Built for funds that review more decks than they can read
Seed and pre-seed funds, accelerators, angel syndicates and corporate venture teams share one evidence record, set up for their own thesis and reviewers.
Seed funds
Seed funds clear the inbound queue faster with thesis fit, evidence quality and readiness shown separately, cited deck facts and consistent interviews.
Read morePre-seed funds
Pre-seed funds judge founders with little traction to check: unknowns stay unknown and become questions, and a live AI interview can replace a first call.
Read moreAccelerators
Accelerators run application windows on a branded portal, give many reviewers scoped access, and interview every shortlisted applicant on the same questions.
Read moreAngel syndicates
Angel syndicate leads screen deals with cited evidence, track which claims are verified, and share a sourced deal packet with backers when it is ready.
Read moreCorporate venture
Corporate venture teams weigh strategic fit beside financial fit, bring business unit experts in as scoped guests and keep strict access on every file.
Read more Applying to a fund?For founders
What the fund sees, how the interview works, what it never judges, and how to correct or delete your data. Founders never pay.
Read moreMore kinds of investment team
Teams whose workflow differs in real ways from the five above, and what changes for each.
- Solo GP tools for a fund run by one personHow a one-person fund uses Delsivo as its first reader: cited screening, claim tracking and sharing with co-investors.Read more
- Check impact claims as carefully as revenueImpact criteria and exclusions in the rubric, impact claims with definitions and labels, and evidence requests about outcomes.Read more
- For university and alumni funds with volunteer reviewersAffiliation as an eligibility rule, rotating student and alumni reviewers with scoped access, and decisions kept across years.Read more
One evidence record, set up for your thesis and reviewers
Every team gets the same deal record and the same rules: AI suggests and cites its sources, a person makes every decision, and an unknown value is never treated as a failure. What changes is the rubric, the reviewers and which parts you lean on.
- A branded portal for foundersPilot
- Deck facts with slide citationsPilot
- Your thesis as a versioned rubricPilot
- Claims with sources and labelsPilot
- Live AI founder interviewsFirst release
- Data rooms with guest accessFirst release
What actually changes between them
The evidence rules are identical. These are the real differences in where deals come from, who reviews them and what is hardest to check.
| Seed funds | Pre-seed funds | Accelerators | Angel syndicates | Corporate venture | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Where deals come from | Inbound applications and co-investor referrals | Inbound and founder referrals, often before revenue | Application windows plus partner and alumni referrals | Referrals to the lead | Inbound, partners and the parent company's business units |
| Hardest thing to check | Which of many fitting deals to meet first | Almost everything, because there is little traction | Comparing a whole window of applicants on equal terms | Whether claims hold before backers rely on them | Strategic value to the business, beside financial return |
| Who reviews | Analysts and partners | One or two partners | A programme team and outside mentors | The lead, then backers | The venture team and business unit experts |
| What they rely on most | The analyst queue and meeting briefs | Unknowns as questions, and the interview | Portal windows and one interview for all | Claim labels and guest sharing | Strategic criteria, scoped guests and access logs |
| Plan that usually fits | Pilot, then Fund workspace | Pilot | Pilot, then Fund workspace | Pilot, then Fund workspace | Pilot or Enterprise |
Not sure which one you are?
Many teams are a mix: a seed fund with a pre-seed programme, a syndicate with a scout network. Tell us how yours works and we will suggest how to shape a pilot.