Source-reported fact
Named government registry and available date context.
Ways to access Zavia
One ownership evidence model. Four ways to use it.
Choose the web platform for analyst-led investigation, the API for applications, MCP for authorized AI agents, or bulk data feeds for portfolio-scale delivery.
Every channel is designed to preserve source identity and available date context, direct versus calculated interests, and unresolved ownership gaps.
Choose the operating model
Put the evidence where the decision happens.
The right access method depends on who acts, how much volume moves and whether the workflow is investigative, transactional, analytical or event-driven.
01Web ownership platform
Investigate ownership in a workspace built for review.
Give analysts one place to resolve the legal entity, follow every supported ownership branch, review calculations and preserve the evidence behind the conclusion.
Best forAnalyst-led research, review and exceptions
Explore method02Ownership and UBO APICompany data and ownership answers in your application.
Search legal entities and retrieve shareholders, beneficial owners and corporate structures as JSON. Start with a free account and your first API key.
Best forTransactional KYB, risk and product workflows
Explore method03MCP server for AI agentsGive AI agents a governed route to source-linked company evidence.
A scoped implementation can let authorized agents resolve legal entities and retrieve source-linked ownership evidence through purpose-built tools instead of relying on model memory or untraceable web summaries.
Best forAuthorized AI agents and governed research tools
Explore method04Bulk data feedCompany data. Delivered in bulk.
Choose company registry, financials, shareholders, directors, corporate linkage and company contact data. Receive scheduled files for your database, product or customers.
Best forWarehouses, analytics, master data and embedded datasets
Explore methodAccess-method comparison
Four access methods for four operating models.
A technical buyer should understand the trade-off before discussing implementation.
| Access method | Best for | Operating model | Primary trade-off |
|---|---|---|---|
| Web platform | Analyst-led research, review and exceptions | A person investigates and interprets the evidence | Fastest to evaluate; least automated |
| API feed | Transactional KYB, risk and product workflows | Your application requests structured results | Most workflow control; requires engineering |
| MCP | Authorized AI agents and governed research tools | An agent invokes bounded ownership tools | Flexible reasoning; still needs agent controls |
| Bulk delivery | Warehouses, analytics, master data and embedded datasets | Your data platform ingests a defined universe | Highest volume; freshness follows delivery cadence |
One evidence contract
Delivery must not erase how the answer was reached.
Each channel should preserve the same resolved legal entity, relationship graph, source context, calculation logic and unresolved states.
Review the ownership modelSupported ownership path
Every company and person retained in relationship order.
Separate calculation
Derived interests returned with formula and path.
Explicit gap
Missing or conflicting evidence remains part of the result.
Choose with evidence, not feature labels
Start with one known company and one real workflow.
Use a familiar ownership case to test entity resolution, source coverage, relationship depth, calculation logic and unresolved-state handling before selecting the delivery channel.