- Home
- Scoring approach
Scoring approach
Every ranking on the site comes from one model: five criteria scored 0 to 10, weighted into a score out of 10. Here is what each criterion measures, where the inputs come from and how use-case rankings change the weights.
Updated Oct 18, 2026
22%
Investor tracking
The question. After the teaser goes out, can you tell which LPs or funds opened the model, for how long, and who went quiet?
Formula. Feature rating x 0.55; investor activity log +1.6; view-only files +0.8; AI features +0.6. Maximum 10.
20%
Permission control
The question. Can the anchor LP see the side letter folder while every other investor sees only the PPM and the deck?
Formula. Security rating x 0.55; watermarks +0.9; view-only files +0.9; 2-step verification +0.7; SSO +0.5; redaction +0.4. Maximum 10.
20%
Raise workflow
The question. When forty investors send DDQ follow-ups in the same week, does the whole exchange stay inside the room?
Formula. Feature rating x 0.5; Q&A module +1.8; NDA e-sign step +0.9; drag-and-drop folders +0.6; API access +0.4. Maximum 10.
18%
Investor onboarding
The question. Can a busy allocator open the room from an email on a phone, sign the NDA and reach the deck in under a minute?
Formula. Ease-of-use rating x 0.65 + support rating x 0.25; native mobile app +0.6; NDA e-sign step +0.4. Maximum 10.
20%
Cost of a raise
The question. Can you budget the room for a nine-month raise before talking to sales, and stop paying after the final close?
Formula. Base 2 + value rating x 0.45; published price +2.4; free trial +1.1. Maximum 10.
Inputs
Every provider has one record in our research file: the list price (or “quote only”), whether a free trial exists, SOC 2 and ISO 27001 status, any further certifications, twelve features marked as listed or not, and five editorial ratings from 0 to 10 (security, features, ease of use, support, value). Ratings are our judgment from the vendor’s documentation, product and pricing pages and the attestations it lists. Review platform stars and user counts play no part.
The five criteria in plain words
- Investor tracking: after the teaser goes out, can the IR team see which investor opened what, and when?
- Permission control: does each investor group reach only its own folders, and does a leaked page identify its reader?
- Raise workflow: do diligence questions, the NDA step and big uploads happen inside the platform?
- Investor onboarding: how fast does an allocator get from the invite email to the first document?
- Cost of a raise: can the issuer budget a long raise from public information and test the product first?
The weight and formula of each criterion are on the cards above.
Turning five numbers into one
Weighted mean of the five criteria, one decimal. Labels: Top choice at 8.3 and above, Solid choice from 7.4, Worth a look from 6.6, Specialist fit under 6.6.
Raise-specific rankings
Each use case carries its own multipliers on the base weights. An LP fund raise pushes permission control and raise workflow up; a small angel round pushes onboarding and cost up. If a provider’s research tags match the use case (fundraising, due diligence, real estate and so on) it gains up to 0.3. Every use-case page prints the resulting weight shares.
Editorial review
Editors may adjust the final order within a ranking.
Rules we keep
- Positions and scores are not for sale, to partners or anyone else.
- Star ratings and review counts from outside platforms are never used.
- A quote-only vendor never gets an invented price; it appears in a labelled planning band instead.