Key takeaways
- A CRM holds who you know; a form holds what founders typed. Delsivo holds what the evidence says, with sources.
- Every extracted fact cites its slide, every thesis criterion shows its source, and every claim keeps its history.
- AI suggests and cites. People make every stage change, pass and message to a founder.
- It is narrow and early: no CRM, few integrations, no certification yet, and nothing generally available.
Why Delsivo instead of a CRM and forms
Picture a typical week of inbound at a seed fund. Applications arrive through a form, decks through a folder or a link, and the CRM gets a record when someone remembers. The analyst opens each deck, notes the numbers, checks them against a thesis document, and writes a line in the CRM. When a founder's call contradicts the deck, the contradiction lives in someone's notes.
Delsivo is built around that gap. The application, the deck, the facts drawn from it, the thesis check, the claims and the follow-ups all sit in one record, and each piece points to where it came from.
| Question | CRM and form | Delsivo (by design) |
|---|---|---|
| Where does the deck live? | In a folder or a link | Attached to the deal as the original, versioned |
| Where did this number come from? | Someone's notes | The slide it was extracted from, cited |
| Does it fit our thesis? | A judgement typed into a field | Each criterion: Met, Mismatch or Unknown, with source |
| What if the founder said something else later? | Lost in notes or email | Both statements kept; the claim is marked disputed |
| Who decided, and why? | If someone wrote it down | Recorded with the reason in the audit history |
What you get in the pilot
- A branded portal on your fund's subdomain, with save and resume and a receipt for founders.
- PDF deck analysis with slide citations, weak extraction flagged instead of guessed.
- Your thesis as a versioned rubric, with Unknown values turned into questions.
- An analyst queue, a claim tracker with four evidence labels, basic follow-up forms and scoped file requests.
- Audit history of every stage change and override.
Live AI interviews with a text alternative, data rooms, cited research and custom domains are planned for the first release. See pricing for how plans are being set.
What a design partner pilot asks of you
A pilot is work on both sides. It starts with some of your historical deals, to calibrate deck extraction and your rubric. Then live intake runs with recommendations visible only to analysts, and interviews and rooms are turned on for selected deals as they arrive. Review time, evidence accuracy and founder completion are compared against your current process, and those numbers are measured, not promised.
You bring a written thesis, or the willingness to write one down as rules and preferences, a steady flow of inbound, and someone who will use it every week and tell us what is wrong.
Honest limits
- Not a CRM: no email or calendar capture, relationship mapping or CRM sync. Those are planned for a later release.
- No integrations, no published prices and no security certification yet.
- English first and PDF first, in one hosting region at launch.
- Committee workflow, portfolio handoff and term sheet tracking are later.
- Fund accounting, LP reporting and automated investment decisions are out of scope.
When Delsivo is not the right choice
If inbound is light and one person reads every deck, a form and a spreadsheet may be all you need. If your deals come mostly through your network, a relationship CRM fits better. If you need fund admin and LP tools in one place, an all-in-one fund platform covers ground Delsivo never will.
The guide to deal flow tools sets out each kind with sourced prices, and VC deal flow software explains where each fits.