The name is the promise.
Value, rapidly — or we have not delivered.
RapidValue exists to change how identity governance is bought and run. Not to be a cheaper version of what already exists. This page is what we believe, what we deliberately will not build, how we are funded, and when we are the wrong choice — stated plainly enough that you can hold us to it.
One sentence, and everything follows from it
No successful customers and partners means no success for RapidValue.
That is not a slogan — it is the test we apply to product decisions. A feature that demos well and is never used has failed. A deal that closes and stalls in implementation has failed. A partner who cannot make money on us has failed, and so have we.
It is also why the company is called what it is. If value does not arrive rapidly, the name is a lie, and we would rather change the product than the name.
What we believe
Six convictions the product is built on
⏱️ The long implementation is a business model, not a law of nature
Twelve to eighteen months of configuration before the first governed grant is not what identity governance requires — it is what a particular way of selling it requires. By the time such a project lands, the role model it was built on has already moved. The cost-to-value ratio of that approach is the thing we are attacking.
🧰 Maintainability is a feature, not an afterthought
A governance tool that needs a team of specialists simply to keep running has failed even while it is technically live. Most of what we build is judged on a question that rarely appears on a feature list: can the customer still run this in year three, with the people they actually have?
📋 Ticking compliance boxes is not governance
A tool can pass an audit and still leave an organisation with no idea who can do what. We would rather show you an uncomfortable number than a green checkmark — which is why our own compliance scores say “not measurable” when they cannot honestly say anything else.
🤝 We are the vendor, not the implementer
Implementation, advisory and configuration work belong to partners, who keep all of that revenue. This is a deliberate boundary rather than a capacity problem: a vendor who also bills the implementation has no incentive to make implementation short.
🎯 Customers and partners steer the product
Not through a feedback form that disappears into a backlog. The people running this daily see failure modes we cannot invent from the outside, and the roadmap is theirs to push on. That only works at our size — which is exactly why we are doing it now.
🇪🇺 European by construction, not by marketing
EU-hosted by default, credentials that never leave the customer's network for on-premises systems, and single-tenant deployment for frameworks that require it. Sovereignty is an architectural decision made early, not a region toggle added late.
Independence
How we are funded, and why that matters to you
RapidValue is funded by its founders. No outside capital, no loans, no investor timeline. If growth ever needs funding we will consider it then — but nothing in the plan assumes it, and the plan is built to be self-financing at a small number of customers rather than a large one.
That has a consequence worth stating: we do not need to grow at someone else's pace. We are not spending someone's fund on a land-grab, so we can afford to say no to a deal that would be wrong, to defer certifications until revenue covers them rather than borrowing to buy them early, and to keep the honest limitations page that a venture-backed competitor would quietly delete.
And the part most vendors leave out: we are not building this to sell. That is the intent and it shapes every decision we make. We will not pretend to guarantee that an offer could never come that we would not refuse — but nothing in how we operate assumes an exit, and you should judge us on how we operate.
Honesty first
When we are the wrong choice
A vendor who cannot say this is asking you to do the work of finding out.
🌍 You need a global rollout with an army of consultants
Dozens of countries, hundreds of legacy systems, a multi-year programme with a systems integrator running it. The incumbents are genuinely better at that, and we will tell you so rather than win the deal and disappoint you in month eight.
🧑💼 You want one vendor to also run your IAM programme
Managed identity governance as a service is a real need and a legitimate business. It is not ours. If that is what you are buying, a partner should be your counterparty, with us behind them.
📜 Your framework requires certifications we do not hold yet
We hold no SOX, ISO 27001 or SOC 2 certification, and we say so on our FAQ rather than in a footnote. Certification is deliberately deferred until revenue covers it. If a certificate is a gate for you today, we do not clear it today.
🏢 You need a large vendor for procurement reasons
Some organisations cannot buy from a company our size, and that is a legitimate constraint rather than a failure of nerve. Better to know in the first conversation than the fifth.
Judge the claim, not the page
Everything above is checkable. The product runs without a login, every screenshot on this site is unretouched, and the limitations are published rather than discovered. Start with whichever of those you trust least.
Bring your HR feed plus one system you trust us to read — that is all the kickoff needs. No NDA, no second call with a sales engineer, no procurement form.