Investor Framework

Know which deals deserve your time.

Six weighted dimensions. Forty-plus criteria. Stage- and type-aware weights so a pre-seed marketplace isn't scored like a Series-A hardware deal. Auto-surfaced red flags, a 0–100 composite, and an honest verdict.

How it works

From pitch deck to decision.

01
Upload materials

Deck, memo, data room notes — whatever the founder sent you.

02
AI scores against the framework

Six weighted dimensions, forty-plus criteria, stage- and type-aware.

03
Get a memo, red flags and a competitive review

An honest verdict with the evidence behind every score.

04
Optionally invite vetted co-investors

Share the result and spread the load across a syndicate.

After the score

A score is the start. The deal is the work.

Investests keeps the whole deal moving — a pipeline you organise your way, a room to talk it through, and a syndicate to fund it together.

Your own deal flow board

Drag every deal through Sourced, Reviewing, Diligence, Committed and Passed — and add your own stages, named whatever your process calls them.

Private discussion rooms

One thread per deal for you and the investors you shared it with. Questions, answers and files in one place.

Syndicate and co-invest

Set the raise, pick the structure — equity, SAFE, convertible note and more — and watch pledges build against the target in real time.

Share and see where everyone stands

Send a deal to members or outside contacts by email and track each reply: interested, needs more information, or a pass.

What investors say

Investors who triage with Investests.

Investests turned a three-hour deck review into a fifteen-minute check. The red flags it surfaced were exactly the questions I would have missed.
Nathalie van Mulken, Angel investorNathalie van MulkenAngel investor
The competitive review alone is worth it. I finally see who else is fighting for the same market before I commit.
Philip Andrews, Angel investorPhilip AndrewsAngel investor
It keeps our syndicate honest — everyone scores against the same framework, so our meetings are about the deal, not the paperwork.
Elsebeth Thomsen, Angel investorElsebeth ThomsenAngel investor
Sample / Demo

This is a fictional read-only preview. Your own evaluations will look similar once you complete one.

Sample evaluation · AI-generated · Read-only preview

Pet Monitoring Drones

Autonomous indoor micro-drones that patrol the home, monitor pets, dispense treats, and alert owners to distress events via an AI behavior model.

SeedHardware
63
/ 100
Composite verdict
Needs work
Deep diligence required; gaps are fixable but stack-ranked risks are real.
Team & founders
71
25%
Market & timing
68
20%
Product & traction
51
20%
Financials & cap table
56
20%
Deal terms
61
10%
Investor self-fit
81
5%
5 red flags
Run your own →
AI investment memo

Pet Monitoring Drones targets the $260B global pet care market with a novel hardware + AI offering. The team has solid robotics credentials but limited consumer go-to-market experience. Unit economics are unproven, hardware margins are tight at the proposed $399 price point, and regulatory/safety concerns around autonomous flying devices near animals require validation. Strong differentiation versus static pet cameras, but execution risk is high. Recommend a 60-day diligence window focused on (1) safety certification path, (2) BOM reduction to lift gross margin toward 35%, and (3) paid pilot conversion data before deciding.

Red flags surfaced (5)
  • Product & traction
    Hardware safety / liability risk
    Autonomous rotorcraft near pets and children carries injury and liability exposure not yet addressed in product or insurance plan.
  • Product & traction
    Thin gross margins
    Projected 22% hardware margin leaves little room for CAC, returns, and support. Below consumer hardware healthy band.
  • Product & traction
    No signed pilot customers
    Pipeline is anecdotal. No LOIs or paid pilots in the data room.
  • Team & founders
    Team lacks consumer hardware shipping experience
    Strong robotics PhDs, but no prior DTC hardware launch on the cap table.
  • Deal terms
    Valuation premium without proportional traction
    $18M pre-money is roughly 2.5× the category norm for pre-revenue consumer hardware at seed.
Risk summary

Red-flag risk profile

5
flags
High risk

5 red flags indicate material diligence concerns that should be resolved before proceeding.

Flags by dimension
Product & traction
3
Team & founders
1
Deal terms
1
What this means

More red flags — and especially flags clustered in a single dimension — raise the probability that the deal will underperform or require expensive remediation. Use the memo and criterion breakdown to stack-rank which risks are fixable before a term sheet.

The evidence layer

Every score shows the facts behind it.

No black-box numbers. Each score lists the figures that produced it, labelled by where they came from — and you can click any line to see the source, the quote, and the confidence.

Market score: 74
Why

Click any line to see the source

Competitive review · AI-generated

Who else is fighting for this market.

A second AI pass maps direct, adjacent, and substitute competitors — and where the pitch is stronger or weaker on each axis.

