Comparison · running diligence internally
Faster than your in-house diligence cycle.
Plenty of funds run diligence manually — analysts pulling filings, sanctions lists, and news, then assembling a memo. It works, but it is slow, hard to reproduce, and expensive per company. Here is how automation compares.
| Capability | An in-house diligence team | MarketPrior |
|---|---|---|
| Typical turnaround per company | Days | Hours |
| Every finding cited to a public source | ||
| Reproducible weeks later | ||
| Continuous monitoring & alerts | ||
| Tamper-evident audit trail by default | ||
| Analyst keeps judgement & sign-off | ||
| Marginal cost per additional company | High (analyst time) | Low (per-report) |
Where An in-house diligence team is strong
Your analysts bring context, relationships, and judgement a tool should augment, not replace. The goal is to take the manual data-gathering and citation grunt-work off their plate, not the decision.
Where we differ
- Hours instead of days per company, so diligence fits inside the deal window.
- Every finding is cited and the run is reproducible — no more "where did this litigation flag come from?" weeks later.
- A tamper-evident audit trail by default, plus continuous monitoring instead of a one-off memo that goes stale.
- Your analysts review and sign off on a pre-cited scorecard rather than assembling it from scratch.
This comparison reflects our understanding of typical offerings and is provided in good faith; vendor capabilities change, so verify current details with each provider. All product names, logos, and trademarks are the property of their respective owners and are used for identification only.
See a cited scorecard on your own target.
Name a company or founder. We'll return a fully cited risk × upside verdict you can trace, line by line, back to source documents — yours to keep monitoring, defend at IC, or share with an LP.