Here’s what I look for when I first evaluate a science-based / deep-tech startup 👇

✨ Scientific innovation is great. But investors back returns. Think like an investor from day 0.

Early-stage deep-tech founders often have little or no traction, and that’s fine. What matters is: can you de-risk your solution and business enough to make me believe?

Here’s broadly (in very simple terms) some of the key aspects I focus on when looking at early-stage ventures:

👩‍🔬 Team → Do I believe your experience and drive can pull this off—and pivot if needed? Do you have top-tier advisors that can support you in your journey?

🎯 Problem → Are you focusing on solving the real problem? Are you tackling the root cause, not just the symptoms?

🌍 Market & Competition → Forget inflated TAM slides that don’t really say anything. Have you found an opportunity others are overlooking and can you quantify it to build solid projections? Is the market growing, and are there clear drivers for this growth? Do you know how you stand out from competition? Have you really figured out why others have failed and thus why you won’t?

🧪 Solution → Is it de-risked enough at this stage? Especially if you haven’t built anything yet or are at very early stages of development, this is make-or-break.

🤝 Traction → For pre-revenue startups: have you involved real customers early on? Few things de-risk deep-tech like this.

💰 Business vision → I don’t care if your business model evolves. But I do care that you think in $$ now. Can you project realistic yet exciting returns? Even better: can you show me there’s potential for compounding effects, e.g., other markets you could eventually tap into or second-order impacts your tech can trigger?

👉 This is how I separate hype from fundable deep-tech, even if you are just starting. My goal is to get more technical entrepreneurs with great solutions investment-ready, from day 0 (ideation).

💡 If you’re building something cool, I’d love to hear your story.

Subscribe