Signals Inbox·July 20, 2026·Defense Tech

Anduril vs Helsing: who is ahead?

Anduril is ahead overall: it is larger, broader and further into funded production. Helsing still leads in mass strike drones and Europe’s sovereign-defence race, which makes this less of a blowout than the valuations suggest.

Q1Why are Anduril and Helsing suddenly being compared?

Anduril and Helsing are being compared because both now want to build the same kind of company: a new defence prime that owns the battlefield software, the autonomous vehicles, the weapons and the factories behind them.

The overlap has become harder to ignore lately. Anduril sells command software, counter-drone systems, missiles, autonomous aircraft, underwater vehicles, sensors and tactical computing. Helsing began as a defence AI company, then moved into strike drones, underwater surveillance, an autonomous combat aircraft and its own manufacturing network.

Their geographic starting points are different. Anduril grew through the US defence market and has expanded into NATO, Australia, Taiwan, the UK and the Middle East. Helsing is using European sovereignty as its opening, particularly in Germany, France, the UK, Sweden and Ukraine.

Recent moves made the comparison much more direct. The US Air Force placed Anduril’s autonomous combat aircraft into production. Helsing unveiled a second CA-1 variant, completed a large new funding round and chose West Virginia for its first US factory. Both companies are now trying to replace parts of the traditional prime-contractor stack rather than remaining specialist software suppliers.

Q2Why is the Anduril vs Helsing race harder to call than it looks?

The Anduril vs Helsing race is difficult to score because Anduril is much bigger and further into production, while Helsing has a political advantage in European programmes that governments want to keep under European control.

Anduril already resembles a broad defence company. Its revenue is measured in billions, its products cover several military domains and major customers have moved beyond trials. Helsing is younger and smaller, but Europe currently wants exactly the supplier Helsing is building: European-owned, software-led, locally manufactured and less dependent on US technology.

The companies also show progress differently. Anduril discloses more contract values, production milestones and programme decisions. Helsing more often points to flight tests, integrations and delivery volumes while publishing much less consolidated financial information.

We therefore need to judge several races separately. Revenue, funded production and customer breadth tell us who leads now. Battlefield reliability, manufacturing output, software adoption and sovereign access show whether the gap can close.

Q3How much bigger, faster-growing and better funded is Anduril than Helsing?

Anduril is currently in another financial league, even though Helsing may be growing faster in percentage terms from a much smaller base.

Anduril said in its May 2026 funding announcement that 2025 revenue reached $2.2 billion, more than double the previous year. Helsing does not publish a clean group revenue figure. Documents reviewed by the Financial Times projected €441 million, around $502 million, for 2026.

The first comparison is already decisive. Anduril’s completed 2025 revenue was about 4.4 times Helsing’s forecast for the following year. The forward multiples reported by the Financial Times make the gap wider. Using the pre-money valuations implied by both funding rounds, we estimate Anduril’s 2026 revenue base at roughly $4.3 billion and Helsing’s at about $506 million. That produces a forward gap of approximately 8.5 times.

Helsing’s German entity grew from €9.6 million in 2023 to €26.9 million in 2024, a 180% increase. Those accounts cover only one part of the group that exists now, so they cannot be compared cleanly with Anduril’s consolidated revenue. They still show how fast Helsing is moving.

Anduril’s absolute growth is harder to dismiss. The company added more than $1.1 billion of annual revenue during 2025. That one-year increase was more than twice Helsing’s entire projected 2026 revenue.

Funding follows the same pattern. Anduril raised $5 billion at a $61 billion valuation, while Helsing raised $1.8 billion at $18 billion. Investors are asking Helsing to grow into a much more demanding valuation: roughly 32 times forward revenue, compared with about 13 times for Anduril.

Anduril and Helsing financial comparison, July 2026

Q4Which company has stronger defence customers, Anduril or Helsing?

Anduril has the stronger defence customers right now because the US military and Australia are already building large, long-term programmes around its products.

