Review My Portfolio
Add companies you already hold or are already tracking. Verdict™ scores each one on the same 12-dimension PitchScore™ pipeline a founder gets, and only you ever see the result.
7
Companies added
1
In progress
5
Scored
1
Failed
Scoring… 1/3 groups
N
Northbrook Analytics
Working on Market & Viability · People & Structure1/3
Pitch & ProductDone
- Elevator Pitch 74.00
- Problem 68.00
- Solution 71.00
- Demo 65.00
Market & ViabilityNow
Sizing the market from the bottom, not the footnote.
People & StructureNow
Reading the founders the way a partner would.
Global · Pro
M
Marlin Wharf
75.90
PitchScore™
Elevator Pitch↓74
Problem↑79
Solution↑77
Demo↓72
Founder’s Mindset™↑75
Market↓73
Business Model↑78
Traction↑79
Moat↓71
Team↑76
Financials↓74
Cap Table↑77
Why these scores
Elevator Pitch ↓74 · Indicated — Clear one-liner for cold-chain brokers; ask present, proceeds coarse.
Problem ↑79 · Proven — Spoilage rates logged across the pilot's own manifests.
Solution ↑77 · Indicated — Routing shown on live lanes; savings verified once, seasonality untested.
Demo ↓72 · Indicated — Dashboard demo on pilot data; driver app storyboarded.
Founder’s Mindset™ ↑75 · Indicated — Operator-founder quotes lane-level margins from memory.
Market ↓73 · Indicated — Regional cold-chain spend registry-sourced; expansion beyond seafood assumed.
Business Model ↑78 · Proven — Per-lane fee live with the pilot broker; invoice attached.
Traction ↑79 · Proven — One paying broker, four months, volumes growing and reconciled.
Moat ↓71 · Asserted — Stickiness argued from manifest history; no churn test yet.
Team ↑76 · Indicated — Founding pair ran a forwarding desk; first engineer contracted.
Financials ↓74 · Indicated — Model is lane-level honest; company view extrapolates.
Cap Table ↑77 · Proven — Two founders, one SAFE, clean.
Failed
K
Kestrel Health
The deck could not be read — the PPTX carries only images. Export to PDF and try again.
Global · Pro
S
Saffron Ledger
64.80
PitchScore™
Elevator Pitch↓62
Problem↓68
Solution↓66
Demo↓60
Founder’s Mindset™↓65
Market↓67
Business Model↓63
Traction↓61
Moat↓64
Team↓70
Financials↓62
Cap Table↓69
Why these scores
Elevator Pitch ↓62 · Asserted — Positioning drifts between three buyer types; ask sized but unallocated.
Problem ↓68 · Indicated — Reconciliation pain real and referenced; costed from an analyst report.
Solution ↓66 · Indicated — Ledger sync shown against sandbox data; differentiation vs incumbents asserted.
Demo ↓60 · Asserted — Clickthrough prototype; no live customer data touched.
Founder’s Mindset™ ↓65 · Indicated — Founder knows the compliance terrain; commercial reasoning stays abstract.
Market ↓67 · Indicated — Regional payments volume cited; the reachable slice is not derived.
Business Model ↓63 · Asserted — Pricing page exists; no contract has tested it.
Traction ↓61 · Asserted — Waitlist and two design partners, neither paying.
Moat ↓64 · Asserted — Moat claimed from data network effects that need scale it lacks.
Team ↓70 · Indicated — Ex-bank ops lead is credible; solo founder, no technical partner.
Financials ↓62 · Asserted — Model omits cost lines the product implies.
Cap Table ↓69 · Indicated — Simple table; a convertible cap could pinch the seed.
Global · Pro
C
Copperline Robotics
71.20
PitchScore™
Elevator Pitch↓68
Problem↓74
Solution↓73
Demo↓70
Founder’s Mindset™↓69
Market↓72
Business Model↓66
Traction↓70
Moat↑75
Team↑77
Financials↓67
Cap Table↓73
Why these scores
Elevator Pitch ↓68 · Indicated — Opens on the robot, not the buyer; the ask arrives late and unsized.
Problem ↓74 · Indicated — Weld-inspection rework cost cited from one yard's records; second source thin.
Solution ↓73 · Indicated — Crawler demoed in-lab against staged defects; field conditions untested.
Demo ↓70 · Indicated — Video demo only — no live run, no failure cases shown.
