AI ERP with agents inside the systems you run
AI phone and voice agents for real calls
LLM.coPrivate, self-hosted LLM deployments
Legal AI infrastructure for firms
AI RFP discovery and response drafting
Automatic.coBusiness process automation
CyberAttack.aiThreat detection and defense
Secure AI virtual data rooms10 business days
To start a VC software engagement
Scoping through first sprint
100%
Senior engineers, US-based
No offshore handoff on fund or LP data
Every sprint
Working software on a preview URL
Not a deck between quarterly reports
100%
Code and infrastructure you own
From the first commit
Where the work actually is
The systems a venture fund actually runs on
Almost none of this is exotic engineering. It's the unglamorous systems of record — pipeline, portfolio, LPs, documents, relationships — done well enough that the partners trust the numbers without checking a spreadsheet behind them.
Deal flow and pipeline tracking
Sourcing, screening, and stage tracking for every company that crosses the fund's desk, with the scoring criteria and reminders your partners actually use rather than a generic sales-CRM pipeline stretched to fit venture terminology it wasn't built for.
Portfolio monitoring
Revenue, burn, runway, and headcount pulled from portfolio companies on whatever cadence your fund reports on, into one dashboard instead of a folder of inconsistent spreadsheets emailed in on different days of the month.
LP reporting
Capital call notices, distribution notices, and quarterly reports, with a portal where an LP can see their own commitment and NAV history without a phone call to investor relations — built to whatever format your LP agreements actually require.
Data rooms and diligence workspaces
Secure document sharing for a raise or an acquisition process, with access control, watermarking, and a record of who opened what and when, because that record is the thing people actually ask for after a deal, not before.
CRM for relationship intelligence
Tracking warm introductions, co-investor relationships, and founder relationships as a graph rather than a contact list, so a partner can see who at the firm actually knows a company before a cold outbound email goes out.
Data-provider integrations
Company and market data pulled automatically from Crunchbase, PitchBook, CB Insights, or a similar provider into the pipeline, instead of an associate re-typing a funding round or a headcount number that's already sitting in an API somewhere.
Build vs. buy
When a vendor platform is the right call, and where custom earns its place
Affinity, DealCloud, Carta, and Allvue between them cover a lot of what a fund needs, and for a lot of firms that's genuinely the right answer. The honest question isn't whether to use them — it's what's left once you do, and whether that gap is worth building for.
Vendor platforms solve the common case well
Relationship-graph CRM, cap table management, and fund administration are mature categories with real vendors who've solved the general version of the problem. Rebuilding what they already do well rarely returns more than it costs.
Custom work earns its place at the firm-specific edge
A scoring rubric unique to your thesis, an LP report format a specific institutional investor requires, a portfolio dashboard that matches how your partners actually think about a company — these are the parts no vendor built for your fund specifically, because they can't.
Integration is real work either way
Buying a platform doesn't remove the integration problem — connecting it to your data provider, your fund administrator, and whatever your partners still track by hand is still a project. Underestimating that layer is the most common reason a vendor rollout takes longer than the sales call implied.
Emerging and solo-GP funds get the most from targeted work
A smaller fund without an internal ops team generally gets more value from a well-scoped custom tool solving one real bottleneck than from a full platform license priced for a firm three times its size, with modules nobody on the team will touch.
In practice it's almost always a mix
Most firms run a vendor CRM or fund administrator for the commodity work and build custom for the specific reporting, monitoring, or diligence workflow that's actually slowing partners down. The mistake is treating it as an all-or-nothing decision instead of deciding tool by tool.
What's involved
Venture capital software engagement types
What moves the scope is less the feature list than how many systems the build has to reconcile — your existing pipeline tool, a data provider's API, a fund administrator's exports, and whatever your partners still track by hand.
| Engagement | Commitment | Timeline | What's included |
|---|---|---|---|
| Systems and data audit | Fixed scope | 1 – 3 weeks | Map what your fund actually tracks today — spreadsheets, a CRM, a data provider — and where it breaks down, into a costed build plan. |
| Deal flow and pipeline platform | Fixed scope | 8 – 14 weeks | Sourcing, scoring, and stage tracking built around your process, wired to a data provider so company and market data populate automatically. |
| Portfolio monitoring and LP reporting portal | Fixed scope | 10 – 16 weeks | KPI collection from portfolio companies, an LP-facing portal for commitments and NAV, and capital call and distribution notices in your format. |
| Data room and diligence workspace | Fixed scope | 6 – 10 weeks | Secure document sharing with role-based access, watermarking, expiring links, and an audit trail of who opened what. |
| Ongoing platform support | Ongoing retainer | Ongoing | A team that keeps data-provider integrations current and the platform running as your fund's process and portfolio grow. |
Ranges assume US-based senior engineers and include the access-control and audit-logging work that a diligence or LP-facing system needs from the start. A systems and data audit in front of any of these usually pays for itself by catching which integrations are actually worth building before the rest is scoped.
Confidential by default
Diligence and LP data need access control built in, not bolted on
A data room or an LP portal is holding information people are actively deciding whether to trust you with. The architecture decisions below are the ones that get asked about after a deal or an audit, not before.
Every document view needs a real audit trail
A diligence dispute or an LP inquiry will ask who opened a specific document, when, and from where. That log has to exist from the first upload, written to a store the application itself can't quietly rewrite after the fact.
Expiring links and watermarking
A document shared for one diligence process shouldn't still be openly accessible a year later, and a watermark traceable to the recipient is a cheap deterrent against a leak that's otherwise hard to trace back to anyone.