The US Army’s ten-year enterprise agreement has a ceiling of up to $20 billion and brings roughly 120 procurement actions under one vehicle. The ceiling is not guaranteed backlog, but the number of programmes shows how widely Anduril has spread across the Army. Australia awarded the company an A$1.7 billion autonomous-submarine programme, and NATO selected its software for a new air-command data platform.

Helsing has reached unusually important customers for a company founded in 2021. Germany awarded roughly €268 million for an initial strike-drone order and €223 million for combat-cloud work. Sweden funded the Gripen integration of Helsing’s Centaur AI pilot. Another contract worth hundreds of millions of euros will put Helsing AI into the Eurofighter’s electronic-warfare system.

Germany still accounts for a large share of Helsing’s disclosed momentum. Anduril has major programmes across more US services, Australia and NATO, giving it a broader commercial base and less dependence on one government.

Q5Is Anduril’s Lattice platform ahead of Helsing’s defence AI stack?

Anduril’s Lattice platform is well ahead because military organisations are already using it as shared infrastructure across several programmes, services and countries.

The US Army gives us the clearest evidence. During 2026 exercises, Anduril expanded its network across the full 4th Infantry Division, connected more than 65 tactical nodes and moved targeting data from sensors to a Marine Corps HIMARS unit without manual re-entry. The Army then selected Anduril to lead the common data baseline for its next-generation command programme.

Lattice is also moving into other parts of the defence system. JIATF-401 chose it for enterprise counter-drone command and control. NATO selected it for a new air-command data platform. AWS recently named Anduril a preferred edge provider for national-security customers, creating another route for agencies to buy Anduril software and computing infrastructure.

Helsing has serious products of its own. Altra coordinates reconnaissance and strike missions, Cirra supports electronic warfare, and Centaur flies combat aircraft. Germany’s combat-cloud award could become the foundation of a larger platform. For now, Helsing has not shown the same repeated adoption across different services, countries and weapon systems.

Q6Who is ahead in autonomous combat aircraft, Anduril or Helsing?

Anduril currently leads in autonomous combat aircraft because the FQ-44 has entered production, while Helsing’s CA-1 is still waiting for its first flight.

The US Air Force awarded Anduril an engineering, manufacturing and production contract for the FQ-44 in June 2026, four months ahead of schedule. The aircraft is entering an initial production phase for further testing and operational fielding.

Helsing has delivered the more striking AI-pilot demonstration. Saab completed three Gripen E flights with Helsing’s Centaur in 2025, including beyond-visual-range combat manoeuvres against another Gripen. The Times later reported that Centaur won more than 75% of simulated engagements against retired British and French fighter pilots after three days of training. The 75% figure came from simulation, not live combat, but it shows how quickly the software can improve.

Helsing has shown that its AI can control an existing front-line fighter and learn quickly. Anduril has convinced the US Air Force to manufacture a new autonomous aircraft. Helsing plans the CA-1 maiden flight for early 2027 and initial operating capability for 2029, so Anduril takes this category comfortably until those dates become completed milestones.

Q7Who leads in mass strike drones, Anduril or Helsing?

Helsing currently leads the mass strike-drone race, with larger announced volumes, an active high-output factory and a clearer route into European procurement.

Helsing has announced 4,000 HF-1 drones and another 6,000 HX-2 systems for Ukraine. Its first Resilience Factory in southern Germany can produce more than 1,000 HX-2 drones per month. Germany also approved an initial order worth roughly €268 million, with options that could lift Helsing’s share of the wider programme to about €1.46 billion.

A recent US Army exercise added independent evidence. Axios reported that 17 HX-2 drones produced 15 hits and two near-misses during Project Flytrap in Lithuania. That was a multinational military test, which carries more weight than a controlled company demonstration.

Anduril still has meaningful traction. The UK awarded nearly £30 million for Altius systems for Ukraine, and Taiwan completed receipt of 291 Altius 600M loitering munitions. A later US foreign-military-sale approval covering Altius 600 and 700 systems for Taiwan had an estimated value of $1.1 billion, although an approval can take years to become delivered revenue.

