Platform Aeronaut is designed to measure public-market dilution pressure in a way that is comparable across companies and over time. The goal is not to recreate company investor relations language. The goal is to give users a consistent lens on how equity issuance and stock-based compensation flow through the public market record.
Our public rankings are meant to capture both absolute dilution and how a company behaves relative to relevant peers. This page is a plain-English overview of that approach, not a full proprietary specification of the underlying system.
The public model starts from company disclosures and organizes them into a comparable quarter-based framework.
We start with company-reported data from public filings and related disclosures, including share counts, stock-based compensation, and dilution-relevant issuance activity.
We pair those disclosures with market-value and share-base context so dilution can be viewed relative to company scale, not just as a raw standalone number.
Inputs are organized quarter by quarter so reporting periods can be compared consistently across time and across companies, even when disclosures arrive in different shapes.
When public source records conflict or appear incomplete, the dataset may be reviewed and adjusted for consistency before it feeds the published metrics.
These are the main public lenses users see across the leaderboard, company pages, and sector views.
This reflects dilution measured from reported historical activity. It is useful for understanding what the company has actually delivered over the recent trailing window.
This captures dilution implied by more forward-looking issuance patterns. It helps show where dilution pressure appears to be heading rather than only where it has been.
This isolates the stock-based compensation component so users can see how compensation-driven issuance contributes to overall dilution pressure.
This is our headline public view. It combines multiple dilution perspectives into a single summary measure so no one lens dominates the story on its own.
Companies are compared against relevant peers in similar operating cohorts so the rankings reflect context, not just raw size or raw issuance totals.
We also compare companies against sector peers to show how dilution stacks up within a more targeted peer set that may share business-model similarities.
Rankings are based on a combination of absolute dilution and contextual comparisons. In practice, that means we do not look at raw dilution in isolation when deciding how companies stack up publicly.
A company is evaluated against relevant peers, and rankings can change quarter to quarter as new filings arrive, public inputs refresh, and peer-relative standing shifts.
We do not disclose exact internal weighting formulas, preset logic, fallback heuristics, override rules, or company-specific internal review decisions on this page.
The public disclosure standard is intentionally high-level: enough to explain what the rankings mean, but not enough to expose the confidential implementation detail behind the platform.
These rankings are directional analytical tools, not investment advice.
Different industries and cohorts can have structurally different dilution patterns.
Historical disclosures can be revised, incomplete, or framed differently across issuers.
A few common questions about why the public rankings can move or differ from company framing.
Rank movement can come from several places at once: newly reported quarters, refreshed peer sets, changes in relative standing versus cohort or sector peers, or updates to the underlying public inputs.
The blended view is designed to summarize more than one angle on dilution. It is meant to be directional and balanced, so it should not be expected to mirror any single component exactly.
Companies often emphasize a preferred presentation of share activity. Our public leaderboard is built for cross-company comparison, so it standardizes the lens across the coverage universe instead of following each company’s preferred framing.