How Investors Verify Startup Claims Before Writing a Cheque

Q: What databases do investors use to verify startup claims?

The most commonly used databases for startup claim verification include: Crunchbase and PitchBook for funding history and comparable deal data; Carta for cap table and equity benchmarking; LinkedIn for founding team history and headcount verification; Companies House (UK) or SEC EDGAR (US) for corporate registration and filed accounts; SimilarWeb for web traffic claims; and Google Scholar or PubMed for technical or scientific claims. For market size, investors typically cross-reference against a paid research provider (IBISWorld, Euromonitor, or Gartner).

ThriveFinity

The 40-minute desk research window

40min

The average desk research window before a first call decision. Docsend analysis of investor behaviour shows most VCs decide whether to respond to a cold pitch within 30–45 minutes of initial desk research. During this window, they cross-check three to five specific claims — not the whole deck.

This is not diligence. It is a plausibility filter. The investor is not trying to build conviction during this phase — they are trying to identify reasons to decline quickly. Understanding what they check, and in what order, is the most practical thing a founder can do before sending a deck.

The four claim categories below account for the majority of first-pass failures. Investors rarely articulate which specific claim failed when they pass — which is why founders often do not know what to fix between pitches.

The four claims investors check first

Claim 01

Market size (TAM)

The first number cross-referenced. Investors check whether the TAM figure traces to a credible source and whether it was calculated bottom-up or cited from a press release. Top-down figures from analyst firms are treated as directional at best — bottoms-up calculations are significantly more persuasive.

Claim 02

Traction metrics

MRR, ARR, user counts, or growth rates are verified for internal consistency. A claimed £50k MRR from a 3-person team with no visible job postings and low web traffic fails the plausibility check. Investors triangulate traction claims against headcount, job history, and traffic data before accepting them.

Claim 03

Unit economics

CAC, LTV, and payback period are checked against industry benchmarks for the described channel. A CAC that is implausibly low for the claimed acquisition strategy — for example, a CAC of £5 via paid social for an enterprise SaaS product — will fail immediately. Investors compare stated unit economics to comparable companies in their portfolio or deal history.

Claim 04

Competitive landscape

Investors search for direct competitors not mentioned in the deck. A pitch that claims "there are no direct competitors" or omits a well-funded competitor that raised in the last 18 months signals that the founder has not done sufficient market research — or has done it and chosen not to disclose. Either is a reason to pass.

The databases investors use

Desk research follows a predictable sequence. Investors are not conducting forensic analysis — they are using a small set of accessible databases to pressure-test the claims on the page in front of them. The table below covers the primary sources used for each claim type.

Database	What investors use it for	Accessible to founders?
Crunchbase	Funding history, comparable deal sizes, competitor funding rounds, founding team history	Yes (free + Pro)
PitchBook	Deeper funding data, valuation history, LP-backed investor portfolios, M&A comparables	Expensive; some universities offer access
LinkedIn	Founding team background verification, headcount plausibility, job posting history as growth proxy	Yes
Companies House (UK)	Filed accounts, SIC code, incorporation date, registered directors, PSC register	Yes (free)
SimilarWeb	Web traffic, traffic source breakdown, engagement metrics — used to triangulate traction claims	Yes (free tier limited)
Carta / Pulley	Cap table benchmarking, option pool sizing, comparable equity grants at stage	Yes (if you're a Carta customer)
Google Scholar / PubMed	Technical and scientific claims — checking whether cited research actually says what the deck says it says	Yes (free)
Paid research (Gartner / IBISWorld / Euromonitor)	Cross-referencing TAM and market growth claims against professional analyst data	Expensive; often accessible via library

Founders have access to most of these databases before pitching. The ones that require paid subscriptions — PitchBook, premium Gartner reports — can often be accessed through university libraries, accelerator programmes, or via relationships with lawyers and accountants who hold institutional subscriptions.

Red flags that trigger a pass without a call

Investors rarely explain exactly why they passed. The following red flags are the most common causes of first-pass declines based on reported investor feedback and post-mortem analysis of failed fundraising rounds.

TAM figure cannot be sourced. The stated market size cites a press release, a news article, or no source at all. When investors search for the underlying data, the number cannot be confirmed. This is one of the most common and avoidable red flags in early-stage decks.
Traction inconsistent with observable signals. A claimed £80k MRR from a company with 4 LinkedIn employees, minimal web traffic, and no visible customers fails basic plausibility. Investors look for internal consistency — not just impressive numbers.
Founding team has no verifiable connection to the problem domain. A team building a medical device with no clinical, regulatory, or healthcare operational experience — and no visible advisors with those credentials — fails the team-problem fit check.
A well-funded direct competitor is not mentioned. Searching the category on Crunchbase returns a company that raised a Series B in the same space 14 months ago. The deck says "no direct competitors." This signals either incomplete market research or deliberate omission — both are reasons to pass.
Unit economics imply an implausible CAC. A stated CAC of £12 for a B2B SaaS product sold via enterprise sales cycles fails immediately. Industry benchmarks for comparable channels are well-known to investors. Numbers that are significantly outside those benchmarks require explicit explanation — without one, they signal that the economics have not been stress-tested.