Helsing has the stronger case here. Its European production model is already organised around thousands of relatively affordable strike systems, while Anduril’s disclosed volumes remain smaller.

Q8Who is further ahead underwater, Anduril or Helsing?

Anduril is far ahead of Helsing underwater because Australia has already turned Ghost Shark into a funded fleet programme.

The Royal Australian Navy first paid A$140 million for three development vehicles. Anduril delivered all three ahead of schedule and within budget, then won an A$1.7 billion five-year programme. Its Sydney factory produced the first vehicle for acceptance testing only seven weeks after the fleet award.

Helsing entered the market with Lura, an acoustic AI system, and SG-1 Fathom, an autonomous glider built for long-endurance surveillance. The company has since opened an 18,000-square-foot production and testing site in Plymouth and acquired Blue Ocean, an Australian underwater-vehicle specialist.

Helsing has a credible route into distributed submarine detection, but it remains several commercial steps behind. Helsing is producing and testing surveillance gliders. Anduril is delivering extra-large autonomous submarines under a billion-dollar programme.

Q9Can Helsing manufacture weapons as well as Anduril?

Helsing can already manufacture strike drones at serious volume, but Anduril has the stronger industrial system across the full portfolio.

Helsing’s southern German factory has an initial capacity above 1,000 strike drones per month. Its Plymouth site is producing underwater systems, and the planned West Virginia factory is designed to exceed 2,000 drones per month once fully operational. That expansion is unusually fast for a company that sold mainly software only a few years ago.

Anduril’s advantage appears across more product types. The Sydney plant is producing large autonomous undersea vehicles. Its Pulsar electronic-warfare line recently doubled annual capacity from 500 to 1,000 systems and delivered more than a normal month of output in one week during a government surge. Anduril has also signed a production agreement for the surface-launched Barracuda-500M.

Arsenal-1 could widen the gap, although the five-million-square-foot Ohio complex is still ramping. We count Anduril’s active factories and production lines without giving it full credit for future Arsenal capacity that has yet to come online.

Anduril and Helsing’s manufacturing positions

Q10Who gets from prototype to production faster, Anduril or Helsing?

Anduril gets from prototype to production more reliably because several of its systems have already become funded programmes rather than stopping after a strong demonstration.

Ghost Shark moved from a three-vehicle development deal to an A$1.7 billion fleet award in under three years. The Army’s next-generation command programme went from a $99.6 million prototype award to division-scale use and a lead role for Anduril on the common data layer. Roadrunner and Pulsar also turned product launches into large air-defence contracts.

Helsing launches products at an impressive pace. Since late 2024, it has introduced HX-2, Lura, SG-1 Fathom, CA-1 Europa, an electronic-attack CA-1 variant and the RX-1 robotics research platform. Centaur reached a Gripen E in less than six months.

HX-2 shows that Helsing can convert a new product into a major order. Its aircraft, maritime and robotics programmes still depend on future flight, production or procurement milestones. Anduril has repeated the conversion more often, leaving a sizeable gap.

Q11What have Ukraine and military testing really proved about Anduril and Helsing?

Ukraine and allied testing show that Anduril and Helsing can field useful systems, but the public evidence is still too mixed for either company to claim a general reliability lead.

Helsing has the larger declared deployment in Ukraine. Project Flytrap also gave HX-2 a strong American reference, with 15 hits from 17 launches according to Axios. Helsing says Ukraine has approved the system for frontline use and that deliveries have reached several hundred units per month.

The record is not uniformly positive. A German military presentation reported by Bloomberg described launch failures, missing capabilities and poor results during earlier Ukrainian trials. Helsing rejected that account and later published much stronger testing claims. Without a complete mission-level dataset, we cannot tell how much performance improved between the two sets of results.

