Evaluation
Methodology
We built our pitch deck review based on our 20 years of experience in fundraising and 300+ fundraising projects. To make sure our analysis provides real and actionable data, we based our grading system directly on the investors input: public commentary, direct feedback to our clients, fundraising patterns we've seen throughout our fundraising careers. Our framework reflects how investors think, rather than what consultants recommend.
What we evaluate.
Every deck is evaluated across four primary dimensions, each scored independently, then combined into an overall pitch deck score.
Presentation Quality
We assess how well the deck communicates visually and structurally — clarity, readability, consistency, and whether visuals actually support the narrative rather than just decorate it.
Narrative Coherence
We evaluate whether the deck tells a complete, logical story — checking for investor-critical topics: problem, solution, ICP, market size, traction, go-to-market, pricing, business model, competitive landscape, team, roadmap, and the ask. We also assess how well these elements flow and support each other.
Market Assessment
Broken into five sub-dimensions: problem importance and urgency, market size and segmentation quality, timing and macro trends, competitive landscape clarity, and scalability potential. Market sizing receives close scrutiny — we flag top-down-only TAM analysis, "percent of market" logic, missing SAM/SOM breakdowns, and sizing not grounded in a real go-to-market strategy.
Investment Readiness
Evaluated across five investor priorities: team and leadership, problem-market fit, product and technology, traction and business model, and go-to-market and sales strategy. Each is scored independently, then combined into a composite readiness rating.
Red flag detection.
Serious concerns that could stop an investor conversation before it starts — each tied to a specific evaluation area with a recommended action.
No revenue, missing unit economics, vanity traction, unvalidated monetization
Weak or unsupported sizing, no segmentation, no link between ICP and go-to-market approach
Claimed uniqueness without evidence, no meaningful competitive comparison
Unverified performance claims, unsubstantiated compliance or security assertions, inconsistent metrics
Gaps in key roles for the claimed stage, missing commercial or technical leadership
No use of funds, misaligned raise size, no milestone or runway clarity
Recommendation section
We produce two distinct categories of recommendations so you know exactly what to fix and in what order.
Fix it in the deck
Structure, clarity, missing slides, narrative gaps, and how metrics are presented — changes you can make today without leaving your desk. These apply directly to the deck as it currently exists and require no external validation.
Prove it in the world
The things a founder needs to prove before the deck can make a credible case — market validation, customer interviews, pricing tests, technical proof points. Any red flag requiring external evidence generates a validation action with a clear recommended next step.
How to read
your score
Decks scoring 8/10 on most dimensions are sufficient to start effective investor outreach. A perfect score is not the goal — and chasing one would be the wrong takeaway. All investors are different.
A 7 instead of a 9 won't stop a conversation. An unresolved red flag will. Missing use of funds, unverified traction, or market sizing built on wishful math raises doubts no polished slide can paper over.
The most important feedback is the feedback you get from actual investors. Once your deck is good enough, start active outreach. Use your common sense if any recommendation seems off — AI can still make mistakes.
Ready to put it
to the test?
Upload your deck and get a full evaluation across all four dimensions — free of charge, results in minutes.
Get started for free