We read their filings, earnings calls, and news, extract what they actually care about, map your strengths to it, and show you where you stand. Add the competitors in the room and it becomes the full pursuit picture.
Research takes 5 to 10 minutes. You can close the tab; your report link arrives by email. Built from public information only. Corporate email addresses only.
The score. How good a prospect this is for you, computed the same way every run, with the reasoning shown.
The map. Their stated priorities against your capabilities, cell by cell, with a verbatim quote and a source behind every claim. Where the evidence is thin, the report says so instead of guessing.
The gaps and the movers. Where you don't fit, where you partially fit, and what would concretely raise the score.
Competitors. Add up to four rivals to the same deal and get a side-by-side matrix on the buyer's priorities, with ranks and the whitespace nobody covers.
Your documents. Upload postmortems, scorecards, agendas, and RFPs. Confirmed documents join the analysis as internal evidence.
The pre-mortem check. Once your losses are in, one button checks any new deal against the patterns that have cost you before.
A saved workspace. Deals, reports, and packets in one place, shared with your team.
What the score means. The score answers one question: how good a prospect is this buyer for you. It is not a measure of how helpful you are to them, and it is not a grade on your marketing. A high score means their stated priorities and your demonstrated capabilities overlap in ways you can act on.
Where the evidence comes from. Buyer priorities are extracted from filings, earnings calls, press, and the buyer's own site. Vendor capabilities come from the vendor's public record, plus any workspace documents you have confirmed. Every scored cell carries a verbatim quote and its source.
When we refuse to score. If the public record is too thin to score a cell honestly, the cell says so and stays out of the subtotal. An unscored cell is information: it tells you where proof is missing, yours or a competitor's.
Relative, not absolute. The point of the matrix is ranks and deltas between vendors on the same buyer, judged by the same method. Absolute numbers move with the buyer's disclosure habits; comparisons between columns are the signal.
Pairing-specific judgment. A capability's strength is judged against this buyer's stated plans, so the same vendor scores differently against different targets. Scoring is normalized by vendor category, so an operational vendor competing on delivery can reach the top bands without pretending to be something it is not.
Coverage counts what you could address. Coverage is computed over the priorities a vendor could plausibly serve, so you are not penalized for a buyer ambition outside anyone's scope.
Forward credit has a rule. A vendor gets credit for a buyer's future needs only when those needs follow almost arithmetically from stated commitments. A commitment to hire 20,000 people a year is a commitment to a growing benefits load. Speculation beyond that earns nothing.
The same method every run. The steps, the evidence rules, and the scoring are fixed in code, so the same inputs produce the same result for everyone on your team, today and next quarter. That consistency is what makes deals comparable over time.
A general model is good at reading one page once. This is what changes when a team runs pursuit after pursuit and has to defend the answer internally.
| Pasting into a chatbot | Boost Win Rate | |
|---|---|---|
| What it reads | Whatever you paste, which is usually the homepage. | Filings, earnings calls, news, and both websites, gathered the same way for every deal. |
| The same answer twice | Ask again tomorrow and the emphasis moves. Two teammates get two different answers. | A fixed method computes the score. Same inputs, same result, for everyone. |
| Evidence | Confident prose. Ask where a claim came from and you get a plausible reconstruction. | Every claim carries a verbatim quote and its source. Thin evidence is marked as insufficient, not papered over. |
| Comparing pursuits | Ten chat threads that each went somewhere different. Nothing lines up. | Every deal produces the same record, so prospects and competitors become comparable. |
| Your losses | Every conversation starts from zero. | Confirmed postmortems stay in your workspace, and every new deal gets checked against them. |
| Defending it internally | A paragraph you have to vouch for yourself. | A sourced matrix and a packet your team can inspect line by line. |
The honest limit: for one quick read of one page, a chatbot is faster and free. This earns its place when the same team competes for deal after deal and needs the reads to be consistent, sourced, and comparable.