No analyst, no associate, one hour before the call.
Angels get the same polished market claims a fund does and none of the research staff to test them. The practical need is narrow: between the deck landing and the call, is there independent evidence that this problem is real, recurring and already being paid for? Domain boards and their citations are that check — primary sources, already gathered and already scored.
Test a founder's market claim against independently gathered evidence in minutes rather than a week of desk research.
Confidence is reported separately from the score, so thin coverage reads as thin evidence — not as a bad company.
Caps on unverified dimensions mean a compelling narrative cannot reach the top of a board without sources underneath it.
The boards angel investors watch
Live free-tier snapshots from sectors where angel cheques cluster around domain expertise.
Cybersecurity
Live boardClimate & Sustainability
Live boardReal Estate
Live boardFree-tier snapshot — the full boards, analysis and score history are one free sign-up away.
Start free, upgrade when it pays for itself
Personal covers the sectors you actually write cheques in; Pro adds twelve domains and deep-research reports — a rounding error against a single cheque.
Frequently asked questions
I invest in a couple of sectors, not everything. Is a narrow plan enough?
Usually yes — angels tend to write cheques where they have domain knowledge, and Personal's six domains cover most single-thesis angels. The boards are per-domain, so following fewer, more relevant ones is the normal pattern rather than a limitation.
How do I use this against a specific deck rather than browsing?
Search the problem the founder describes and read the domain board around it. What you are checking is narrow and fast: does independently gathered evidence show this pain recurring, and was a paying buyer actually found — or is the Monetization pillar sitting at its unverified cap?
What does the confidence number tell me that the score doesn't?
How much evidence sits behind the judgement. Confidence is deliberately kept out of the score because blending them would double-count missing evidence and systematically bury genuine white space — which for an early-stage investor is the exact category worth looking at.
Isn't a leaderboard the opposite of proprietary deal flow?
It is not deal flow at all — there are no companies here, only scored opportunities and their evidence. Think of it as the diligence layer you'd otherwise pay an analyst for, applied to the market claim rather than to the team.
Can I see whether interest in a space is building or fading?
Score history is append-only and the movers view surfaces what is climbing, so you can look at trend rather than a single snapshot. Recency also feeds the cap decision, so a space kept alive only by old citations loses its verification instead of coasting.
More general questions are answered on the FAQ page.
Evidence first. Then conviction.
Free to start — no credit card required.
Also built for indie hackers, product managers, agencies, investors, startup founders, venture studios, corporate innovation teams, fractional ctos, ai & ml engineers, micro-saas operators, accelerators & incubators, product designers, growth marketers, non-technical domain experts, no-code builders and students & career switchers.