Skip to the examples
A companion to Your Seed Deck

Commercial Evidence Atlas

What 20 public startup decks claimed, what their slides showed and what they left open, with the questions to ask of your own business.

Every statement in an example is quoted from GTM Right's research report and labelled: what the deck showed, how the report reads it, or what the public copy leaves open. A gap in a public deck is not proof of a gap in the business.

How each statement is labelled
From the deck
What the public copy shows, as the report records it, with the slide it cites.
Interpretation
The report's reading of the slides. It is not a statement by the company.
Not shown
Not settled by the public copy. That does not mean the company lacked it.
Your test
The report's guidance, to apply to your own evidence.
All examples0%
20 examples from the report

Explore the examples

Search by company or by a word such as revenue, pilots or retention, or narrow the examples by the commercial question they raise, the group they come from or the kind of statement you want to read.

Follow any example slide by slide, from what the slide shows to the question it leaves for your own business, in the Slide-level Evidence Explorer.

Blurbiz

In the 113-deck analysisFunded-deck libraryYear as listed: 2016

  • Customers
  • Money earned

From the deck: What the deck showed

  • Client logos and a price list appear on separate slides.Slides 2 and 6

Interpretation: How the report reads it

  • A logo could reflect a customer, a design partner, a past employer, an integration or a prospect; without a legend, a reader cannot know.

Not shown: What the slides leave open

  • The deck does not itself connect the logos to an identifiable billed amount.

Your test: A test for your own business

  • What relationship between the company and a real customer does the slide actually establish?

Waterplan

In the 113-deck analysisFunded-deck libraryYear as listed: 2022

  • Customers
  • Money earned

From the deck: What the deck showed

  • A claim that ten Fortune 500 companies used the product.Slide 4

Interpretation: How the report reads it

  • The gap is between showing that a relationship may exist and demonstrating its commercial value, and that gap is where an investor's first reasonable question sits.

Not shown: What the slides leave open

  • Does not by itself state what they paid or identify the relationship.

Your test: A test for your own business

  • What relationship between the company and a real customer does the slide actually establish?

Storyboard

In the 113-deck analysisFunded-deck libraryYear as listed: 2021

  • Customers

From the deck: What the deck showed

  • A rising chart of paid seats.Slide 5

Interpretation: How the report reads it

  • A graph without values can show direction while concealing magnitude.

Not shown: What the slides leave open

  • Lacks the numerical scale needed to calculate what the movement represents.

Your test: A test for your own business

  • What relationship between the company and a real customer does the slide actually establish?

VideoPeel

In the 113-deck analysisFunded-deck libraryYear as listed: 2020

  • Money earned

From the deck: What the deck showed

  • Its public copy replaces a monthly recurring-revenue number with a placeholder.Slide 14

Interpretation: How the report reads it

  • A missing figure shows what the public deck left out, not what the company lacked.

Not shown: What the slides leave open

  • A redacted public deck does not show what investors may have seen privately.

Your test: A test for your own business

  • Take your biggest number and write one sentence on what it measures and how much of it the business kept.

iGrow

In the 113-deck analysisFunded-deck libraryYear as listed: 2015

  • Money earned

From the deck: What the deck showed

  • A 20% gross-profit claim beside $1.2 million of transaction value.Slide 8

Interpretation: How the report reads it

  • That additional ratio helps a reader ask how much economic benefit could accrue to the company.
  • That makes it more interpretable than transaction value alone.

Not shown: What the slides leave open

  • A margin helps a reader ask how much value could reach the company, but it does not state what was earned.

Your test: A test for your own business

  • If you run a marketplace, four questions sit behind a transaction-volume headline: What was transacted? Over what period? What fees did the business retain? What costs were incurred to generate and serve those transactions?

Butlr

In the 113-deck analysisFunded-deck libraryYear as listed: 2020

  • Money earned

From the deck: What the deck showed

  • $1.07 million of total contract value signed.Slide 4

Interpretation: How the report reads it

  • A signed contract is evidence of a commercial relationship, but total contract value is not automatically equivalent to cash collected or revenue earned in the period.

Your test: A test for your own business

  • The principle for your own deck: name the measure before using it as proof.

Tallyfy

In the 113-deck analysisFunded-deck libraryYear as listed: 2014

  • Money earned

From the deck: What the deck showed

  • $600,000 in pilots.Slide 3

Not shown: What the slides leave open

  • The public slide as recorded did not resolve whether this was contracted, billed or prospective value.

Your test: A test for your own business

  • The principle for your own deck: name the measure before using it as proof.

Shippo

In the 113-deck analysisFunded-deck libraryYear as listed: 2014

  • Money earned

From the deck: What the deck showed

  • A $1 million run-rate figure adjacent to a chart with much smaller axis values.Slide 3

Interpretation: How the report reads it

  • An annualised run rate can be a meaningful operating indicator, but the underlying time interval, actual recorded revenue and method of extrapolation need to be stated.
  • For an early business, the difference between one strong month and a recurring twelve-month pattern is substantial.

Your test: A test for your own business

  • The principle for your own deck: name the measure before using it as proof.

Bill Trim

In the 113-deck analysisFunded-deck libraryYear as listed: 2017

  • Money earned

From the deck: What the deck showed

  • Charted “gross revenue”.Slide 7

Interpretation: How the report reads it

  • A label can be technically plausible yet insufficient to establish how the commercial model works.

Not shown: What the slides leave open

  • Without clearly demonstrating the amount the company kept from a service that generated savings for customers.

Your test: A test for your own business

  • The principle for your own deck: name the measure before using it as proof.

Infraspeak

In the 113-deck analysisFunded-deck libraryYear as listed: 2016

  • Money earned
  • Repeat behaviour

From the deck: What the deck showed

  • Puts revenue, monthly recurring revenue and churn together on slide 11.

Interpretation: How the report reads it

  • That makes the commercial argument easier to examine: there is money, a recurring component and an indication of customer loss.

