The Pitch Deck Analyzer gives you investor-grade feedback in minutes — trained on 25,000+ real decks and the investor decisions that followed. Upload yours and get slide-by-slide fundability feedback — stage-calibrated, checking narrative cohesion and cross-checking your claims for contradictions investors will catch. Know exactly where you lose conviction before you ever hit send. Built by 1752vc, a VC firm evaluating 4,000+ startups a year.
Hey Product Hunt 👋
I’m Taissa Maleh from 1752vc — a VC firm and accelerator that evaluates 4,000+ startups a year, which means we’ve seen some decks. The good, the bad, and every kind of “hockey stick” chart you can imagine!
So we built the thing we always wished we could hand founders: a Pitch Deck Analyzer that tells you what investors are really thinking — before you ever hit send. Think of it as a mind reader for the room while they flip through your slides.
We’re almost ready to launch. Follow the page and you’ll be the first to know when we go live!
In the meantime, I’m curious: what’s the one part of your pitch deck you’re least sure about?
We’ll be reading every reply.
MonoCloud for Startups
@tmaleh_ the market size slide. everyone puts a TAM/SAM/SOM breakdown but investors can tell in seconds if you actually understand your market or just pulled numbers from a report. that's the one i'd want the most honest feedback on.
@riya_pariyar I love the market size slide because you're absolutely right - most founders get this horribly wrong, copying and pasting from a report they saw (and don't even source it). The analyzer specifically flags when your market sizing logic has no connective tissue: when the numbers are there but the path from TAM to your actual addressable doesn't exist. That's the kind of information that actually moves the needle when fundraising.
@tmaleh_ @riya_pariyar The market-size slide is such a sharp call-out, Riya - it's one of the fastest credibility tells there is. Investors can spot copy-pasted TAM numbers in seconds, and the analyzer flags exactly that: when the numbers are there but the path from TAM down to your real addressable market has no connective tissue. Thanks for weighing in!
ApyHub
@tmaleh_ This sounds like a really useful tool for founders. Getting honest feedback on a pitch deck before sending it to investors can save so much time and uncertainty.
I especially like the idea of understanding what investors are actually thinking as they go through each slide. Looking forward to seeing the full launch🎉
@gabriella_anjani Thank you! That's exactly the gap we're closing - founders shouldn't have to guess what investors are thinking. Building a scalable startup is hard; this is something we can "control" and solve for. You'll notice the slide-by-slide feedback is not generic - it will sometimes force you to revisit strategy.
@tmaleh_ @gabriella_anjani Thank you, Gabriella! 🙏 Taking the guesswork out of what investors are thinking on each slide is exactly the gap we're closing...founders shouldn't have to guess. Really appreciate the support ahead of launch.
@tmaleh_ One thing I've learned as a founder is that a pitch deck isn't just about telling your story - it's about answering the questions investors are already thinking.
The biggest challenge for me has been finding the right balance between vision and evidence. You know your product inside out, but it's hard to judge whether your deck clearly communicates market opportunity, differentiation, traction etc.
@tmaleh_ @anurag_vasishtha You've put your finger on exactly what the analyzer scores for. Vision without evidence reads as hand-waving; evidence without vision reads as a small idea. It flags the slides where you're asking investors to take a leap with no proof point underneath — and the ones where a strong signal is buried under too much narrative. That balance is where conviction is won or lost.
@tmaleh_ @anurag_vasishtha "A deck isn't just your story... it's answering the questions investors are already thinking." You put it perfectly, Anurag. That balance between vision and evidence is exactly what the analyzer scores for: it flags where you're asking for a leap with no proof underneath, and where a strong signal is buried under too much narrative. Thanks for the thoughtful note!
@tmaleh_ this is very compelling and highly practical tool for founders. During the time I have spent writing Kednus decks/updating to meeting the constant changes/tractions, I’ve found that the hardest part is not explaining the product, but it’s proving, with clarity and evidence, why the opportunity could sometime be urgent, differentiated, scalable, and capable of generating venture-level returns it’s hard to actually know specific investors which be looking for.
I’m particularly interested in how your Pitch Deck Analyzer evaluates narrative cohesion across the entire deck, rather than scoring each slide independently. Does it assess whether the problem, market, traction, competitive advantage, business model, and funding request collectively support one credible investment thesis?
@tmaleh_ @clement_utuk Great question! And yes, that's exactly what the analyzer catches. It doesn't score slides in isolation; it checks whether problem, market, traction, moat, business model, and the ask all ladder up to one coherent pitch. When the through-line breaks — traction that doesn't support the market claim, or a raise that doesn't match your milestones — it flags the disconnect, because that's where investor conviction leaks out. Best of luck with the Kednus deck!
Following. It's not one slide for me, it's the whole thing. The hard part is fitting what my app actually is, how it works, and what makes it different from competitors into a deck without drowning people in slides or packing every slide too full. I could stand on a soapbox and rattle off every feature and why each one sets us apart, but that's not how this game is played. And I have to get all of it across without giving away the secret sauce. Keeping it tight, keeping their attention, and still landing the difference is the piece I struggle with most. Does the analyzer flag when a deck is overloaded, or when it's holding back too much to tell the story?
