Sample report. "Acme Robotics" is fictional — this page shows the exact structure and depth of a real Fundora deck analysis.
SpecimenAcme Robotics — Seed deck teardown
12 slides analyzed · Seed · Industrial automation
Pillar scores
Investor simulation — first 3 minutes with your deck
"The team slide earns the meeting — a second-time founder in warehouse automation is exactly the profile I back. But I stall on slide 6: a $42B top-down TAM tells me nothing about what you can win. By slide 9 the 14× revenue jump makes me question every other number. I'd take the call, push hard on unit economics, and ask what the ₹4Cr actually buys. Right now this is a 'maybe, show me the pilots' — two slide fixes away from a 'let's move'."
Slides costing you the round
The TAM is presented top-down ("$42B global robotics market") with no path to your obtainable share. Investors discount top-down TAMs on sight.
Fix: Rebuild bottom-up: number of mid-size Indian warehouses × automation budget × your price point. A defensible ₹800Cr SOM beats a vague $42B TAM.
Revenue jumps 14× between year 2 and year 3 with no change in the sales model to explain it. This is the slide investors will interrogate hardest.
Fix: Tie each year's revenue to a hiring/pipeline driver (reps × quota × win rate). Smooth the curve or explain the step change explicitly.
₹4Cr raise with no use-of-funds breakdown and no milestone the money buys. "18 months of runway" is a cost, not an outcome.
Fix: Split the raise into 3–4 buckets and name the milestone it reaches (e.g. "₹1.6Cr → 2 pilot conversions → ₹40L ARR by Q4").
What's already working
- Founding team slide is genuinely strong — domain depth + prior exit, well told.
- Clear before/after customer story on slide 4; keep it exactly as is.
- Competitive slide names real competitors instead of an empty 2×2 — rare and credible.
Run this on your actual deck
Upload your deck and get this exact analysis on your real slides in about two minutes. Your first analysis is free — no card needed.
Or see pricing →