Company details

HEADCOUNT

25-99

ORG TYPE

Startup

SECTOR

Technology & Digital

WEBSITE

https://www.solveintelligence.com

About the company

Solve Intelligence builds AI software used by patent attorneys and in-house IP teams to draft patent applications, respond to office actions, create claim charts, and run invention harvesting workflows inside a browser-based editor. The company markets the product around confidentiality, jurisdiction-based data residency, and security certifications aimed at sensitive legal work. Public company profiles say Solve Intelligence was founded in 2023 and is backed by major investors, with total funding stated as $55m. Solve Intelligence also claims adoption by 400+ IP teams across six continents.

Locations and presence

Solve Intelligence lists London as headquarters and recruits across London and New York. Several roles are explicitly tied to either London, New York, or both, suggesting a bi-continental go-to-market and engineering footprint.

Palpable Score

58.0

/ 100

Solve Intelligence is unusually transparent on compensation because public job posts show salary ranges and, in at least one case, explicitly welcome new grads. The score is pulled down by multiple candidate reports describing poor communication and time-heavy take-home work, plus limited public proof of early-career progression and retention.

Pillar 1: Early-career access

Score

13.0

/ 20

The company lists a Full-Stack Engineer role marked “Any (new grads ok),” which is a direct entry point for graduates who can code.
Solve Intelligence also hires early-career commercial talent via Sales Development with “1+ years,” which is a realistic first or second job for a graduate.
The company’s overall role mix is still weighted to experienced hires, with many positions asking 3+ years and several “founding” roles, so entry-level access exists but is not the dominant pattern.

Pillar 2: Hiring fairness and transparency

Score

9.0

/ 20

The company publishes salary bands and basic experience expectations across multiple public job listings, which helps candidates self-select quickly.
Solve Intelligence has candidate reports describing take-home tasks that felt oversized for the role and followed by weak feedback or no response, which is a fairness red flag.
The company has interview feedback describing disorganised founder screens and ghosting after requests for significant prep work (references, transcripts, and product study), which undermines trust in the process.

Pillar 3: Learning and support

Score

11.0

/ 20

The company has employee feedback describing fast learning due to an intense pace and heavy exposure to applied AI tooling.
Solve Intelligence also has feedback noting a flat structure that can feel unstructured, including unclear guidance channels when someone gets stuck.
The company does not publish concrete onboarding plans, mentoring expectations, or progression steps for juniors, so learning support is harder to evaluate before joining.

Pillar 4: Pay fairness and stability

Score

16.0

/ 20

The company publishes salary ranges on public job listings across engineering and go-to-market roles, including ranges that cover more junior-leaning roles as well as senior roles.
Solve Intelligence provides market-facing signals of stability through funded growth and a continuing hiring plan across multiple functions.
The company has employee feedback saying salary is competitive but benefits and perks lag what candidates might expect, and public benefits detail is thin.

Pillar 5: Early-career outcomes

Score

9.0

/ 20

The company has a very small public employee review footprint, which limits confidence on retention, manager quality, and early-career satisfaction patterns.
Solve Intelligence’s LinkedIn profile indicates a small team (11–50) with a visible employee count in the mid-30s, which suggests growth but not outcomes like promotions.
The company does not provide public evidence of early-career progression such as junior-to-mid promotions, repeat graduate cohorts, or 12–24 month retention signals, and candidate interview reports raise concerns about how consistently people are treated during hiring.