Handshake AI and Avelence describe different starting points. Handshake AI publishes a direct data-partnership route with stated company criteria. Avelence describes owner-side commercial advisory, buyer research, positioning and licensing strategy. The public pages do not establish which option will accept a company, deliver a particular price or suit a particular dataset.
This comparison includes Avelence, so the self-description is not independent endorsement. Handshake's public information is its own current statement, checked on 3 November 2026. Verify the current terms with each party before making a decision.
What Handshake publicly states
Handshake's licensing page says it is looking for companies with at least 20 full-time employees and at least three years in operation. It also says companies determine what data they share and lists examples of operational systems. These are Handshake's published criteria and descriptions. They are not universal industry thresholds, proof of acceptance, or independent verification of privacy, security or commercial outcomes.
The owner should check what the criteria mean in practice: which legal entity and employees count, what evidence is needed, what data categories are considered, and whether the program's terms cover the intended use. A public threshold does not guarantee that a particular archive qualifies.
What Avelence describes
Avelence's model is advisory. It can include commercial research, dataset positioning, licensing strategy and introductions. A company may authorize Avelence in writing to lead specified buyer discussions, work alongside it, or identify opportunities the company closes. This is not a promise of a buyer or a multi-buyer process.
Any mandate is separate from permission to disclose the company's identity, share a sample or authorize a recipient's access. The owner controls whether those steps happen and for which recipient. That boundary matters whether the company uses an adviser or approaches a direct program.
What changes between a direct programme and advisory work?
| Question | Handshake AI public route | Avelence advisory model |
|---|---|---|
| Starting point | Published direct data-partnership criteria and category descriptions | Owner-side research and positioning before or alongside specified discussions |
| Stated threshold | Handshake states 20+ full-time employees and 3+ years in operation | No universal company-size threshold is claimed here |
| Who determines what is shared? | Handshake says the company determines its sharing scope | The owner separately approves each disclosure and mandate |
| Does public description establish acceptance or price? | No | No buyer acceptance, price or result is guaranteed |
| What should be reviewed? | Current program terms, rights, scope, privacy and payment | Advisory scope, mandate, recipients, disclosure and any proposed deal terms |
The table attributes the threshold and sharing statement to Handshake. It does not infer what data the service will accept. Avelence's column is the service's description of its own service, rather than an independent assessment.
When is each route worth investigating?
If a company clearly meets Handshake's stated threshold and wants to assess its direct program, it can review the current criteria and terms itself. That does not make the program a fit; the company still needs to check rights, covered records, permitted uses, term, exclusivity, preparation, privacy, acceptance, payment and post-term obligations.
If a company is still scoping its data or wants help researching the buyer landscape before authorizing a discussion, an owner-side advisory model may be relevant. The company should ask what research is included, whether any representation is proposed, what the mandate would cover, how conflicts are disclosed and what happens if no opportunity is identified.
The paths need not be framed as a ranking. A company could review a direct route and separately seek advice, provided its contracts, confidentiality duties and permissions allow it. Do not assume an adviser has access to a provider or can influence its decision.
What should an owner compare before committing?
- Identify the company, source systems and specific records in scope.
- Separate established rights from unverified claims about control.
- Ask who prepares and reviews the material, and who bears rework.
- Define use, recipients, sublicensing, duration, exclusivity and termination.
- Separate firm payments from conditional or projected amounts.
- Confirm exactly what identity or material can be shared and with whom.
- Record unanswered questions before sending an example or signing.
If an answer depends on a future agreement, keep it unresolved until the contract is available. Marketing descriptions help identify the questions, not settle them.
The right next step is the one that preserves the company's control while answering its actual decision. Neither public eligibility criteria nor an advisory description replaces review of the proposed terms and permissions.
The offer comparison resource can align actual proposed scopes, rights and preparation duties once a route responds. It helps identify material differences rather than infer a winner from programme criteria.
Frequently asked questions
Can a company investigate Handshake and seek advice at the same time?
Potentially, subject to its confidentiality, exclusivity and other existing obligations. Keep the programme’s proposed licensing terms separate from any adviser’s mandate, fees and disclosure authority. An adviser does not gain permission to name the company or negotiate with a programme simply because the company requested general research.
Does meeting Handshake’s published company threshold mean our archive qualifies?
No. The stated threshold is an initial screen, not a finding about the content or rights in your records. Confirm the current criteria, then ask which contribution, uses, preparation and acceptance conditions apply to your company. The actual proposal is what allows you to compare the opportunity with other options.
About the author
Yananai A. Chiwuta
Yananai A. Chiwuta is the Founder of Avelence. His work covers data-owner relationships, enterprise buyer research, and the commercial decisions behind operational-data licensing.