Your test: A test for your own business

  • Put revenue, the customers behind it and the cost of serving them in one view.

mcSquares

In the 113-deck analysisFunded-deck libraryYear as listed: 2020

  • Money earned
  • Repeat behaviour
  • The next buyer

From the deck: What the deck showed

  • A library-produced redrawn summary of mcSquares that places order value, acquisition cost, margin and lifetime value together.From a library summary, not the founders' deck

Interpretation: How the report reads it

  • Because we did not read the original founder presentation behind that summary, we treat it as an example of a presentation format rather than primary evidence of the company's financial performance.

Your test: A test for your own business

  • Put revenue, the customers behind it and the cost of serving them in one view.

Mero Technologies

In the 113-deck analysisFunded-deck libraryYear as listed: 2020

  • Money earned

From the deck: What the deck showed

  • Growth in recurring revenue alongside buildings and distributor counts.Slide 12

Interpretation: How the report reads it

  • The strength of the presentation is the connection between an economic outcome and the operational mechanism behind it, rather than a revenue headline floating on its own.

Your test: A test for your own business

  • Put revenue, the customers behind it and the cost of serving them in one view.

ProcureNow (Govlist)

In the 113-deck analysisFunded-deck libraryYear as listed: 2019

  • The next buyer

From the deck: What the deck showed

  • An average sales cycle of about three months next to its pipeline.Slides 8 and 9

Interpretation: How the report reads it

  • That connects a proposed sales route to a time requirement.

Your test: A test for your own business

  • A useful next-customer statement therefore has a testable shape: We believe people in this situation can be reached through this route, will respond to this proposition, and will take this observable commercial action.
  • The next experiment tests the weakest link in that sentence.

Laoshi

In the 113-deck analysisFunded-deck libraryYear as listed: 2023

  • The next buyer

From the deck: What the deck showed

  • Tutor acquisition cost and the students a tutor brought onto the platform.Slide 14

Interpretation: How the report reads it

  • Drawing attention to a mechanism of distribution rather than a generic channel label.

Your test: A test for your own business

  • A useful next-customer statement therefore has a testable shape: We believe people in this situation can be reached through this route, will respond to this proposition, and will take this observable commercial action.
  • The next experiment tests the weakest link in that sentence.

Kamino

In the 113-deck analysisFunded-deck libraryYear as listed: 2022

  • Customers

From the deck: What the deck showed

  • Founders with technology and fintech experience, including one documented earlier exit, while the product was still to be built.Slides 2 and 5

Interpretation: How the report reads it

  • The deck demonstrates how a team can present expertise before presenting customer results, not that expertise removes the need for later market learning.

Your test: A test for your own business

  • The lesson for any founder: use the strongest evidence that exists, and let customers, rather than somebody else's credibility or fundraising context, show that the demand is there.

Revolut

In the 113-deck analysisFunded-deck libraryYear as listed: 2015

  • Customers

From the deck: What the deck showed

  • Revolut's 2015 public deck described 4,800 sign-ups accumulated in one month and nine deals, including one with MasterCard (slides 9 and 10), in the context of a £1.5 million funding request.

Interpretation: How the report reads it

  • Those are forms of pre-launch interest and partnership development, not a demonstration of already recurring customer revenue.
  • They help explain why early teams can reasonably present evidence appropriate to their stage.

Your test: A test for your own business

  • The lesson for any founder: use the strongest evidence that exists, and let customers, rather than somebody else's credibility or fundraising context, show that the demand is there.

Flowtab

Selected case: example onlySelected historical casesYear as listed: 2013

  • Money earned
  • Repeat behaviour
  • The next buyer

From the deck: What the deck showed

  • Seven bars, 2,200 users, approximately 120 orders a week, $12,450 of total sales across three months, and a cost of $1,500–$2,500 to win each bar.Slide 7

Interpretation: How the report reads it

  • A large volume of activity may validate interest. It does not automatically settle the economics.

Not shown: What the slides leave open

  • If “total sales” means drink sales going through the product rather than revenue retained by Flowtab, what amount did the company actually earn?
  • How many transactions repeated, and what did it cost to keep each venue active?
  • The slide does not provide enough information to conclude whether acquisition costs were recovered, whether the model could sustain itself or what happened later to the company.

Your test: A test for your own business

  • The next useful commercial test for a business like this is to put acquisition cost, revenue retained by the company, the period and repeat behaviour in one view.

Bliss.ai

Selected case: example onlySelected historical casesYear as listed: 2015

  • Customers
  • Money earned
  • Repeat behaviour
  • The next buyer

From the deck: What the deck showed

  • 70 paying customers, an $84,000 annualised revenue run rate, a margin claim and named enterprise relationships.Slides 6 and 8

Interpretation: How the report reads it

  • They show more than a sign-up count.

Not shown: What the slides leave open

  • They leave useful questions open about customer lifetime, repeat purchasing, acquisition economics and how the company captured value.

Your test: A test for your own business

  • Paid customers but unknown acquisition cost: the commercial unknown is no longer whether people will pay at all.

Castle

Selected case: example onlySelected historical casesYear as listed: 2015

  • Customers
  • Money earned
  • Repeat behaviour

From the deck: What the deck showed

  • Showed rental units under management rising from four to 49 since a soft launch on 1 January and stated a price of $79 per unit per month.Slides 7 and 8

Interpretation: How the report reads it

  • Those two pieces of information can help a reader understand the possible economics of a property-management offer.

Not shown: What the slides leave open

  • The next questions are whether every unit paid the stated fee, whether revenue was collected and whether retention was strong.

Your test: A test for your own business

  • The test here is to link the growth of units to realised billing, servicing cost and retention.

Standard Treasury

Selected case: example onlySelected historical casesYear as listed: 2015

  • Customers

From the deck: What the deck showed

  • Requested $10 million towards UK banking authorisation on slide 13.
  • The 24-month budget shown on slide 14 was approximately $9 million.
  • Slide 25 contains startup logos and references to soft commitments.

Interpretation: How the report reads it

  • The request and the spending plan serve different purposes. Neither should be silently substituted for the other.

Not shown: What the slides leave open

  • The logos do not establish five separately confirmed binding commitments.

Your test: A test for your own business

  • A commitment can be important evidence, but the document must say what has actually been promised, by whom and under which conditions.
Three groups, kept apart

What each group of decks disclosed

The report analyses two groups of decks separately and reads a third set as examples. Their results are never pooled into one rate, so each group appears here on its own, in the report's words.

