your startup.
Five free tools for founders — find out whether you need outside money at all, check whether you're ready to raise, work out how much and what it buys, model exactly what that costs you in ownership, and find the way into an investor network that fits your profile.
Open the toolsMost planning tools treat a growth motion as another revenue line. It isn't. A motion is a particular relationship between effort and revenue, and that relationship — not the number of lines — decides the shape of the curve. Switch the motions on and off and watch what happens to revenue per person-month: flat means you are selling your time, rising means something has actually come unstuck from your headcount.
Left axis: monthly flows in k€. Cash gets its own scale — it is a running balance, and on the same axis it would flatten every revenue line against the floor.
The first paid engagement — a pilot, a project, an implementation. Every one of them costs delivery capacity, so this motion can never grow faster than your team.
The same customer, on a bigger contract, with the acquisition already paid for. A 10 k€ pilot that becomes a 50 k€ subscription is five times the revenue for none of the selling — which is why this motion bends the curve instead of extending it.
Worth 590 k€ over the horizon — what disappears if you switch it off.
A partner licences the platform for their own client base. You make one sale and reach their whole roster, and if they deliver to their own customers the revenue scales without touching your capacity at all.
Tick what you already have. The model scores five readiness dimensions from the fundraising literature, names your binding constraint, and ranks what to fix by leverage — not by what's easiest.
Readiness tells you whether to start. This tells you who to aim at. Rate how much each criterion matters to you (1 = irrelevant, 5 = essential) and the model ranks the investor archetypes that fit.
One individual who can write a meaningful first cheque and keep writing. Anchors the round and spares you re-starting from zero next time.
Watch: Ask directly what they have reserved for follow-on. “I usually follow on” is not a reserve.
Someone who has built in your market and whose address book contains your customers. Their introductions are worth more than their money.
Watch: Agree what “helping” means before the cheque — customer intros, or advice you didn't ask for.
A recognisable investor whose participation makes the next conversation easier. You are buying a credential as much as capital.
Watch: A famous name with a small cheque can still anchor your round — but only if they let you use it publicly.
Individual angels and solo GPs who can say yes without a partner meeting. The fastest path to a first close and to momentum.
Watch: Speed cuts both ways — a fast yes from someone who did no diligence is a weaker signal to the next investor.
Chemistry over pedigree. Someone you would willingly call on the worst day of the company, which is when it actually counts.
Watch: Run reference calls with founders they backed who struggled, not the ones who did well.
| What you have | Feeds | Weight |
|---|---|---|
| I personally know investors who could write a cheque | Access | 1.00 |
| People vouch for me with investors | Access | 0.90 |
| People vouch for me with investors | Signals | 0.30 |
| I can name 3+ specific people who would vouch | Access | 0.70 |
| I can name 3+ specific people who would vouch | Process | 0.20 |
| I'm getting warm introductions | Access | 0.80 |
| I'm working existing contacts directly | Access | 0.50 |
| I meet investors at events | Access | 0.40 |
| I use investor platforms (OpenVC etc.) | Access | 0.30 |
| I do cold outreach (email / LinkedIn) | Access | 0.15 |
| I do cold outreach (email / LinkedIn) | Process | 0.20 |
| Revenue / MRR | Signals | 1.00 |
| Recognisable customers | Signals | 0.90 |
| Press / awards | Signals | 0.40 |
| A prior exit | Signals | 1.00 |
| A prior exit | Access | 0.40 |
| Accelerator / programme | Signals | 0.60 |
| Accelerator / programme | Access | 0.40 |
| Well-known advisors | Signals | 0.60 |
| Well-known advisors | Access | 0.40 |
| The raise target is defined | Clarity of the ask | 1.00 |
| I know which investors fit — stage, ticket, sector, region | Clarity of the ask | 0.80 |
| I know which investors fit — stage, ticket, sector, region | Process | 0.30 |
| I've considered grants / non-dilutive | Clarity of the ask | 0.30 |
| I'm testing different storylines | Clarity of the ask | 0.60 |
| I'm testing different storylines | Process | 0.20 |
| Teaser deck (2 minutes) | Materials | 1.00 |
| Pitch deck (15+ slides) | Materials | 0.80 |
| Read-deck to share after meetings | Materials | 0.70 |
| Data room with access control | Materials | 0.60 |
| Investor CRM set up | Materials | 0.40 |
| Investor CRM set up | Process | 0.60 |
| Investor Q&A document | Materials | 0.50 |
| Investor Q&A document | Clarity of the ask | 0.20 |
| Structured investor list | Process | 1.00 |
| I run advice-first conversations | Process | 0.60 |
| I run advice-first conversations | Access | 0.50 |
| I'm testing outreach channels | Process | 0.50 |
| Dimension: Access | Headline score | 0.30 |
| Dimension: Signals | Headline score | 0.25 |
| Dimension: Clarity of the ask | Headline score | 0.20 |
| Dimension: Materials | Headline score | 0.10 |
| Dimension: Process | Headline score | 0.15 |
Dimension weights are set by hand from the cited literature, not fitted to data — no dataset exists on which a readiness model like this has been estimated. Access carries the most because roughly 60% of deal flow arrives through networks; materials carry the least because the evidence says the formal plan matters less than founders assume.