Moderately differentiated

No direct autonomous-flight competitor exists in the consumer pet category, which is real differentiation. The pitch is squeezed from two sides: established static-camera incumbents own the wallet and shelf space today, and lower-cost behavior-monitoring substitutes can replicate the alerting feature without hardware risk. The defensible wedge is the autonomy + intervention combination, not the camera itself.

high threat

Static treat-dispensing pet camera with subscription AI alerts; the de facto incumbent in connected pet monitoring.

They are stronger on
  • Brand recognition and shelf presence in pet retail
  • Mature subscription monetization (Furbo Dog Nanny)
  • Proven, low-risk hardware at sub-$200 price point
This pitch is stronger on
  • Cannot follow the pet between rooms
  • No physical intervention beyond treat fling
  • Limited behavioral context — single fixed POV
direct
high threat

Family of static pet cameras with two-way audio, treat dispensing, and a vet-chat subscription.

They are stronger on
  • Multi-SKU lineup tuned to price tiers
  • Established DTC + Amazon channel
  • Bundled vet telehealth raises ARPU
This pitch is stronger on
  • No mobility; misses anything off-camera
  • No real autonomy or pet-following
  • Subscription churn around vet-chat is high
medium threat

Best-in-class autonomous outdoor drones; has the autonomy stack to enter the indoor consumer category if it chose to.

They are stronger on
  • State-of-the-art SLAM and obstacle avoidance
  • Deep balance sheet and brand
  • Existing drone manufacturing supply chain
This pitch is stronger on
  • No consumer pet focus today; entry would take 18+ months
  • Indoor micro-form-factor is a different BOM problem
  • Defense focus likely takes priority
medium threat

GPS + activity wearables that monitor pet health and location without any in-home camera or drone.

They are stronger on
  • Works outside the home, where most owners want monitoring
  • No safety/liability concerns of flying hardware
  • Strong recurring revenue from connectivity plans
This pitch is stronger on
  • No visual context — can't see what the pet is doing
  • No intervention capability
  • Limited behavioral inference vs. a camera + AI stack
DIY: Ring / Nest cam + treat dispenser
substitute
low threat

Owners stitching together a generic indoor security camera with a stand-alone Wi-Fi treat dispenser.

They are stronger on
  • Near-zero marginal cost for households that already own one
  • Battle-tested hardware reliability
  • No new app to learn
This pitch is stronger on
  • No pet-specific AI or behavior alerts
  • Fragmented UX across two apps
  • No autonomy, no mobility

Marketplace for paid human pet care during the day — the alternative most owners actually use.

They are stronger on
  • Solves the actual underlying need (companionship, exercise, intervention)
  • Trusted, established consumer behavior
  • Doesn't require a $399 hardware purchase
This pitch is stronger on
  • Cost compounds over time vs. one-time hardware spend
  • Scheduling friction; not on-demand
  • No 24/7 coverage
Full criterion-by-criterion breakdown

Every score the AI assigned, with rationale.

Forty-three criteria across six dimensions. These scores are fixed for this demo sample; sign in to run your own evaluation and edit any score.