Funded-library analysis: 113 decks

The first group came from a public pitch-deck library. The library labels these presentations as associated with fundraising. That label does not confirm that any particular round closed or that the public deck was exactly what investors saw. Within the 113, 63 were accelerator demo-day presentations and 50 were other investor decks, published at different times and in different ways.

The report's figures for the 113 funded-library decks, numbered as the report numbers them.

LevelWhat appears in the public deckWhat cannot automatically be assumed
AA stated monetary figure, including revenue or another amountThat the figure is the company's earned revenue
BA customer or revenue signal without a usable monetary figureThat the customer pays, or that a logo represents a contracted relationship
CUsers, downloads, usage or engagement, without customer/revenue evidenceThat engagement converts into payment or repeat demand
DPilots, waitlists, planned trials, pipeline or other commitmentsThat a commitment has become paid use
ENo customer evidence in the public deckThat the team had no evidence outside the published slides
Figure 3
The highest level of evidence visible in each public deck

Population: 113 analysable early-stage decks from a public deck library.

  • A: stated monetary figure37 of 113 (33%)
  • B: customer or revenue signal, no usable figure26 of 113 (23%)
  • C: usage only23 of 113 (20%)
  • D: commitments only9 of 113 (8%)
  • E: no customer evidence disclosed18 of 113 (16%)
Levels are defined in Section 1.4.
Figure 1
What decks signal, and what they measure

Population: 113 analysable early-stage decks from a public deck library. Public copies only.

Broader signalStricter evidence
  • Money and revenue
    Showed a money figure or a customer signal (levels A or B)63 of 113 (56%)
    Explicitly labelled a figure as the company's own revenue20 of 113 (18%)
  • Repeat behaviour
    Mentioned retention, repeat use or lifetime value20 of 113 (18%)
    Gave an observed retention or repeat rate9 of 113 (8%)
  • The next customers
    Described some route to future customers27 of 113 (24%)
    Presented a concrete route, with a mechanism or a number15 of 113 (13%)
Each stricter count sits inside the broader count above it.
Figure 4
What the 37 money figures actually measure

Population: the 37 level-A decks within the 113 that showed a monetary figure.

  • Explicitly labelled company revenue20 of 37
    Realised company income and its period
  • Borderline own-revenue classifications4 of 37
    Profit, revenue ceiling or range, or unlabelled amount requires clarification
  • Transaction or gross merchandise value8 of 37
    Total value flowing through a marketplace versus revenue kept
  • Contract or pilot value2 of 37
    Signed or proposed value versus income actually recognised
  • Annualised or projected run rate1 of 37
    Extrapolation versus measured full-period revenue
  • Unclear money measure2 of 37
    Unit, scope and economic meaning not adequately defined
Counted against all 113 decks, explicitly labelled own revenue is 20 of 113 (18%). Adding the four borderline figures gives a ceiling of 24 of 113 (21%), which is not the same evidence standard.

16 of the examples come from these decks.

Founder-posted test: 88 decks

The second group came from a separate collection of seed and pre-seed presentations that founders had made public themselves. It looks different: it includes small, local, student and one-person ventures, not only companies that appeared in a funding library. If you are early and self-funded, these decks may look more like yours.

The second set of decks offers a different perspective. Forty of its 88 decks showed no customer evidence in the public copy. That describes the deck rather than the business behind it: a founder may have had customers the public slides never mentioned.

The report names no founder-posted deck as an example, so none appears among the examples.

Selected cases: examples only

A smaller set of historical decks was read as illustrations, chosen on purpose to show particular issues: the difference between user counts and revenue, acquisition costs beside sales, retention, the meaning of soft commitments and what a fundraising story can and cannot settle. None of them enters a percentage in this report.

We chose these decks because each exposes a commercial question clearly enough that you may recognise it in your own business. They are illustrations: they cannot establish a survival or fundraising rate. We stay with what the slides show and do not infer a company's later outcome from its deck.

4 of the examples are selected cases.

From Sections 11 and 12 of the report

Questions for your own business

The report ends with six commercial questions a founder can use immediately. Each one below lists the examples that raise it, so you can see the question at work before you ask it of your own business.

  1. Who has demonstrated the problem?

    Can we point to specific buyers or users who independently described a costly, frequent or urgent problem? How were they selected? What would contradict our hypothesis?

    Examples that raise it

    No example shows this directly: the decks are read for what they disclosed, not for how the founders found the problem.

  2. What customer action has actually occurred?

    Was there an interview, waitlist sign-up, pilot agreement, activation, repeat use, payment or renewal? Each action has a different meaning. Which one do we currently have?

  3. What money did the company earn?

    If we use a financial figure, is it revenue recognised by our company, money passing through the platform, contract value, gross profit, forecast or an annualised run rate? What is the time period, currency and source?

  4. Do customers repeat the action?

    Are they coming back, renewing, expanding or buying again? If we are too early to measure that, what experiment would create the first observable repeat signal?

  5. Can we describe how to reach the next buyer?

    What is the customer's trigger, where can we access them, what message earns a response and what is the next commercial action? Can we test this with a modest number of reachable buyers?

  6. What is still unproven, and what is the smallest useful next test?

    Rather than filling a missing slide with assumptions, identify the single uncertainty most likely to change the decision to build, sell, spend or raise.

    Examples that raise it

    Every example raises this question.

From business claim to next commercial test

  1. Business claim: What you believe, have built, claim and propose about the buyer, problem, offer or market.
  2. Market response: What somebody outside the founding team actually said, did, signed, paid or repeated.
  3. What an investor can reasonably understand: What those two establish for a funding audience, and the most important question they leave open.
  4. Next useful commercial test: The smallest ethical, affordable action that could strengthen or change the decision.

