.png)
A few weeks ago, there was news of another consolidation in the maritime tech space. In this case it was the news of Kpler’s acquisition of Spire Maritime. With this acquisition, Kepler builds on its AIS portfolio, which already included Marine Traffic and Fleet Mon, both of which they purchased in February 2023. One market analyst I spoke to noted that the acquisitions give Kpler “a great data footprint. They've taken two large costs of their service and turned them into revenue streams. From a lead generation point of view, anyone who needs to buy AIS data (terrestrial or satellite) is now a customer.”
Good for Kpler and their business.
But there is an industry wide problem that consolidation may not address and that’s the data quality gap related to AIS. The maritime industry's increasing reliance on data-driven decision making has exposed a critical truth: there are significant quality disparities in AIS data. Many consider AIS a standardized data source (the Orbit platform incorporates several feeds). A recent evaluation by Maritime Data shared at OrbitMI FLOW 2024 revealed startling differences among leading AIS providers that could significantly impact business operations and compliance efforts.
The numbers tell a compelling story. Among top providers, the number of daily position reports ranged from 32.4 million to 403 million - a massive disparity that challenges the notion of AIS data as a commodity. Even more revealing, accuracy rates varied from an impressive 99.7% to a concerning 72%, suggesting that some providers' data requires substantial cleaning before it's useful for business applications.
Geographic coverage variations are perhaps most concerning. In critical areas like the South China Sea, the difference between the top two providers showed a staggering 427% delta in coverage. The Persian Gulf, a region of particular importance for global trade, showed an even more dramatic 527% difference in unique positions captured between providers. These disparities become especially significant when considering current geopolitical tensions and compliance requirements.
The root causes of these variations are complex. While all providers access the same basic AIS signals, differences emerge in:
It’s a bit of a mess.
For these reasons OrbitMI worked with Maritime Data to conduct a thorough evaluation of the major AIS providers in the market before selecting those in our platform. Consequently, users have the confidence that Orbit integrates the highest quality feeds in its workflows.
But, even that high quality data needs additional cleaning. Among the many tools we use to improve data in our platform, Orbit applies sophisticated algorithms that filter out erroneous signals and interpolate positions when satellites are out of range.
For businesses building solutions on AIS data, these disparities have real consequences. Predictive algorithms, compliance systems, and trading strategies can produce vastly different results depending on their data source. Even basic port arrival predictions could vary significantly based on the underlying AIS provider.
The implications are clear: organizations need to conduct thorough evaluations of AIS data sources before integration into critical systems. What works for container tracking in major shipping lanes might prove inadequate for monitoring vessel activity in more remote regions or areas of strategic importance.
The reality is, AIS providers are not the same, which challenges the common assumption that AIS data is a standardized commodity. Instead, it should be viewed as a differentiated service requiring careful vendor selection based on specific use cases and geographic needs.
It also puts the onus on platforms such as OrbitMI to focus on data quality. Read more about our commitment to data quality here.
