Abstract: The paper presents the results of the scientific regulation of methodological approaches to the assessment of the capital of enterprises, which were, with a certain degree of convention, combined into the following thematic areas: procedural, attributive, resultant, by type of capital, systemic. For the selected areas of assessment of capital, the most significant aspects were identified that allow identifying the appropriate approach and emphasizing the practical aspects of the use. Within the process, the system of indicators characterizing the efficiency of the processes of capital formation, ordered in the following directions of research: formation, functioning, reproduction and accumulation, are organized. For the attributive, systemic, and result the practical features of the capital assessment in the current conditions of the enterprise are determined.

It is concluded that the most common, from the point of view of discussion in the academic space and practice of use, is the process and result of the evaluation of capital. This actualized the systematization and organization of relevant analytical indicators within these two areas of capital assessment. The presented results will allow scientists and practitioners to focus on more significant aspects of capital formation, which are key in terms of providing targeted activities in the current conditions of enterprise development.The results of streamlining the assessment of the capital of the enterprise made it possible to conclude that the general feature of multi-directional thematic financial assessments of capital is that the basis of all metrics is the monetary measurement of capital, based on absolute and relative financial indicators, in statics and dynamics; the corresponding methodological basis is formed on the basis of accounting or financial analytical models that are traditionally characterized by the researchers as alternatives and on the basis of their comparative characteristics emphasize the advantages and relevance of the financial model of analysis. Without denying the advantages and comparatively higher analytical capabilities of the financial model, the author’s position is the feasibility of their synthetic use. Despite the fact that this complicates the process of capital assessment in the aspect of comparability of output data, the choice of adequate methods and informative analytical indicators, the benefits of such a symbiosis is the expansion of the instrumental capabilities of the relevant analyst, which is relevant given the complexity of formalizing the measurement of non-material forms of capital, which, according to modern the conditions of the enterprise play a priority role in the formation of financial results of capital formation.