What to test next depends on what you have already demonstrated

  • Reliable revenue and retention data, labelled poorly: communicate the existing evidence accurately.
  • A valuable problem, but no direct buyer observations: the next task is not a better slide. It is an encounter with actual potential customers.
  • Enthusiastic interviewees but no purchase: test willingness to commit.
  • Pilots but no renewal or repeat behaviour: test repeated value, by looking at retention, value delivered and the conditions of a second purchase.
  • Customer evidence but no path to more customers: test access and acquisition economics.
  • Paid customers but unknown acquisition cost: the commercial unknown is no longer whether people will pay at all.
The research inventory

Companies and source decks

Every entry in the research inventory, with its group, its role in the study and its public source. The register is an inventory rather than one sample, and inclusion says nothing about what later happened to a company.

Showing 25 of 256 entries.

CompanyYear as listedRole in the studyPublic source
Funded-deck library: 121 entries
AgoraFile name says Series B; round and year uncertain.2020In the 113-deck analysisDeck source for Agora (opens in a new tab) ↗
Almanac2020In the 113-deck analysisDeck source for Almanac (opens in a new tab) ↗
Alyce2017In the 113-deck analysisDeck source for Alyce (opens in a new tab) ↗
AstroPrint2015In the 113-deck analysisDeck source for AstroPrint (opens in a new tab) ↗
Aumet2020In the 113-deck analysisDeck source for Aumet (opens in a new tab) ↗
Authoritive2021In the 113-deck analysisDeck source for Authoritive (opens in a new tab) ↗
Beatdapp2019In the 113-deck analysisDeck source for Beatdapp (opens in a new tab) ↗
BeautyDate2016In the 113-deck analysisDeck source for BeautyDate (opens in a new tab) ↗
BellwethrProduct explainer deck.2019In the 113-deck analysisDeck source for Bellwethr (opens in a new tab) ↗
BigControls2016In the 113-deck analysisDeck source for BigControls (opens in a new tab) ↗
Bill TrimExample in the Atlas: Bill Trim2017In the 113-deck analysisDeck source for Bill Trim (opens in a new tab) ↗
Bliinx2020In the 113-deck analysisDeck source for Bliinx (opens in a new tab) ↗
BlurbizExample in the Atlas: Blurbiz2016In the 113-deck analysisDeck source for Blurbiz (opens in a new tab) ↗
BoxedUp2022In the 113-deck analysisDeck source for BoxedUp (opens in a new tab) ↗
ButlrExample in the Atlas: Butlr2020In the 113-deck analysisDeck source for Butlr (opens in a new tab) ↗
Catnip2014In the 113-deck analysisDeck source for Catnip (opens in a new tab) ↗
Chartmetric45-page executive report with figures blacked out.2021In the 113-deck analysisDeck source for Chartmetric (opens in a new tab) ↗
Claap2022In the 113-deck analysisDeck source for Claap (opens in a new tab) ↗
Coinrule2021In the 113-deck analysisDeck source for Coinrule (opens in a new tab) ↗
Connected2me2014In the 113-deck analysisDeck source for Connected2me (opens in a new tab) ↗
Credit Stacks2018In the 113-deck analysisDeck source for Credit Stacks (opens in a new tab) ↗
Croissant2016In the 113-deck analysisDeck source for Croissant (opens in a new tab) ↗
Croma.io2017In the 113-deck analysisDeck source for Croma.io (opens in a new tab) ↗
CulturePulse2023In the 113-deck analysisDeck source for CulturePulse (opens in a new tab) ↗
Dash (formerly Spektra) - 20182018In the 113-deck analysisDeck source for Dash (formerly Spektra) - 2018 (opens in a new tab) ↗
Dropifi3-slide teaser, not every slide published.2013In the 113-deck analysisDeck source for Dropifi (opens in a new tab) ↗
Equity Bee2018In the 113-deck analysisDeck source for Equity Bee (opens in a new tab) ↗
EZ Farming2019In the 113-deck analysisDeck source for EZ Farming (opens in a new tab) ↗
Fabric2020Not analysed: not an investor pitchDeck source for Fabric (opens in a new tab) ↗
Feast2013In the 113-deck analysisDeck source for Feast (opens in a new tab) ↗
FleetDMDeck looks later than seed.2022In the 113-deck analysisDeck source for FleetDM (opens in a new tab) ↗
Forent (ExCAMP)2019In the 113-deck analysisDeck source for Forent (ExCAMP) (opens in a new tab) ↗
Fulfil.io2017In the 113-deck analysisDeck source for Fulfil.io (opens in a new tab) ↗
Fuzzy.ai2015In the 113-deck analysisDeck source for Fuzzy.ai (opens in a new tab) ↗
Get on Board2020In the 113-deck analysisDeck source for Get on Board (opens in a new tab) ↗
Harmonica2017In the 113-deck analysisDeck source for Harmonica (opens in a new tab) ↗
HomigoLibrary label 2015; the deck's charts extend to January 2017.2015In the 113-deck analysisDeck source for Homigo (opens in a new tab) ↗
Iconfinder2012In the 113-deck analysisDeck source for Iconfinder (opens in a new tab) ↗
iControl2016In the 113-deck analysisDeck source for iControl (opens in a new tab) ↗
iGrowExample in the Atlas: iGrow2015In the 113-deck analysisDeck source for iGrow (opens in a new tab) ↗
Incentify2020In the 113-deck analysisDeck source for Incentify (opens in a new tab) ↗
InfraspeakExample in the Atlas: Infraspeak2016In the 113-deck analysisDeck source for Infraspeak (opens in a new tab) ↗
InnerTrends2015In the 113-deck analysisDeck source for InnerTrends (opens in a new tab) ↗
KaminoExample in the Atlas: Kamino2022In the 113-deck analysisDeck source for Kamino (opens in a new tab) ↗
KangaDo2014In the 113-deck analysisDeck source for KangaDo (opens in a new tab) ↗
Kickfolio2012In the 113-deck analysisDeck source for Kickfolio (opens in a new tab) ↗