@worksource Totally get this - and this is exactly what we are building for. The analyzer flags both directions: it calls out slides that are overloaded (too many features/metrics competing for attention) and ones that are holding back so much the story doesn’t land. At pre-seed especially, it’s tuned to protect your through-line—problem, why-you, one proof point—so you can keep the secret sauce and still make the difference obvious. Try it out and tell us what worked and what didn’t—that kind of feedback is gold for us right now.
@worksource The overloaded-vs-holding-back tension is so real... keeping the secret sauce while still landing the difference is genuinely hard. Short answer: yes, it flags both directions. Thanks for the great question, and would love your read once you run a deck through it!
This is especially timely for us as we’re currently fundraising. One thing I’d love the analyzer to assess is whether the raise amount, use of funds, runway, and promised milestones actually form a credible path to the next round. Investors don’t evaluate those points in isolation and they want to see whether the hiring plan, GTM strategy, projections, and funding ask all connect. Does the analyzer stress-test that overall financing logic as well? Looking forward to trying it! 🚀
@robert_markovski2 Great! Investors don't read the ask in isolation; they're testing whether raise amount, runway, milestones, and hiring/GTM plan all connect into a credible path to the next round. The analyzer flags when those pieces don't add up to a fundable story — e.g. a raise that doesn't buy enough runway to hit the milestones you're promising. Would love your read on it once you try it.
@robert_markovski2 Good luck with the raise! 🚀 Whether the ask, runway, milestones, and GTM plan connect into a credible path to the next round is exactly the financing logic the analyzer stress-tests... it flags when the pieces don't add up to a fundable story. Hope it's useful when you run your deck through.
SubSchool
I tried uploading our pitch deck, and the analysis turned out pretty good. For the most part, the analysis highlighted what information was missing, and it’s interesting that the recommendations even took into account that we might simply not have that information at this stage.
One interesting recommendation I received was regarding how we were phrasing the problem, even though I hadn’t initially considered that the phrasing might be misunderstood.
@maksim_mamchur glad it landed that way — stage-awareness was a hard thing to get right. Missing info at pre-seed isn't the same as a gap at Series A, and the analyzer is tuned to weigh it accordingly. The problem-framing flag is one of my favorites: how you phrase the problem quietly sets up everything after it, and it's the easiest thing to get subtly wrong. Thanks for putting it through a real deck.
@maksim_mamchur Thanks for putting a real deck through it, Maksim. The stage-aware feedback and the problem-framing flag are the parts we sweated most, so it's great to hear they landed. How you phrase the problem quietly sets up everything after it, and it's the easiest thing to get subtly wrong.
Caught what I couldn't see in my own deck
Used The Pitch Deck Analyzer on my pre-seed deck, and it did something I didn't expect: it cross-checked my own claims against each other and caught an inconsistency I'd missed — a stat that didn't match what I'd already verified elsewhere in my own materials. That's a much harder problem than generic design feedback, and it's the kind of thing that actually costs you credibility in a real meeting.
Beyond that, it forced honesty on the claims I hadn't stress-tested yet — projections and metrics that sounded fine to me but had no real assumptions behind them. It didn't just say "this is weak," it told me exactly what would make each one defensible.
The critical-vs-quick-wins split was also genuinely useful for triage.
Net result: fewer things in my deck I couldn't defend out loud. That's the actual bar for this kind of tool, and it cleared it.
@nzouat The internal consistency check is one of the things we're most proud of. Founders can fact-check against their sources, but it's hard to catch when two claims in the same deck contradict each other - that's an overlooked but critical tell. It quietly diminishes a founder's credibility and signals they can't juggle multiple things without dropping the ball.
@nzouat Love this write-up, Chris. The internal consistency check catching contradictory claims is one of my favorite parts too... it's a much harder problem than surface-level design feedback, and it's exactly the kind of thing that quietly costs you credibility in the room. "Fewer things you can't defend out loud" is exactly the bar we set it against. Thank you for running a real deck through it.
I used this product to analyze my deck today and was quite impressed with the overall direction and recommendations! It pointed out clearly where the deck is strong and where it needs work with specific feedback on the work slides. It pointed out inconsistencies in LTV numbers across the deck, formatting corrections and how to effectively present the problem, solutions and the visual storytelling. Great product and very useful to vet the deck quickly before pitching to an investor!
Cluing (formerly Collabwriting)
Love tools supported by actual data and not the AI fad. We'll test it out as soon as we get the deck ready 😂
@ralic That's the whole thesis — it's trained on 25,000+ real decks and the investor decisions that followed, not vibes. Send it through the moment your deck's ready; the messier-but-honest draft is actually the most useful version to run it on. Excited to hear what it catches.
@ralic "Data, not the AI fad" — that's the thesis in one line, Ivan. Trained on 25,000+ real decks and the investor decisions that followed. Send yours through the moment it's ready; the messier-but-honest draft is actually the most useful version to run it on. Excited to hear what it catches!