Anduril has faced its own failures. The Wall Street Journal reported problems involving uncrewed boats, Altius drones, Ghost systems and its command software during tests or combat deployments. Anduril argues that rapid failure and iteration are part of its development model. Militaries will care about the next bit: whether those failures fall sharply before large orders arrive.

Helsing currently has more visible strike-drone exposure, while Anduril has broader operational use across several domains. We leave this category open because the independent evidence does not support a confident winner.

Q12Does Helsing have better access to Europe than Anduril?

Helsing has the easier route into continental Europe, while Anduril can reach more defence budgets around the world.

Helsing can offer European ownership, European engineering and factories inside customer countries. Those points carry more weight these days in Germany and France, where defence procurement is increasingly tied to industrial sovereignty. Helsing’s German drone and combat-cloud awards show that the political positioning already converts into contracts.

That political fit has helped Helsing become the closest European equivalent to Anduril. The resemblance now covers software, aircraft, strike drones, underwater systems, acquisitions and factories. The scale does not match yet, but no other European defence startup has built such a broad challenge so quickly.

Helsing is also moving beyond Europe through a US factory, American military testing and a dedicated US organisation. It wants to preserve its European identity while competing for Pentagon programmes.

Anduril starts from the opposite direction. Deep access to the US military supports expansion through Australia, Taiwan, the UK, NATO and local partners such as Rheinmetall in Germany and EDGE in the UAE. Its NATO software contract and AWS distribution agreement make the company easier for allied governments to adopt.

Helsing has the cleaner European sovereignty story. Anduril still reaches more countries, procurement systems and military budgets.

Q13Which company is harder to copy, Anduril or Helsing?

Anduril is harder to copy at this stage because a rival would need to recreate its software, factories, acquired engineering teams and customer approvals at the same time.

Several Anduril acquisitions have already become core operating capabilities. Area-I brought Altius. Dive Technologies accelerated the undersea business. Adranos added rocket motors, Numerica added radar and tracking, Klas added tactical computing, and ExoAnalytic is expanding space surveillance. Blue Force Technologies supplied the aircraft expertise behind Anduril’s combat-aircraft programme.

The common software layer connects many of those pieces. A new competitor would need that software, the hardware portfolio, military integrations, factories and years of customer approvals. That combination explains why established groups such as Rheinmetall, EDGE and AWS are partnering with Anduril instead of trying to reproduce the whole stack quickly.

Helsing is building a similar structure through Grob Aircraft and Blue Ocean. European ownership gives it an additional political barrier that Anduril cannot simply purchase. The weaker point is maturity: CA-1, SG-1 and several newer programmes have yet to generate the repeated large production awards already visible at Anduril.

The harder moat to break is Anduril’s. Helsing’s strongest protection comes from its place inside Europe’s sovereignty push.

Q14Who is winning between Anduril and Helsing right now?

Anduril is clearly ahead overall now. Helsing leads the narrower race to become Europe’s sovereign champion for mass-produced defence autonomy, but Anduril is winning the larger contest to build a global software-defined defence prime.

Three gaps drive our verdict. Anduril appears roughly eight to nine times larger on a comparable forward-revenue basis. It has converted more products into funded production across more military domains. Its software is also embedded in more command networks, giving the company influence beyond individual weapons sales.

Helsing’s progress is still exceptional. The company has built a high-volume strike-drone line, flown an AI pilot in a Gripen, entered maritime production, secured major German awards and begun expanding into the United States. None of that closes the current scale and production gap.

Anduril now has to prove that greater size will not slow execution. Arsenal-1 must ramp cleanly, initial aircraft production must become dependable fielding, and the Army’s $20 billion contract ceiling must turn into substantial funded orders.

Helsing can change the answer with three visible results: reliable HX-2 performance across larger combat samples, several hundred million euros of recognised annual revenue and a funded production path for CA-1 or SG-1. Until those arrive, we put Anduril well ahead globally and Helsing ahead in the European challenger race.

Anduril vs Helsing: the final scorecard