KidzJet2015In the 113-deck analysisDeck source for KidzJet (opens in a new tab) ↗
Kompyte2019In the 113-deck analysisDeck source for Kompyte (opens in a new tab) ↗
LaoshiExample in the Atlas: Laoshi2023In the 113-deck analysisDeck source for Laoshi (opens in a new tab) ↗
Learn.xyz2023In the 113-deck analysisDeck source for Learn.xyz (opens in a new tab) ↗
Lexyom2019In the 113-deck analysisDeck source for Lexyom (opens in a new tab) ↗
LoanWell2022In the 113-deck analysisDeck source for LoanWell (opens in a new tab) ↗
Lumific2014In the 113-deck analysisDeck source for Lumific (opens in a new tab) ↗
Mars Reel2015In the 113-deck analysisDeck source for Mars Reel (opens in a new tab) ↗
mcSquaresLibrary-redrawn summary; not an original company deck. It refers to July 2021 despite a 2020 library label.Example in the Atlas: mcSquares2020In the 113-deck analysisDeck source for mcSquares (opens in a new tab) ↗
Mero TechnologiesExample in the Atlas: Mero Technologies2020In the 113-deck analysisDeck source for Mero Technologies (opens in a new tab) ↗
Meya2016In the 113-deck analysisDeck source for Meya (opens in a new tab) ↗
MiO Marketplace2023In the 113-deck analysisDeck source for MiO Marketplace (opens in a new tab) ↗
mIQrotechPartial read recorded in notes (slides 1-18 of 24 first, rest read later).2019In the 113-deck analysisDeck source for mIQrotech (opens in a new tab) ↗
Mmob2022In the 113-deck analysisDeck source for Mmob (opens in a new tab) ↗
MyTips2013In the 113-deck analysisDeck source for MyTips (opens in a new tab) ↗
Nanogrid2019In the 113-deck analysisDeck source for Nanogrid (opens in a new tab) ↗
NeuraLegion2020In the 113-deck analysisDeck source for NeuraLegion (opens in a new tab) ↗
New Era ADRLibrary label 2022; slide 9 dates itself to 2021.2022In the 113-deck analysisDeck source for New Era ADR (opens in a new tab) ↗
OlivaProduct overview deck.2021In the 113-deck analysisDeck source for Oliva (opens in a new tab) ↗
Open Sponsorship2015In the 113-deck analysisDeck source for Open Sponsorship (opens in a new tab) ↗
OrderCircle2016In the 113-deck analysisDeck source for OrderCircle (opens in a new tab) ↗
Oscar2014Not analysed: not an investor pitchDeck source for Oscar (opens in a new tab) ↗
Owlr Technologies2017In the 113-deck analysisDeck source for Owlr Technologies (opens in a new tab) ↗
PainWorth2022In the 113-deck analysisDeck source for PainWorth (opens in a new tab) ↗
Paranoid Fan2016In the 113-deck analysisDeck source for Paranoid Fan (opens in a new tab) ↗
Party Round2021In the 113-deck analysisDeck source for Party Round (opens in a new tab) ↗
Pepper Bio2023In the 113-deck analysisDeck source for Pepper Bio (opens in a new tab) ↗
PinMyPet2014In the 113-deck analysisDeck source for PinMyPet (opens in a new tab) ↗
PriceBaba3-slide teaser, not every slide published.2013In the 113-deck analysisDeck source for PriceBaba (opens in a new tab) ↗
ProcureNow (formerly Govlist)Example in the Atlas: ProcureNow (formerly Govlist)2019In the 113-deck analysisDeck source for ProcureNow (formerly Govlist) (opens in a new tab) ↗
Puzzlium2014In the 113-deck analysisDeck source for Puzzlium (opens in a new tab) ↗
RAPT.FMDeck reported unreadable in original study.2013Not analysed: deck could not be readDeck source for RAPT.FM (opens in a new tab) ↗
Renaissance2019In the 113-deck analysisDeck source for Renaissance (opens in a new tab) ↗
RespiraInvestor brochure.2020In the 113-deck analysisDeck source for Respira (opens in a new tab) ↗
RevolutExample in the Atlas: Revolut2015In the 113-deck analysisDeck source for Revolut (opens in a new tab) ↗
Richpanel2020Not analysed: not an investor pitchDeck source for Richpanel (opens in a new tab) ↗
Rundit2021In the 113-deck analysisDeck source for Rundit (opens in a new tab) ↗
Seam Social2023In the 113-deck analysisDeck source for Seam Social (opens in a new tab) ↗
Sherpa2020In the 113-deck analysisDeck source for Sherpa (opens in a new tab) ↗
ShippoExample in the Atlas: Shippo2014In the 113-deck analysisDeck source for Shippo (opens in a new tab) ↗
Shopline2014In the 113-deck analysisDeck source for Shopline (opens in a new tab) ↗
Sira Medical2019In the 113-deck analysisDeck source for Sira Medical (opens in a new tab) ↗
Slidebean2013In the 113-deck analysisDeck source for Slidebean (opens in a new tab) ↗
Space ForgeTeaser.2021In the 113-deck analysisDeck source for Space Forge (opens in a new tab) ↗
Speedlancer2014In the 113-deck analysisDeck source for Speedlancer (opens in a new tab) ↗
Sqoop2015In the 113-deck analysisDeck source for Sqoop (opens in a new tab) ↗
StoryboardExample in the Atlas: Storyboard2021In the 113-deck analysisDeck source for Storyboard (opens in a new tab) ↗
Supliful2022In the 113-deck analysisDeck source for Supliful (opens in a new tab) ↗
Sverve2013In the 113-deck analysisDeck source for Sverve (opens in a new tab) ↗
Synapse Mx2016In the 113-deck analysisDeck source for Synapse Mx (opens in a new tab) ↗
Syneroid Technologies2022In the 113-deck analysisDeck source for Syneroid Technologies (opens in a new tab) ↗
Talkable2012In the 113-deck analysisDeck source for Talkable (opens in a new tab) ↗
TallyfyExample in the Atlas: Tallyfy2014In the 113-deck analysisDeck source for Tallyfy (opens in a new tab) ↗
Tamatem2013In the 113-deck analysisDeck source for Tamatem (opens in a new tab) ↗
Tinder2012 internal concept deck; excluded from the counts.2016Not analysed: not an investor pitchDeck source for Tinder (opens in a new tab) ↗
