Diligence as a Service

Diligence Made Simple

Clarity and rigour for investors and founders in healthcare and lifesciences.

The Problem

Return ÷ Risk (Founder) ≠ Return ÷ Risk (Investor)

Founders and investors assess risk and return differently, leading to misalignment. We run independent diligence to close this gap: helping founders build investable ventures, and giving investors clarity and confidence in their decisions.

What We Do

For StartUps

Build a venture that holds up to real investor scrutiny.

Most healthcare and lifesciences founders struggle because their strategy, evidence, or execution story doesn’t align with investor expectation. We help you identify and fix those gaps before you get to the table.

What we help you do

Sharpen your positioning

Value, market, regulatory

Validate your story

Science, IP, data, clinical rationale

Focus your roadmap

What matters now vs later

Prepare for scrutiny

Data room setup, and investor diligence readiness

For Investors

Back the evidence. not just the story.

We support institutional and non-specialist investors in making informed calls on biotech, MedTech, and HealthTech ventures. Our role is to help you see what’s real, what’s risky, and what’s worth your time.

How we support your decision process

Assess core claims

Validate science credibility, differentiation, and market positioning.

Evaluate execution & financial risk

Assess team, plan, burn rate, and capital strategy fit.

Expose red flags

IP, clinical, technical, and data readiness.

Benchmark upside

Valuation comparables, funding history, exit signals, and market appetite.

Deliver clarity

Investment-committee–ready briefs

Our Methodology

THE BRIDGE™ Framework

A shared lens for evaluating life science ventures, whether you’re building one or backing one.

B – Baseline: Get the facts straight

Establish a clear picture of the venture: Science, team, stage, and focus.

Founders: Understand where your company really stands today across science, team, and traction.

Investors: See the venture’s real position on evidence, execution, and future value

R – Review: Test the claims

Check evidence: data, IP filings, market claims, regulatory path.

Founders: Learn which of your statements stand up to evidence and whether they align with market demand.

Investors: Judge credibility by comparing claims against market realities and strategic context.

I – Insight: Pinpoint strengths and gaps

Map strengths, gaps, and key risks in plain language.

Founders: See clearly where you’re strong and where you need to improve to attract capital.

Investors: Understand key risks and potential upsides in plain language.

D – Design: Chart the path forward

Outline actions, costs, and timelines to close priority gaps.

Founders: Define the specific changes in strategy, execution, or materials required to reach investability.

Investors: Assess how far the venture is from investability, what it will take to close the gap, and whether the effort justifies attention.

G – Gate Test: Support execution

Run a light mock diligence or structured Q&A.

Founders: Get practical guidance on sequencing fixes and allocating resources to address gaps.

Investors: See if the venture can follow through on commitments and de-risk execution.

E – Evidence Pack: Package decision-ready outputs

Package findings for a decision.

Founders: Receive an organised data room and investor-ready materials.

Investors: Get a concise diligence brief with clear red/amber/green flags to support decisions.

Case Study

Surgical Robotics Startup

A surgical robotics company developed a compact, cost-efficient system focused on improving precision in image-guided biopsies. The solution was designed to reduce footprint, complexity, and capital intensity, enabling adoption in mid-tier hospitals and emerging markets.

Regenerative Implants at Scale

A European CDMO developed a platform that produces next-generation implants designed to work with the body’s natural healing process. The company’s focus was on providing scalable, off-the-shelf solutions for areas such as cardiovascular repair, orthopaedics, and soft tissue reconstruction. The assessment focused on clinical relevance, scalability, key risks, and long-term positioning within regenerative medicine.