Founder’s Mindset™ ↓69 · Asserted — Vision is vivid; unit economics answered in generalities.
Market ↓72 · Indicated — Shipyard count solid; serviceable share rests on a single adoption assumption.
Business Model ↓66 · Asserted — RaaS pricing proposed, not yet sold; margin math is illustrative.
Traction ↓70 · Indicated — Two paid pilots, both unconverted; usage data partial.
Moat ↑75 · Indicated — Patent filed and yard-access relationships real; both early.
Team ↑77 · Proven — Robotics PhDs with a shipped industrial product; ops hire missing.
Financials ↓67 · Asserted — Projections hockey-stick without named drivers.
Cap Table ↓73 · Indicated — Table clean bar one heavy advisor grant.
Global · Pro
A
Aurora Grid
82.40
PitchScore™
Elevator Pitch↑84
Problem↑85
Solution↑83
Demo↑78
Founder’s Mindset™↑81
Market↑82
Business Model↑83
Traction↑86
Moat↑79
Team↑82
Financials↑81
Cap Table↑85
Why these scores
Elevator Pitch ↑84 · Proven — Wedge stated in one line; ask, round and deployment plan on slide two.
Problem ↑85 · Proven — Grid-congestion losses priced from two utilities' own interconnection queues.
Solution ↑83 · Indicated — Dispatch engine beats the incumbent baseline on partner data; external audit pending.
Demo ↑78 · Indicated — Control-room demo on live telemetry; alerting flows described, not shown.
Founder’s Mindset™ ↑81 · Indicated — Founders argue capacity economics unprompted and name the churn line they watch.
Market ↑82 · Indicated — SEA grid-services spend sized bottom-up from tender records; growth rate assumed.
Business Model ↑83 · Proven — Capacity-fee pricing live with both pilot utilities; contract terms disclosed.
Traction ↑86 · Proven — Two paying utilities, 14 months of usage, invoices reconciled to the connector.
Moat ↑79 · Indicated — Regulatory approvals form a real barrier; durability past 3 years is argued only.
Team ↑82 · Proven — Grid-ops founders with named exits; hiring plan matches the ask.
Financials ↑81 · Indicated — Model names its assumptions; sensitivity shown on tariff timing.
Cap Table ↑85 · Proven — Clean priced seed, no structure debt, ESOP topped up.
Global · Pro
A
Aldergate Fulfilment
78.50
PitchScore™
Elevator Pitch↑76
Problem↑81
Solution↑79
Demo↓72
Founder’s Mindset™↑77
Market↓74
Business Model↑80
Traction↑82
Moat↑75
Team↑76
Financials↑79
Cap Table↑78
Why these scores
Elevator Pitch ↑76 · Indicated — Opens on a clear 'dark-store ops brain' positioning with the ask on slide two — round size named, use of proceeds split three ways.
Problem ↑81 · Proven — Fulfilment error cost is quantified from two named 3PL pilots, not industry averages — the pain carries invoices.
Solution ↑79 · Indicated — Routing engine demoed against the pilots' own SKU data; differentiation vs WMS incumbents argued, not yet benchmarked.
Demo ↓72 · Asserted — Screens show the live dashboard but the walkthrough is scripted — no logs or session data back the claimed daily usage.
Founder’s Mindset™ ↑77 · Indicated — Founder narrates unit economics unprompted and names the two decisions that killed v1 — evidence of an operator, lightly documented.
Market ↓74 · Indicated — SEA mid-market 3PL count is bottom-up from public registries; the serviceable slice still leans on a single analyst report.
Business Model ↑80 · Proven — Per-warehouse SaaS pricing with two signed annual contracts attached — ACV and gross margin stated and consistent.
Traction ↑82 · Proven — MRR trace across 11 months reconciles with the connector snapshot; both pilot logos verified as paying.
Moat ↑75 · Indicated — Switching cost argued through integration depth (14 WMS endpoints); no churn cohort yet to prove it holds.
Team ↑76 · Indicated — Second-time ops founder with a CTO from a regional unicorn; growth hire named but not yet signed.
Financials ↑79 · Indicated — 18-month model with named assumptions per line; sensitivity shown on the two that matter.
Cap Table ↑78 · Proven — Clean two-founder table, single angel SAFE, ESOP reserved — nothing that complicates the next round.
Add your startup
Live accounts only