Tokyo Techie2018In the 113-deck analysisDeck source for Tokyo Techie (opens in a new tab) ↗
TracerCompany overview deck.2021In the 113-deck analysisDeck source for Tracer (opens in a new tab) ↗
Transtutors2015Not analysed: not an investor pitchDeck source for Transtutors (opens in a new tab) ↗
Trash WarriorSame venture as Dimension (founder-posted group). Two catalog entries, one company.2019In the 113-deck analysisDeck source for Trash Warrior (opens in a new tab) ↗
TRDATA2012In the 113-deck analysisDeck source for TRDATA (opens in a new tab) ↗
Unicorn Skincare2017In the 113-deck analysisDeck source for Unicorn Skincare (opens in a new tab) ↗
Up All Night2016In the 113-deck analysisDeck source for Up All Night (opens in a new tab) ↗
Venzee2015In the 113-deck analysisDeck source for Venzee (opens in a new tab) ↗
VideoPeelExample in the Atlas: VideoPeel2020In the 113-deck analysisDeck source for VideoPeel (opens in a new tab) ↗
Virect2015In the 113-deck analysisDeck source for Virect (opens in a new tab) ↗
Visabot2017In the 113-deck analysisDeck source for Visabot (opens in a new tab) ↗
VisionX2016In the 113-deck analysisDeck source for VisionX (opens in a new tab) ↗
Voxeet2014In the 113-deck analysisDeck source for Voxeet (opens in a new tab) ↗
WarlandsToken-sale document, whitepaper style.2021In the 113-deck analysisDeck source for Warlands (opens in a new tab) ↗
WaterplanExample in the Atlas: Waterplan2022In the 113-deck analysisDeck source for Waterplan (opens in a new tab) ↗
We Are OnyxDeck reported unreadable in original study.2017Not analysed: deck could not be readRecorded source no longer loads: bestpitchdeck.com/we-are-onyx
Well TrackDeck reported unreadable in original study.2017Not analysed: deck could not be readRecorded source no longer loads: bestpitchdeck.com/well-track
Wellspent2022In the 113-deck analysisDeck source for Wellspent (opens in a new tab) ↗
Winnie2018In the 113-deck analysisDeck source for Winnie (opens in a new tab) ↗
Zyudly labs2017In the 113-deck analysisDeck source for Zyudly labs (opens in a new tab) ↗
Founder-posted decks: 125 entries
A.ID (Arival)2018Not analysed: not an eligible investor deckDeck source for A.ID (Arival) (opens in a new tab) ↗
AcuMedical Inc.2017In the 88-deck testDeck source for AcuMedical Inc. (opens in a new tab) ↗
Adventureclicknblog2015In the 88-deck testDeck source for Adventureclicknblog (opens in a new tab) ↗
Aiseedo2015Pilot deck, not an eligible investor deckDeck source for Aiseedo (opens in a new tab) ↗
Alamo2014In the 88-deck testDeck source for Alamo (opens in a new tab) ↗
Angeleno Artistry2015In the 88-deck testDeck source for Angeleno Artistry (opens in a new tab) ↗
Array2019In the 88-deck testDeck source for Array (opens in a new tab) ↗
Azumi2015In the 88-deck testDeck source for Azumi (opens in a new tab) ↗
Barbeart2014In the 88-deck testDeck source for Barbeart (opens in a new tab) ↗
Bellhop2013In the 88-deck testDeck source for Bellhop (opens in a new tab) ↗
Berry2017In the 88-deck testDeck source for Berry (opens in a new tab) ↗
Beveragewala2014In the 88-deck testDeck source for Beveragewala (opens in a new tab) ↗
BioPolynet2019Pilot deck, kept apart from the 88Deck source for BioPolynet (opens in a new tab) ↗
Bml Collections2017In the 88-deck testDeck source for Bml Collections (opens in a new tab) ↗
BorrowBot2016In the 88-deck testDeck source for BorrowBot (opens in a new tab) ↗
Brand Boards2012In the 88-deck testDeck source for Brand Boards (opens in a new tab) ↗
BrandSlip2014In the 88-deck testDeck source for BrandSlip (opens in a new tab) ↗
Caala2017In the 88-deck testDeck source for Caala (opens in a new tab) ↗
CallTree Pro Inc2014In the 88-deck testDeck source for CallTree Pro Inc (opens in a new tab) ↗
Cantina Fácil2013In the 88-deck testDeck source for Cantina Fácil (opens in a new tab) ↗
CFEX (Commercial Funding Exchange)2015Not analysed: not an eligible investor deckDeck source for CFEX (Commercial Funding Exchange) (opens in a new tab) ↗
Change Heroes2012In the 88-deck testDeck source for Change Heroes (opens in a new tab) ↗
Charlie (Get Me Charlie)2016In the 88-deck testDeck source for Charlie (Get Me Charlie) (opens in a new tab) ↗
Coding Autism2018In the 88-deck testDeck source for Coding Autism (opens in a new tab) ↗
concreate2014In the 88-deck testDeck source for concreate (opens in a new tab) ↗
Core Capital Venture Indonesia2019In the 88-deck testDeck source for Core Capital Venture Indonesia (opens in a new tab) ↗
Corkt2017Pilot deck, kept apart from the 88Deck source for Corkt (opens in a new tab) ↗
Cultivora2012In the 88-deck testDeck source for Cultivora (opens in a new tab) ↗
Curvanade2012In the 88-deck testDeck source for Curvanade (opens in a new tab) ↗
Cyclectric2018In the 88-deck testDeck source for Cyclectric (opens in a new tab) ↗
DalaWorks App Accelerator2013Not analysed: not an eligible investor deckDeck source for DalaWorks App Accelerator (opens in a new tab) ↗
Dealroom2014Not analysed: not an eligible investor deckDeck source for Dealroom (opens in a new tab) ↗
Devanthro2018Pilot deck, kept apart from the 88Deck source for Devanthro (opens in a new tab) ↗
DimensionSame venture as Trash Warrior (funded group). Two catalog entries, one company.2019Pilot deck, duplicate ventureDeck source for Dimension (opens in a new tab) ↗
doido2014Pilot deck, kept apart from the 88Deck source for doido (opens in a new tab) ↗
dui app2016In the 88-deck testDeck source for dui app (opens in a new tab) ↗