01 · 25% of composite
Team & founders
71
/ 100
Founder domain expertise
Two co-founders are robotics PhDs from CMU with prior work at Skydio on autonomous flight.
12345
Founder-market fit
Both are pet owners but no prior work in pet care or consumer veterinary.
12345
Team completeness
Strong on engineering. Missing head of supply chain and consumer marketing lead.
Red flag · Solo founder at Series A with no hiring plan.
12345
Prior execution track record
Shipped research prototypes and one B2B product at a prior employer. No consumer launch.
12345
Coachability & self-awareness
Open in references. Acknowledged go-to-market gaps without prompting.
12345
Reference quality
Strong references from CMU faculty and a former Skydio VP of engineering.
12345
Equity split & vesting
50/50 founder split with standard 4-year vesting and 1-year cliff in place.
12345
Founder alignment & commitment
Both full-time for 18 months. Aligned on hardware exit timeline (7–10 years).
12345
02 · 20% of composite
Market & timing
68
/ 100
TAM / SAM / SOM credibility
Pet care TAM ~$260B globally. Smart pet tech SAM credibly modeled at $8B.
12345
Market growth rate
Pet tech segment growing double digits post-pandemic per Statista 2024.
12345
Why now
Indoor drone components are now sub-$200 BOM, but consumer trust in indoor autonomy is early.
12345
Competitive intensity
Static pet cameras (Furbo, Petcube) crowded. No direct autonomous-flight competitor.
12345
Defensibility / moat
Provisional patents on pet-aware obstacle avoidance. Software-side moat unclear.
12345
Regulatory environment
FAA indoor-use carve-outs are clear but liability frameworks for autonomous pet interaction are not.
12345
Macro / cyclical exposure
Pet spending is recession-resilient. $399 ASP is discretionary and rate-sensitive.
12345
03 · 20% of composite
Product & traction
51
/ 100
Problem severity
Separation anxiety and pet distress monitoring are real but episodic — closer to vitamin than painkiller for most households.
12345
Solution differentiation
Meaningfully differentiated vs. static cameras: movement, treat dispensing, intervention.
12345
User engagement / retention
350 waitlist signups. No live app, no retention data yet.
12345
Growth rate
Waitlist growing ~40/month organically. No paid acquisition tested.
12345
Unit economics signal
$399 ASP vs. ~$310 landed COGS leaves ~22% gross margin. LTV undefined; no subscription attached.
Red flag · LTV below CAC with no clear path to inversion.
12345
Technology risk
Working prototype but not safety-certified. No DFM partner. Indoor SLAM in cluttered homes is unsolved at this price point.
12345
Roadmap credibility
Milestones to FCC + UL certification are realistic; consumer launch timing optimistic by ~6 months.
12345
04 · 20% of composite
Financials & cap table
56
/ 100
Revenue & growth quality
Pre-revenue.
12345
Burn & runway
$95k/month burn, $1.4M cash, ~14 months runway pre-round. 22 months post-round at target raise.
12345
Gross & contribution margins
Projected 22% gross margin at scale is below consumer hardware healthy band of 35–45%.
12345
Cap table cleanliness
Clean cap table. SAFE-only history. No dead equity, no toxic prior terms.
12345
Prior investor quality
One credible pre-seed lead (Bolt). No tier-1 follow-on capacity confirmed.
12345
Founder dilution remaining
Founders collectively hold 68% pre-this-round. Healthy for seed.
12345
Forecast realism
Bottom-up model exists but assumes 4% landing-page conversion at $399. Industry comp is ~1.2%.
12345
Use of funds clarity
Clear milestones: certification, first manufacturing run of 2,000 units, paid pilot with 200 households.
12345
05 · 10% of composite
Deal terms
61
/ 100
Valuation fairness
$18M pre-money is ~2.5× category norm for pre-revenue consumer hardware at seed.
Red flag · Valuation 3×+ category norm without proportional traction.
12345
Instrument clarity
Standard YC-style SAFE, post-money, no MFN abuse.
12345
Investor protections
Pro-rata granted. No information rights or board observer for seed checks under $250k.
12345
Liquidation preference & stack
1× non-participating preferred specified in side letter for priced round.
12345
Round size & syndicate fit
$3M round is appropriately sized to milestones. Lead is credible but not hardware-specialist.
12345
Target ownership achievable
Pro-rata maintainable through Series A at current model assumptions.
12345
06 · 5% of composite
Investor self-fit
81
/ 100
Thesis alignment
Sits inside frontier-hardware-for-consumers thesis.
12345
Portfolio conflicts
No portfolio conflicts. Adjacent only — one pet-food-subscription holding.
12345
Value-add you can provide
Direct intros available to two contract manufacturers and a DTC marketing operator.
12345
Hold period match
Hardware exit timeline (7–10 years) fits fund vintage but compresses follow-on flexibility.
12345
Portfolio concentration
$150k check is 1.5% of fund — within target concentration band.
12345
Diligence access
Founders gave data-room access in 48 hours and accepted a technical reference call.
12345
Scoring key · 1 disqualifying · 2 weak · 3 acceptable · 4 strong · 5 exceptional. This sample is read-only;sign in to run and edit your own evaluations.
Methodology

How the score is built.

Six dimensions. Forty-plus criteria. Weights shift with stage and business type so the same rubric is honest about a pre-seed marketplace and a Series-A hardware deal.

01
25%
Team & founders

Early-stage investing is a bet on people. A great team can pivot to a better market; a weak team can ruin a great product.

02
20%
Market & timing

You need a large enough prize, the right wave, and a credible path to capture meaningful share.

03
20%
Product & traction

Evidence the team can actually build and that customers actually want it. Traction signals adapt to stage.

04
20%
Financials & cap table

Where deals fall apart after the excitement fades. Messy cap tables and hostile prior investors kill otherwise compelling deals.

05
10%
Deal terms

Valuation discipline prevents return-killing entry prices. Instrument and protections matter as much as price.

06
5%
Investor self-fit

The most-skipped dimension. Thesis drift, portfolio conflicts, and hold-period mismatches destroy fund returns even from good deals.

Verdict bands

From composite to decision.

80 – 100
Strong pass
Proceed to term sheet.
65 – 79
Conditional pass
Proceed with diligence conditions.
50 – 64
Needs work
Deep diligence; are gaps fixable?
< 50
Pass
Below investment threshold.