11 Feb 2025
What investors actually look at — and what silently kills deals
Most founders think due diligence is about:
It isn't.
Once interest is real, technical due diligence quietly decides deal quality:
Many startups don't fail due diligence. They bleed value in it.
Founders often prepare for due diligence by:
That's not what investors are evaluating.
Tech due diligence answers one question:
"Can this system survive growth without heroic effort or a rewrite?"
Everything else is secondary.
Not tools. Not frameworks. Risk.
Specifically:
And all of these are encoded in the system — whether you document them or not.
Investors don't care if you use:
They care about:
Red flags:
If scaling requires a rewrite, valuation drops.
This is often tested implicitly.
Questions investors ask:
Red flags:
That's key-person risk — and investors price it in.
A shocking number of startups still:
Investors look for:
Why? Because shipping velocity post-investment matters.
If releases are risky, growth slows.
Logs and dashboards are not for engineers only.
They answer investor questions like:
Red flags:
Lack of observability equals operational blindness.
Investors want to see:
They don't want:
Bad analytics doesn't just hurt growth. It undermines trust in management decisions.
This doesn't mean enterprise-grade everything.
But investors will check:
Red flags:
Security issues don't kill deals immediately — they reduce leverage and increase conditions.
Every startup relies on third parties.
Investors assess:
Red flags:
Dependency risk = future negotiation risk.
If:
Investors see:
This doesn't mean founders should disappear.
It means the system must outgrow individuals.
Strong startups don't "prepare" for due diligence.
They operate in a due-diligence-ready state.
That means:
Not perfect — but transparent and controlled.
Before due diligence, you should be able to answer:
If you can answer these calmly, you're ready.
At H-Studio, we design systems knowing that:
Our goal is not "perfect systems".
It's:
That's how startups keep leverage in negotiations.
Technical due diligence doesn't reward perfection.
It rewards clarity, control, and honesty.
If your system is understandable and scalable, investors will work with imperfections.
If it's fragile and opaque, they'll price that risk — aggressively.
If you're fundraising, approaching M&A, or preparing for a growth round, technical due diligence will happen. We analyze architecture and scaling risks, deployment and DevOps readiness, observability and analytics quality, security and dependency mapping, and provide prioritized fixes with a 90-day view.
We help startups prepare for due diligence and fundraising by ensuring systems are explainable, scalable, and survive scrutiny. For DevOps and automation, we set up repeatable CI/CD and staging parity. For backend architecture, we ensure clear boundaries and separation of concerns. For analytics and data engineering, we create consistent metrics and reproducible reports.
Enter your email to receive our latest newsletter.
Don't worry, we don't spam
Anna Hartung
Anna Hartung
Anna Hartung
And why it's rarely the framework you're proud of. Experienced investors don't evaluate tech stacks by brand names. They evaluate them by risk signals. Your tech stack answers questions like: How fast can this company move next year? How fragile is execution under pressure?
Almost every startup considers a rewrite at some point. But rewrites kill more startups than bad ideas ever do—slowly, quietly, and expensively. Learn why rewrites feel inevitable but aren't, and what actually works instead.
The systems most startups forget to rebuild—until it's too late. Most MVPs are built to answer one question: 'Does anyone want this?' Systems at 100k users answer a different one: 'Can this survive daily reality without burning the team?'
Most startup post-mortems cite 'no market need'—but there's a quieter failure mode: MVPs become technically unusable before product–market fit. Learn why Minimum Viable Architecture matters and how to build MVPs that can iterate, not rebuild.
And why companies keep paying for it—even when they think they're saving money. Technical debt is not a technical problem. It is a business model problem. Companies that don't understand this don't just move slower—they make systematically worse decisions.
How moving fast quietly destroys your ability to move at all. 'Move fast' became one of the most dangerous half-truths in tech. Speed without architecture is one of the most reliable ways to stall a company—not early, but exactly when momentum should compound.