Elektra Public2017In the 88-deck testDeck source for Elektra Public (opens in a new tab) ↗
Envavo2019In the 88-deck testDeck source for Envavo (opens in a new tab) ↗
Etymo2017In the 88-deck testDeck source for Etymo (opens in a new tab) ↗
Feel Reel Mindhack2016Not analysed: not an eligible investor deckDeck source for Feel Reel Mindhack (opens in a new tab) ↗
Frag Paul2016In the 88-deck testDeck source for Frag Paul (opens in a new tab) ↗
Freetrade2016In the 88-deck testDeck source for Freetrade (opens in a new tab) ↗
Fundnesia2018In the 88-deck testDeck source for Fundnesia (opens in a new tab) ↗
Genotik2017In the 88-deck testDeck source for Genotik (opens in a new tab) ↗
Golfalong2015In the 88-deck testDeck source for Golfalong (opens in a new tab) ↗
GrabHut2014In the 88-deck testDeck source for GrabHut (opens in a new tab) ↗
GrindHub Revitalized2015In the 88-deck testDeck source for GrindHub Revitalized (opens in a new tab) ↗
Happy Tom2015In the 88-deck testDeck source for Happy Tom (opens in a new tab) ↗
Harvest2017In the 88-deck testDeck source for Harvest (opens in a new tab) ↗
HealthyAlways (Care Code Engagements Pvt. Ltd.)2015In the 88-deck testDeck source for HealthyAlways (Care Code Engagements Pvt. Ltd.) (opens in a new tab) ↗
Higgins Advisors (Higgins.Ai)2015In the 88-deck testDeck source for Higgins Advisors (Higgins.Ai) (opens in a new tab) ↗
HomeHub2014Pilot deck, kept apart from the 88Deck source for HomeHub (opens in a new tab) ↗
HousePouch2017Pilot deck, kept apart from the 88Deck source for HousePouch (opens in a new tab) ↗
Imago2016Pilot deck, kept apart from the 88Deck source for Imago (opens in a new tab) ↗
Infozone2012Pilot deck, kept apart from the 88Deck source for Infozone (opens in a new tab) ↗
InGyre2014In the 88-deck testDeck source for InGyre (opens in a new tab) ↗
Intergalactic Enterprises, Inc.2012Pilot deck, not an eligible investor deckDeck source for Intergalactic Enterprises, Inc. (opens in a new tab) ↗
Investigate Washington2014Pilot deck, not an eligible investor deckDeck source for Investigate Washington (opens in a new tab) ↗
Investment Frenzi2016In the 88-deck testDeck source for Investment Frenzi (opens in a new tab) ↗
IoTools2019In the 88-deck testDeck source for IoTools (opens in a new tab) ↗
Jaaz Portal Ltd2018Pilot deck, kept apart from the 88Deck source for Jaaz Portal Ltd (opens in a new tab) ↗
Jonga2017In the 88-deck testDeck source for Jonga (opens in a new tab) ↗
Just Cause Coffee2015Pilot deck, kept apart from the 88Deck source for Just Cause Coffee (opens in a new tab) ↗
Juubix2019Pilot deck, kept apart from the 88Deck source for Juubix (opens in a new tab) ↗
Kabanchik2014Pilot deck, kept apart from the 88Deck source for Kabanchik (opens in a new tab) ↗
Khabai Tech2016In the 88-deck testDeck source for Khabai Tech (opens in a new tab) ↗
LABELit.cc2014In the 88-deck testDeck source for LABELit.cc (opens in a new tab) ↗
LawKick2013In the 88-deck testDeck source for LawKick (opens in a new tab) ↗
Leaf it, Inc.2013In the 88-deck testDeck source for Leaf it, Inc. (opens in a new tab) ↗
Letsdoiter2012In the 88-deck testDeck source for Letsdoiter (opens in a new tab) ↗
Libra2016In the 88-deck testDeck source for Libra (opens in a new tab) ↗
Lollipop Audio2015In the 88-deck testDeck source for Lollipop Audio (opens in a new tab) ↗
LoveThyChef2014In the 88-deck testDeck source for LoveThyChef (opens in a new tab) ↗
Mashpotato2012In the 88-deck testDeck source for Mashpotato (opens in a new tab) ↗
MeetEm, Inc.2019In the 88-deck testDeck source for MeetEm, Inc. (opens in a new tab) ↗
MESH2014Not analysed: not an eligible investor deckDeck source for MESH (opens in a new tab) ↗
MeshWorks Media2017In the 88-deck testDeck source for MeshWorks Media (opens in a new tab) ↗
Messari2019In the 88-deck testDeck source for Messari (opens in a new tab) ↗
mimiberry2016Pilot deck, kept apart from the 88Deck source for mimiberry (opens in a new tab) ↗
Music Coco2019In the 88-deck testDeck source for Music Coco (opens in a new tab) ↗
New Legends Studios2014In the 88-deck testDeck source for New Legends Studios (opens in a new tab) ↗
Nibella2013In the 88-deck testDeck source for Nibella (opens in a new tab) ↗
Nomadisation2018Pilot deck, not an eligible investor deckDeck source for Nomadisation (opens in a new tab) ↗
Ntroduce.me2013Pilot deck, kept apart from the 88Deck source for Ntroduce.me (opens in a new tab) ↗
OtterLogic2017In the 88-deck testDeck source for OtterLogic (opens in a new tab) ↗
Ourotech2017In the 88-deck testDeck source for Ourotech (opens in a new tab) ↗
Paperstreet2019In the 88-deck testDeck source for Paperstreet (opens in a new tab) ↗
Peoplewave2018Pilot deck, kept apart from the 88Deck source for Peoplewave (opens in a new tab) ↗
PetMates2015Pilot deck, kept apart from the 88Deck source for PetMates (opens in a new tab) ↗
Pluto AI2017Pilot deck, kept apart from the 88Deck source for Pluto AI (opens in a new tab) ↗
Polar Pants2015In the 88-deck testDeck source for Polar Pants (opens in a new tab) ↗
Rally Rd.2017In the 88-deck testDeck source for Rally Rd. (opens in a new tab) ↗
Redakt CMS2018In the 88-deck testDeck source for Redakt CMS (opens in a new tab) ↗
RedYolks2015In the 88-deck testDeck source for RedYolks (opens in a new tab) ↗
SaTT - ATAYEN2018In the 88-deck testDeck source for SaTT - ATAYEN (opens in a new tab) ↗
Siembra Inc.2014In the 88-deck testDeck source for Siembra Inc. (opens in a new tab) ↗