What founders can do before pitching

The gap between what investors check and what founders verify before pitching is where most first-pass failures occur. The following steps address the most common failure points systematically.

Source every quantitative claim in the deck to a primary or credible secondary source. If a TAM figure cannot be traced to a credible source, remove it or replace it with a bottom-up calculation that can be shown in two or three steps. Unsourced numbers fail the plausibility check even when they are accurate.
Run your unit economics through an industry benchmark comparison. Find two or three comparable companies — same stage, same channel, same geography — and check whether your CAC, LTV, and payback period figures are within a defensible range. If they are significantly better than benchmarks, prepare an explicit explanation of why.
Search Crunchbase for competitors before investors do. Find every company in your space that has raised in the last 24 months. Add the ones you are aware of to the competitive slide. Acknowledge the ones that are well-funded and explain your differentiation specifically. Silence about a well-known competitor is read as either ignorance or evasion.
Check LinkedIn headcount consistency with your traction claims. If your company's LinkedIn page shows 5 employees but your deck claims £120k MRR, prepare an explanation for how that revenue is generated with that headcount. Investors will notice the discrepancy — explaining it pre-emptively is better than leaving it as a red flag.
Run a structured pre-launch verification before the first meeting. ThriveFinity's Pre-Launch Verification service evaluates all major claim categories against the same databases and benchmarks investors use — before you send a deck. The output is a verified claim set with sourcing, plus a list of claims that require additional evidence or should be removed. See also: how we verify pitch deck claims.

Frequently asked questions

How long do investors spend on initial due diligence before a first call?

Research from Docsend and First Round Capital suggests investors spend roughly 30–45 minutes on desk research before deciding whether to take a first call. During this window, they typically check the founding team's background, validate the stated market size against a third-party source, and look at one or two traction claims. If any of these fail a basic plausibility check, the call is declined.

What databases do investors use to verify startup claims?

The most commonly used databases include Crunchbase and PitchBook for funding history and comparable deal data; Carta for cap table benchmarking; LinkedIn for founding team history and headcount verification; Companies House (UK) or SEC EDGAR (US) for corporate registration and filed accounts; SimilarWeb for web traffic claims; and Google Scholar for technical or scientific claims.

What is the first claim investors check in a pitch deck?

Market size (TAM) is typically the first number investors cross-reference. Founders frequently cite TAM figures from press releases or secondary sources that use top-down market sizing. Investors prefer bottom-up TAM calculations — total number of potential customers multiplied by annual revenue per customer — and will verify the assumptions underlying the top-line number before accepting it.

What red flags cause investors to pass without a call?

The most common red flags at the desk research stage: (1) TAM figure cannot be sourced to a credible third party; (2) traction metrics inconsistent with LinkedIn headcount or web traffic data; (3) founding team has no verifiable connection to the stated problem domain; (4) a direct competitor has raised significantly more capital and is not mentioned in the deck; (5) unit economics imply a CAC that is implausibly low for the described channel.

What can founders do to verify their claims before pitching?

Founders can run a pre-launch verification before pitching to identify which claims are likely to be challenged. This involves sourcing every quantitative claim in the deck to a primary or credible secondary source, stress-testing unit economics against industry benchmarks, and checking whether comparable companies have raised at similar metrics. ThriveFinity's Pre-Launch Verification service does this systematically across all major claim categories.

How do investors verify traction claims?

Traction claims are verified by triangulating across multiple signals: web traffic data from SimilarWeb, app store reviews and ratings, LinkedIn headcount growth, job posting history (a proxy for growth), and press coverage dates. MRR and ARR claims are typically not verifiable at the desk research stage without a signed NDA, but investors look for internal consistency: a claimed MRR should be consistent with the headcount and operational complexity described.

Sources

Docsend — "How Investors Evaluate Startup Decks" (2022). Average deck viewing time, decision patterns, and page-level engagement data from 2.5m+ deck views.
First Round Capital — "10 Years of Learnings" (2015). Investor decision-making patterns and team evaluation frameworks.
CB Insights — "What Do Investors Do During Due Diligence?" (2021). Database usage and claim verification practices across 50 VC interviews.
Companies House — UK corporate registration and filed accounts (free public access at companieshouse.gov.uk).
Crunchbase — Funding and company data. Crunchbase Pro subscription required for full dataset access.

Verify before you pitch

Know which claims investors will challenge before they do

ThriveFinity's Pre-Launch Verification evaluates your deck's key claims against the same databases investors use — and flags what needs fixing before the first meeting.

See how it works → How we verify claims