Access scoped to role and deal stage, not convenience
An LP should see their own commitment and NAV, not the whole fund's. An associate should see the pipeline they're assigned to. Role-based permissions that reflect that — rather than a shared login because it was faster to set up — are what an LP or auditor actually checks.
Data-provider licensing terms shape the architecture
Crunchbase, PitchBook, and similar providers license their data under terms that constrain how long you can cache it and whether you can redisplay it outside your own tool. Reading that agreement before designing the integration avoids a rebuild later.
Encryption at rest and in transit is the baseline
Deal and LP financial data encrypted end to end is the expected floor for a system like this, not a feature worth marketing — the differentiation is in the access control and logging built around it.
Portfolio companies
We also build for the companies in your portfolio
A fund's software needs are only half of what this page covers. A portfolio company — especially pre-seed through Series A, before it has its own engineering leadership — often needs the same thing a fund's LPs are asking the fund for: proof the product works, built fast enough to matter before the next round.
A build partner without an internal team yet
Early-stage companies frequently need to ship before they've hired an engineering team of their own. We work as that team on a fixed scope, handing over a codebase built to be picked up by whoever they hire next, not one that only makes sense to us.
Code ownership matters more under diligence
A startup's next round includes technical diligence, and a codebase that's fully owned from the first commit — no vendor lock-in, no license that complicates an IP question — is one less thing to explain to an investor's technical reviewer.
Fixed-scope work toward a specific milestone
An MVP for a fundraise, a feature set for a renewal conversation with an anchor customer, an integration a term sheet is conditional on — portfolio-company engagements tend to be scoped against a real deadline, not an open-ended roadmap.
Handoff-ready once the company hires its own team
When a portfolio company brings on its first engineers, the goal is a codebase and documentation they can pick up without a long ramp-up explaining decisions nobody wrote down — the same standard we'd want handed to us.
How an engagement runs
From a systems audit to a platform your team can run
The first phase maps what your fund or portfolio company actually runs on today — which spreadsheets, which vendor tools, which data provider — because that determines what's worth building versus integrating, and it usually changes the scope from whatever was assumed before anyone looked. The weeks after build the pipeline, monitoring, reporting, or diligence tooling against real data, with the access control and audit logging built in rather than added before launch. Handover includes the codebase, integration documentation for every data provider or vendor tool involved, and a system your team — or your portfolio company's — can run without calling us for every change.
Related
Related
A fund's tooling touches relationship data, reporting, and integrations at once. These pages go deeper on each.
Questions
Frequently asked questions
What teams ask before a first call.
Most commonly: deal flow and pipeline tracking, portfolio monitoring dashboards, LP reporting portals, data rooms for diligence and fundraising, and integrations that pull company data from a provider like Crunchbase or PitchBook straight into the pipeline instead of manual entry.
Which of these is worth building versus buying depends on what your fund already runs on. A systems and data audit is usually the fastest way to find out before committing to anything larger.
A systems and data audit is the smallest engagement; a deal flow platform, a portfolio monitoring and LP reporting portal, and a data room build are each larger, and how many outside systems the build has to reconcile against moves the number more than the feature list does. The table above sets out the shapes.
A fund integrating one data provider into a pipeline tool is a smaller project than one rebuilding LP reporting, portfolio monitoring, and diligence workflows at once. A scoping call gets you a real figure quickly.
Yes — pulling company and market data automatically into a pipeline or portfolio tool is one of the more common requests we get from funds. The integration has to respect the provider's own licensing terms around caching and redisplay, which we read before designing anything rather than assuming.
If your fund uses a less common or proprietary data source, the same approach applies: confirm what the API or export actually exposes before scoping the build around it.
Both, and it's a meaningful part of what we do in this space. A fund's own tooling — pipeline, monitoring, LP reporting — is one half; the other is acting as a fast, fixed-scope build partner for a portfolio company that needs to ship a product before its next round or before it has its own engineering team.
Those are different engagements with different owners, but the same standard applies to both: code you own from the first commit, and a system whoever inherits it can actually run.
With access control and audit logging built into the architecture from the start, not added before launch. Every document view gets logged — who, what, when — LPs see only their own commitment and NAV, and diligence documents can carry expiring links and watermarking traceable to the recipient.
This matters more here than in most software categories, because a diligence dispute or an LP audit will ask for exactly this kind of record, and reconstructing it after the fact is a much worse position than having it already there.
Buy when the vendor's relationship-graph CRM or pipeline tool covers your actual process — for a lot of funds, especially without a dedicated ops function, that's the more sustainable answer, since maintaining a custom platform after launch is its own ongoing cost.
Build custom where your scoring rubric, your pipeline stages, or your reporting format are genuinely specific to how your fund invests and a vendor tool can't be configured to match. Most firms end up with a mix rather than an all-or-nothing choice.
Capital call and distribution notices in whatever format your LP agreements specify, a portal where an LP can see their own commitment and NAV history without contacting investor relations directly, and quarterly reporting pulled from the same underlying data your portfolio monitoring already tracks, so the two never quietly disagree.
The format requirements vary by LP class and by fund, which is usually the first thing a scoping conversation has to pin down before any of the reporting logic gets built.
A dedicated data room or diligence workspace build typically runs six to ten weeks, covering secure document sharing, role-based access, watermarking, expiring links, and the audit trail of who opened what. The variable that moves that range is how many distinct access levels — LP class, deal stage, external counsel — the system has to support.
A systems and data audit up front usually clarifies which of those access patterns your fund actually needs versus which ones are theoretical, which keeps the build from being scoped wider than it has to be.