Sigmind2019In the 88-deck testDeck source for Sigmind (opens in a new tab) ↗
Skill Ministry2014In the 88-deck testDeck source for Skill Ministry (opens in a new tab) ↗
Smart Cities Wheel2016Pilot deck, kept apart from the 88Deck source for Smart Cities Wheel (opens in a new tab) ↗
SnkTrd2013In the 88-deck testDeck source for SnkTrd (opens in a new tab) ↗
Sorare2018In the 88-deck testDeck source for Sorare (opens in a new tab) ↗
Spinea-Medical Ltd.2014In the 88-deck testDeck source for Spinea-Medical Ltd. (opens in a new tab) ↗
STUNN2014In the 88-deck testDeck source for STUNN (opens in a new tab) ↗
Talent Accurate (DPASS)2018In the 88-deck testDeck source for Talent Accurate (DPASS) (opens in a new tab) ↗
TalentSpotter2018Not analysed: not an eligible investor deckDeck source for TalentSpotter (opens in a new tab) ↗
Task Pigeon2017In the 88-deck testDeck source for Task Pigeon (opens in a new tab) ↗
The Swatch Box2013In the 88-deck testDeck source for The Swatch Box (opens in a new tab) ↗
The Untz2012In the 88-deck testDeck source for The Untz (opens in a new tab) ↗
TheFamily2013Pilot deck, not an eligible investor deckDeck source for TheFamily (opens in a new tab) ↗
Third Eye2014Pilot deck, kept apart from the 88Deck source for Third Eye (opens in a new tab) ↗
Tinker Bot2016In the 88-deck testDeck source for Tinker Bot (opens in a new tab) ↗
TitanLabs2018In the 88-deck testDeck source for TitanLabs (opens in a new tab) ↗
Travel Lisa2015In the 88-deck testDeck source for Travel Lisa (opens in a new tab) ↗
Trip2gether2012In the 88-deck testDeck source for Trip2gether (opens in a new tab) ↗
Tripongo (Tripp On Go)2015Pilot deck, kept apart from the 88Deck source for Tripongo (Tripp On Go) (opens in a new tab) ↗
Ututi2012Pilot deck, kept apart from the 88Deck source for Ututi (opens in a new tab) ↗
Valkyrie Industries Ltd2018In the 88-deck testDeck source for Valkyrie Industries Ltd (opens in a new tab) ↗
WaitForSales2015In the 88-deck testDeck source for WaitForSales (opens in a new tab) ↗
WeightPlate2019In the 88-deck testDeck source for WeightPlate (opens in a new tab) ↗
Whatsgon2017Pilot deck, kept apart from the 88Deck source for Whatsgon (opens in a new tab) ↗
WiKey2012In the 88-deck testDeck source for WiKey (opens in a new tab) ↗
Workep2016Pilot deck, kept apart from the 88Deck source for Workep (opens in a new tab) ↗
YouRealty2016In the 88-deck testDeck source for YouRealty (opens in a new tab) ↗
ZenLedger.io2017Pilot deck, kept apart from the 88Deck source for ZenLedger.io (opens in a new tab) ↗
Zoomzin2012In the 88-deck testDeck source for Zoomzin (opens in a new tab) ↗
Selected historical cases: 10 entries
Bliss.aiExample in the Atlas: Bliss.ai2015Selected case: example onlyDeck source for Bliss.ai (opens in a new tab) ↗
CastleExample in the Atlas: Castle2015Selected case: example onlyDeck source for Castle (opens in a new tab) ↗
ComplYantDeck source catalogued only; no deck findings are reported in this report.2022Selected case: example onlyDeck source for ComplYant (opens in a new tab) ↗
Everpix2013Selected case: example onlyDeck source for Everpix (opens in a new tab) ↗
FlowtabExample in the Atlas: Flowtab2013Selected case: example onlyDeck source for Flowtab (opens in a new tab) ↗
Manpacks2011Selected case: example onlyDeck source for Manpacks (opens in a new tab) ↗
Moz (SEOmoz)2011Selected case: example onlyDeck source for Moz (SEOmoz) (opens in a new tab) ↗
Standard TreasuryExample in the Atlas: Standard Treasury2015Selected case: example onlyDeck source for Standard Treasury (opens in a new tab) ↗
Wattage2015Selected case: example onlyDeck source for Wattage (opens in a new tab) ↗
WhereIsMyTransport2020Selected case: example onlyDeck source for WhereIsMyTransport (opens in a new tab) ↗
Method

Sources and limits

Every statement in the examples is quoted from GTM Right's research report, Your Seed Deck, with the report's own slide references. The examples are drawn from the decks the report describes slide by slide. They are illustrations, not a sample, and no rate is calculated from them.

The following are the source pages or source hosts carried in the research material. Slide references throughout refer to the publicly available deck as read by the research. These links point to the sources as recorded, and some pages may since have changed, been redrawn or stopped working.

Deck rights stay with their owners. The report cites deck pages and slide references and reproduces no deck images. A public URL is not permission to republish images or entire presentations.

What the Atlas cannot say

  • Public copies only. A missing revenue or retention figure is a statement about public disclosure, not proof that the company had no such information.
  • Not a judgement of any company. An example shows what one public deck disclosed and the question it raises. It is not a grade of the company, its team or its prospects.
  • No evidence level for any one deck. The report gives each group's evidence levels as counts and names no deck's level, so neither does the Atlas.
  • Patterns, not causes. The study cannot show that a deck, or the activity behind it, caused a company to raise money, to continue or to reach any later result.
  • Research method. AI-assisted methods were used to read and classify the publicly available presentations. The classifications were not independently second-coded. The research reports what published deck material disclosed, with source references and definitions provided.