on-premise

From structured field test to live asset capability one platform. Know what your assets have done.
Know what they can do right now.

Physical assets are tested rigorously and deployed at scale. Pgradient Labs builds the software layer to record those tests, compare vendors objectively, and assess real-time field capability.

ATP · Procurement evaluation · Contract 2025-UAV-047
Test template: Multi-role UAV · 4 parameters · 10 vendors Live evaluation
Parameter Vendor A Vendor B Vendor C Threshold
Alt. hold ±5m / 15 km/h ✓ 3.1m✗ 7.8m ✓ 4.2m< 5m
Endurance full payload ✓ 28 min✓ 31 min ✗ 19 min> 25 min
Failsafe RTH latency ✓ 0.4s~ 0.9s ✓ 0.5s< 1.0s
EMI resistance (GPS lock) ~ 3/5✓ 5/5 ✗ 1/5> 4/5
Vendor A scores highest overall · 3/4 pass · Committee report auto-generated

Five problems. One connected stack.

Three in testing and procurement. Two in live deployment. Each one limits what the next can solve which is why the platform addresses them together.

Problem A · ATP

Ten drones, one contract no way to compare them on the same data

When a procurement authority opens a contract and ten vendors submit systems for field trial, each vendor is effectively tested on slightly different parameters different sorties, different weather, different evaluation forms. The committee receives ten separate PDF reports and compares them qualitatively. The winner is chosen on opinion, not data. The result is not retained for the next procurement cycle.

ATP gives the procurement authority control of the test template. All ten vendors are evaluated against the same parameters. Results are ingested as structured telemetry, displayed side-by-side, and retained as an institutional record that compounds across procurement cycles.
ATP procurement comparison
Problem B · ATP

Bench tests and flight tests live in separate worlds

An OEM choosing between five ESCs runs bench tests step response, current draw, thermal rise at controlled throttle. Two units look identical. But above 3,500m altitude under sustained throttle in real flight, one overheats. The data for both tests exists in separate spreadsheets, different units, different engineers' machines. Nobody links them. The selection is made on incomplete evidence.

ATP ingests bench and flight telemetry under one test template and one timestamp axis. The thermal divergence invisible on the bench becomes a flagged anomaly in the combined view with the exact flight condition that triggered it.
ATP component selection
Problem C · ATP

A field failure needs sharing but the data is classified

Six months into deployment, the Army observes ESC thermal runaway at altitude. The OEM needs telemetry to diagnose it: altitude, temperature, voltage, throttle. But the raw log contains GPS coordinates, waypoint paths, and sortie patterns. That is classified. The Army either sends everything a security violation or sends nothing. The bug doesn't get fixed.

ATP's selective share template lets the operator define field by field which variables are exported. Performance data goes to the OEM. Operational data never leaves the on-prem instance.
ATP classified telemetry sharing
Problem D · ACE

The spec says 28 minutes. The asset has 11.

Once a drone or robot is in the field, its real-time capability remaining battery, current payload, position, speed exists nowhere in software. Operators make decisions from static spec sheets written months ago. After two sorties, a battery cycle at altitude, and sustained throttle, that 28-minute drone has 11 minutes left. No system surfaces this gap at the moment of decision.

ACE reads live telemetry and produces a real-time capability score per asset updated continuously. The answer is computed from current state, not specs. And it is accurate because it is calibrated against structured ATP test data, not the manufacturer's nominal figures.
ACE live capability estimation
Problem E · ACE

A threat is detected. Which asset can actually respond?

A command operator needs to know across drones from three manufacturers, ground robots from two which asset can respond to a detected threat right now. Not by the spec sheet. By current battery state, position, and mission load. Without live capability data per asset, the answer is a guess at exactly the moment when it cannot be. With ACE, it is computed in seconds.

ACE continuously scores every asset in the fleet against current telemetry. When a decision is needed, the recommended response is surfaced instantly with the assets ranked by their actual current capability, not their nominal specification.
ACE fleet coordination

Two products. One substrate.

ATP is deployed first it builds the structured test record that makes ACE accurate. ACE is the platform destination real-time capability estimation, calibrated by actual test data not manufacturer specs.

ATP
Asset Testing Platform
Lead product. Deployed first.

Structured, on-premise test data infrastructure for the procurement and engineering workflow. Defines what a field test means, captures what it produces, and makes results comparable and shareable with native controls for classified data.

  • Authority-controlled test templates across competing vendors
  • Bench and flight telemetry linked under one schema
  • Side-by-side procurement comparison with retained institutional record
  • Selective field-level export for classified environments
  • On-premise
Solves Problems A, B, and C
ACE
Asset Capability Engine
Platform destination. Built on ATP data.

Real-time capability scoring for every asset in a heterogeneous fleet. Reads live telemetry battery, payload, altitude, speed and produces an accurate current-state score. Accurate because it is calibrated against structured ATP test data, not nominal specs.

  • Live capability score per asset, updated from telemetry in real time
  • Works across mixed fleets drones, ground robots, autonomous systems
  • Integrates with C2 and warehouse management systems
  • On-premise
Solves Problems D and E · requires ATP as data foundation


Four decisions the platform makes possible.

Built around specific decisions that real people in these roles need to make in testing, procurement, and live operations.

Procurement evaluation officer
"We ran field trials on eight drone systems. How do I produce a defensible, data-backed comparison for the procurement committee?"

One shared test template across all eight vendors. Telemetry ingested per sortie. Side-by-side comparison dashboard. The procurement record stays queryable for the next cycle.

ATP · Problem A
Drone OEM hardware engineer
"Our bench tests show two ESCs are identical but one overheats above 3,500m on real flights. Why can't I see both in one place?"

ATP links bench telemetry and in-flight data under one test template and one timestamp axis. The thermal divergence invisible on the bench becomes a flagged anomaly in the combined view.

ATP · Problem B
Army field operations officer
"We have a firmware issue in deployment. I need to share data with the OEM but I cannot send our flight coordinates or mission patterns."

ATP's selective share template defines which telemetry fields are exported. Performance data reaches the OEM. Operational data stays on-prem. The bug gets fixed.

ATP · Problem C
C-UAS command operator
"A threat has been detected. Which of my assets across three manufacturers can actually respond, given their current state right now?"

ACE reads live telemetry from every asset and returns a ranked capability score. The answer comes from current battery, position, and payload not a spec sheet written six months ago.

ACE · Problems D + E

Building with our first customers.

If you procure, test, or operate drones, counter-UAS systems, or autonomous robots, we want to understand your specific challenge and build around it.

Request early access contact@pgradient.com