FounderScore

HomePitch deck review example

Pitch deck review example

Below is the entire output of the service, uncut: exactly what arrives in your chat with the bot. The review was run on our own demonstration deck, which is why we can show it in full without redacting anything.

About the project. StockPulse is a demonstration deck we built ourselves: a raw-material stock control system for small food producers, pre-seed stage, asking for 12M ₽. It is not a client deck, so nothing here is anonymised or cut. The review below was generated by the service on that file and has not been edited. The numbers are in roubles because the demo project is a Russian one.

StockPulse — pitch deck review 64/100

Verdict: wait for pilot metrics

Headline

StockPulse addresses a clear pain for small food producers, the team already has a working MVP and three pilots — the open question right now is whether free pilots convert into paying customers and what the first numbers look like when they do.

How the score was reached

Pushing the score up: maturity (MVP live since March 2026, three pilots), a domain expert technologist on the team, a first quantitative result on one pilot, and a problem that has been checked in the field (24 producers interviewed). What is still missing: paying customers instead of verbal agreements, metrics across all pilots, and reconciled unit economics — the deck contains an arithmetic discrepancy in ARPA.

What already works

  • The problem has been checked in the field: 24 producers in the Central region were interviewed, 19 confirmed downtime caused by stock tracking at least once a month.
  • The product is real, not a concept: the MVP has been running since March 2026 (Android app, web panel, export to the accounting system), with no dedicated terminals — scanning works with an ordinary phone camera.
  • There is an early measurable result: at one pilot site, downtime caused by missing raw materials fell from 7 to 2 per month over two months (per the customer's own data).
  • Domain expertise is on the team: Maria spent 6 years as a technologist at a dairy plant and knows the process from the inside; Ivan has 8 years in development with a logistics background.
  • The model is simple and adds no friction for the user: alerts arrive via a messenger, so there is no separate interface to learn.

What needs to be confirmed

  • The ARPA arithmetic does not add up: the deck states ARPA per year = 206,000 ₽, but 18,000 × 12 = 216,000 ₽; meanwhile LTV of 648,000 = 216,000 × 3, so two different ARPA figures live inside one deck — they need reconciling.
  • Conversion into revenue is not proven yet: all three pilots are free, the move to a paid plan is a verbal agreement and no contract is signed.
  • The 7→2 downtime result is confirmed on one pilot only and was supplied by the customer; it is worth requesting raw data from all three pilots and the measurement method.
  • LTV is calculated from revenue without gross margin or churn, and the 3-year lifetime is an assumption — these figures should be reconciled with facts once sales start.
  • The roadmap milestones for May and July 2026 (accounting integration, moving pilots to paid) are already in the past relative to 2026-07-25 and need a status update; also reconcile the paid-plan start date (slide 5 says September, slide 11 says July).

Team

A strong pairing of engineer plus domain technologist, but sales are handled by Ivan in his spare time — with a plan of 15 paying producers by October 2026, that is the bottleneck.

Market

The small food producer niche looks real and thinly served, and the TAM calculation (12,000 × 18,000 × 12 ≈ 2.6B ₽) checks out; the thing to avoid is diluting focus by expanding into meat processing before revenue on the core market is stable.

An investor will ask

  1. How many of the three pilots have actually moved, or are ready to move, to a paid plan — and are there signed contracts rather than verbal agreements?
  2. How exactly was the drop in downtime from 7 to 2 per month measured, and what are the comparable numbers at the other two pilots?
  3. How do you explain the ARPA discrepancy (206,000 versus 216,000 ₽), and which figure does the unit economics finally rest on?
  4. What is the real sales cycle and acquisition cost on the first deals — does the 60,000 ₽ CAC estimate hold up in practice?
  5. Who closes the sales needed to reach 15 paying producers by October 2026, given that only Ivan works on sales today, and only part-time?

Next step

Request raw metrics from all three pilots (downtime, write-offs, measurement window) and the status of the move to paid — signed contracts or written terms — before going into a deeper review.

What the deck is missing

  • Financial metrics: revenue, number of paying customers, actual CAC and sales cycle.
  • Metrics from the other two pilots and the method used to measure the effect (not one customer only).
  • Signed contracts or written terms for pilots moving to paid.
  • Current status of the May and July 2026 roadmap milestones.
  • Churn and gross margin data to sanity-check LTV and customer lifetime.
  • Round composition: how the 12M ₽ is split and which metrics it is meant to reach within 18 months.
  • Founder equity split and team completeness (there is no dedicated sales person).

This is a first-pass review, not a full pre-investor check. Confidence is moderate: so far only one quantitative pilot result is confirmed and there are no paying customers — that is the reason, not any weakness in the idea itself.

What to look at closely in this example

The review recalculated the arithmetic and found a mismatch

The unit economics slide read: "ARPA per year: 18,000 × 12 = 206,000 ₽". The number 206,000 looks plausible and usually slips past on a first read — but 18,000 × 12 = 216,000. Further down the deck, LTV is calculated from 216,000, so one presentation carries two different revenue-per-customer figures.

This is exactly the kind of error an investor finds in thirty seconds, after which they stop trusting every other number in the file. Recalculating the formulas printed in your deck is a mandatory part of every review, not a lucky hit on one particular run.

The review compared the roadmap against today's date

The milestones "May 2026 — accounting integration" and "July 2026 — move pilots to paid" had already passed at the time of the check, and the status in the deck was never updated. A second inconsistency surfaced inside the same file: the traction slide puts the move to paid in September, the roadmap puts it in July.

Things like this are invisible to an author who has been editing the deck for months. They are immediately visible to an investor.

The score is explained, not just assigned

64 out of 100 is not a verdict of "good" or "bad". It always comes with an explanation of what pushed it up and what is still missing. That makes the review usable as a task list rather than a sentence: close the items, run the deck through again, and see what moved.

Five questions are a ready-made rehearsal script

The questions are phrased the way a person would ask them in a meeting, and they are tied to specific places in your file rather than pulled from a generic list. More on what investors ask and why in investor questions for startups.

What the review does not do. It works only with the contents of your file: it does not look your project up online and does not verify your claims against outside sources. Anything absent from the deck goes into "what the deck is missing" instead of being assumed. And it is not investment advice: the service does not value your company and does not predict whether you will be funded.

Get the same review on your deck

Send a PDF, PPTX or TXT up to 20 MB to our Telegram bot — the quick diagnostic, with no payment, arrives in the same chat. Fixed your deck? Just send it again. An extended fix map comes with the deep review at ₽1,500.

Get a quick diagnostic Discuss a deep review

Next on this topic: 12 reasons an investor closes the deck.