Most vendor comparison pages exist to make one product look inevitable. These do not, for a straightforward reason: the decision a commercial operator actually faces is rarely between two brands. It is between two approaches — remove it or prevent it, coat it or paint it, biocidal or biocide-free — and the honest version of that comparison is more useful than a scorecard we authored in our own favour.
So each page compares categories of approach, using facts that can be checked: published compositions, published durations, published costs, published regulatory positions. Where a figure is a vendor's own marketing number rather than an audited one, it is labelled as such. Where no public figure exists — including for PROTEVIA — that is stated rather than filled with an estimate.
PROTEVIA is one of the approaches compared, and SilverVision AG publishes these pages. That is a conflict of interest, so it is disclosed at the top of every page rather than buried, and every page carries a section on when a different approach is the better spend.
Methodology & disclosure
Who publishes this. These comparisons are published by SilverVision AG, the Swiss brand and IP owner of PROTEVIA, and distributed in the UAE through Technip General Trading. PROTEVIA is one of the approaches compared. We have graded every claim rather than asking you to take the framing on trust.
How claims are graded.
- Verified — stated directly in the cited primary source: PROTEVIA product and process documentation, a competing vendor's own published data, or public-health guidance from the WHO, US EPA or US CDC.
- Estimate — indicative ranges published commercially, typically by service providers in their own market guides. Not independently audited. Directional only; obtain quotations for your own site.
- Not published — no public figure exists. Where this applies to PROTEVIA, it is stated rather than filled with a guess.
Naming other companies. Where a competing product is named, it is named only in support of a fact that vendor publishes about itself — a composition, a stated duration, a certification. We do not characterise competitors' performance, and we do not compare against local service firms by name.
Health claims. Statements about dampness and mould reflect WHO (2009) and US EPA/CDC guidance and are stated as associations, not causation. PROTEVIA makes no medical, therapeutic or efficacy claims, and none should be inferred. The issue addressed in the public-health literature is dampness and mould generally, not any single species or colour of mould.
Review cycle. Cost and competitor data is reviewed quarterly and on any material change — a vendor reformulation, a published price movement, or a regulatory update. PROTEVIA attributes are reviewed on any specification change. Each page carries its own last-updated stamp.
Start with a surface assessment.
If you already know which approach fits your site, the next step is Stage 01 — moisture levels, surface conditions and contamination risk, established before any treatment is proposed. If preventive treatment is not the right spend for your site, you will be told that.