PitchFit is the pitch analyst for pre-seed founders, built on patterns from hundreds of VC partner meetings. Fix what's costing you term sheets before you burn your best intros.
Full analysis in minutes · $49
Slide by slide, claim by claim. With specific fixes for what needs work.
Strong problem identification with room to strengthen solution specificity.
Strengths
Ember's pain point is specific and quantified: independent restaurants lose 4-10% of revenue to food waste. Your personal restaurant experience makes this viscerally credible.
Recommendations
You've validated the problem extensively, but evidence that Ember's specific approach resolves it is thin. Pilot results or before/after metrics would strengthen this.
How is Ember different from MarketMan or BlueCart? Your positioning against existing tools needs sharper differentiation beyond "built by a restaurant owner."
Market sizing needs bottoms-up validation to build investor confidence.
Strengths
Restaurant tech adoption is accelerating post-pandemic. Your timing narrative around labor shortages forcing automation is credible and well-documented.
Recommendations
The $12B restaurant software TAM cites an IBISWorld report. Investors want your math: 660K US independent restaurants × $200/mo × 12 = what addressable number for Ember specifically?
MarketMan, BlueCart, and Toast all play in adjacent spaces. Your competitive matrix exists but doesn't explain why Ember wins against well-funded incumbents.
Clear revenue model with gaps in unit economics understanding.
Strengths
Ember's $149/month SaaS model with annual discount is clearly articulated. Investors understand this path to recurring revenue immediately.
Recommendations
No mention of CAC, LTV, or payback period. Even rough estimates show investors you understand the economics of scaling Ember.
How does Ember's cost structure change at 100 vs 1,000 vs 10,000 restaurants? Show that growth doesn't require proportional cost increases.
Exceptional founder-market fit with authentic problem understanding.
Strengths
Running a restaurant that failed partly due to inventory waste, then validating Ember door-to-door with 40+ owners—this is rare, authentic founder-market fit.
Operations expertise paired with your co-founder's ML background covers both sides of a predictive inventory product effectively.
Recommendations
No advisors mentioned. A restaurant group operator or Toast/Square alumni would add credibility and open distribution channels.
Strong customer discovery but commercial validation is thin.
Strengths
40+ customer interviews with documented pain points. Three restaurants actively testing the beta. This groundwork demonstrates commitment to understanding the market.
Recommendations
"Strong early interest" is too vague. Even $500/month from pilot customers or signed LOIs would dramatically strengthen Ember's traction story.
No testimonials, case studies, or quantified results from beta users. "Restaurant X reduced waste by Y%" would be powerful proof.
Weak financial modeling requiring significant development for investor credibility.
Strengths
Clear understanding of Ember's $8K/month burn rate and 18-month runway target. This basic financial discipline is a positive signal at pre-seed.
Recommendations
Revenue projections lack bottoms-up assumptions. Build models showing customer acquisition rates, churn, and expansion revenue for Ember specifically.
No clear ask amount or use of proceeds. "We're raising $500K to reach 50 paying restaurants" links capital to specific milestones investors can evaluate.
Clean presentation that builds credibility through attention to detail.
Strengths
Logical slide flow from problem → solution → market → team → ask. Transitions feel natural and the narrative builds momentum.
Consistent color palette and spacing throughout Ember's deck. This looks like a company that pays attention to detail.
Recommendations
Three typefaces is one too many. Tighten to two (one for headlines, one for body) for a more polished, cohesive look.
Strong narrative undermined by verbal delivery inconsistencies.
Strengths
Opening with your restaurant closure and the moment you realized inventory was killing margins—this personal narrative earns emotional investment immediately.
Recommendations
"Um" and "like" appear 23 times in 4 minutes (5.75/min), well above the 1-2/min acceptable threshold. Most occur during competitive landscape—practice this section.
Speaking pace drops from 155 WPM in opening to 128 WPM during financials. Maintain energy through the ask—this is where you close.
Record yourself delivering your pitch. Any length, any format, any stage of polish.
See exactly where investors will hesitate across 8 dimensions, with specific fixes for each.
Revise based on specific recommendations, upload again, and track your progress over time.
You don't need a polished pitch. This is how you figure out what to work on.
Your first pitch analysis
$49
Iterating? Additional analyses are $19 each.
Pro launching soon. Today's customers get founding member rates.
No. PitchFit is built on a proprietary evaluation framework trained on patterns from hundreds of real VC conversations. What investors actually say in partner meetings, not what they tell founders. Generic AI gives you generic feedback. PitchFit tells you where VCs will hesitate and why.
Mentors give you their perspective. PitchFit gives you the aggregate perspective: patterns across how investors evaluate pre-seed pitches, what they flag in partner meetings, and what makes them pass. It also catches things mentors are too polite to say, or gaps they've become blind to because they know your story too well. Think of it as a second opinion before your high-stakes meetings.
Your video is stored securely so you can revisit it alongside your analysis. Useful when you're working through feedback slide by slide. We don't share it with anyone or use it to train models. Your fundraising strategy is your business.
Most analyses complete in under 3 minutes. You'll get an email when your report is ready.
You might. And that's useful.
PitchFit isn't here to pat you on the back. That doesn't help you raise. Pre-seed funding is more competitive than it was five years ago, and investors aren't softening their assessments. Neither do we.
Our feedback is direct, actionable, and scoped for where you actually are. We're not comparing you to Series B companies or expecting traction you can't have yet. But within what's reasonable for your stage, we'll tell you what's working and what isn't. Clearly.
If you disagree with a specific point, that's still valuable: it means you should have a ready answer when an investor raises the same concern. The goal isn't a perfect score. It's walking into your next meeting knowing exactly where pushback will come.
PitchFit is built for pre-seed founders preparing for institutional investor conversations. The evaluation framework, the feedback, and the benchmarks are all calibrated for this stage. Not Series A metrics you can't hit yet, and not angel/friends-and-family rounds where the bar is different.
If you're further along, the analysis may still be useful, but you're not who we built this for.
Yes. Additional analyses are $19 each. Most founders submit 2–3 times as they refine their pitch.
If you don't find the analysis actionable, email us within 7 days and tell us why. We'll refund you.
A video of you pitching. This can be a recording of a live pitch, a Loom walking through your deck, or you presenting to camera. We analyze both your content and your delivery, so slides alone won't work.
$49 · Full analysis in minutes