Within a dimension the items are treated as substitutes, not a checklist: warm introductions, events and platforms are three ways into the same channel, so the score saturates — the three strongest items already put you at roughly 85%, and the rest fill in from there. Items you aren't expected to have at your stage, and items nobody can simply go and acquire (a prior exit), are left out of the target entirely and only ever count as upside. The typical range shown against your score is a design assumption on the same footing as the weights, not a measured benchmark. Treat the output as a structured argument about where your effort goes, not a prediction of whether you will raise.
Work the number backwards from the milestone the next round will expect: what the team costs, how long it takes, and what the plan needs on top for the parts that slip. The output is a round size and a use-of-funds breakdown you can put in front of an investor.
Means first: you say what team you want, the tool costs it. Honest when you don't yet know your conversion rates well enough for the arithmetic to mean anything.
The round has to outlast the raise that follows it, not end when that raise begins. You hit the milestone, then start talking to investors, and the money has to still be there when they take three months to decide.
The round closes with under two months to spare. Raises slip more often than they run early, so a little more margin here is cheap insurance.
Funds 21 months at full-team burn, inside the 18–24 month convention.
The sizing logic comes from the staging literature: a round buys runway to the next point where real information arrives, so the amount follows from the milestone rather than the other way round. The contingency exists because underestimating time and cost is one of the most replicated findings in behavioural research. The salary figures are DACH mid-market defaults you should override, and the runway and contingency ranges are conventions rather than measurements. Treat the output as a costed argument for a number, not a forecast.
What each round actually costs you in ownership. Model FFF, Angels & VCs across financing rounds, track dilution, build the cap table and simulate exits under different liquidation preferences.
| Round | Investment | Dilution % | Pre / Post-Money | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pre-Seed | 500 Tsd € | 15% | 2.8 Mio € / 3.3 Mio € | ||
| Seed | 2.0 Mio € | 20% | 8.0 Mio € / 10 Mio € | ||
| Series A | 8.0 Mio € | 20% | 32 Mio € / 40 Mio € | ||
| Series B | 25 Mio € | 18% | 114 Mio € / 139 Mio € | ||
| Series C | 60 Mio € | 15% | 340 Mio € / 400 Mio € | ||
| Series D | 150 Mio € | 13% | 1Mrd € / 1.2Mrd € |
| Stakeholder | Ownership | Share | Exit Proceeds |
|---|---|---|---|
| FounderFounder 1 | 30.6% | 30.6% | 9.2 Mio € |
| FounderFounder 2 | 30.6% | 30.6% | 9.2 Mio € |
| ESOPESOP Pool | 6.8% | 6.8% | 2.0 Mio € |
| InvestorPre-Seed Investors | 12.0% | 12.0% | 3.6 Mio € |
| InvestorSeed Investors | 20.0% | 20.0% | 6.0 Mio € |
| Total | 100% | 30 Mio € | |
A weighted, three-layer model built from the empirical fundraising literature. Toggle your attributes on the left. Click any node to see the evidence behind it.
Toggle attributes on the left, or pick a preset.
Weights are set by hand from the cited literature, not estimated on data — no dataset exists on which a model like this has been fitted. The mechanism layer comes from the papers; the wiring between layers is an interpretive synthesis. Treat the output as a structured argument, not a prediction.