scale. Valuation showed what investors expect, not what a company has already achieved. For private companies, we combined company disclosures with government announcements and reporting from leading financial publications where possible.
Government contract values were interpreted according to their structure. A contract ceiling represents the maximum amount agencies may order, not revenue already received. Funded production programs, confirmed orders and deployed systems were therefore treated as stronger evidence than framework agreements or maximum potential values.
The Palantir comparison was not limited to software resemblance. We looked for companies that can enter through one mission, connect more systems and users over time, absorb third-party products and turn each deployment into a stronger common platform. That is why Anduril’s Lattice programs, Shield AI’s vehicle-class expansion, Air’s readiness workflows and Scale AI’s cross-sector position received particular attention.
We did not use a fixed scoring formula. The conclusion reflects the cumulative weight of the evidence, with more confidence placed on current production use and customer expansion than on projected revenue, fundraising headlines or technical claims that have not yet become procurement.
Key sources include Palantir Investor Relations and Palantir’s SEC filings; Anduril’s announcements on the U.S. Army common data baseline, NGC2 divisional deployment and NATO’s eAirC2 platform; reporting from the Financial Times on Anduril’s funding and valuation; the Helsing, Scale AI, Shield AI, Air, Vannevar Labs and Primer newsrooms; and first-hand announcements from the U.S. Department of Defense, U.S. Air Force, U.S. Army and NATO Communications and Information Agency.
In our defense tech market deck, we identify pain points entrepreneurs should prioritize
Related blog posts
