Technical due diligence sounds like something for bankers and lawyers, but a lot of the work sits with engineers. If your company is looking at buying a small product or platform, at some point someone will ask you to look at the code, the infrastructure, and the team and say whether the deal makes sense from a technical side.
In practice you usually want answers to three basic questions:
- What are the main technical risks in this system?
- How do those risks affect what the buyer is paying and expecting?
- What work will the engineering team have to do after closing?
This is a look at those questions for SMB-scale deals from a developer’s point of view.
SMB vs Enterprise: Same Idea, Different Scale
Most public material on tech DD comes from large deals: private equity, corporate roll-ups, multi-region IT. That setup assumes many systems, many teams and months of coordinated work.
A small acquisition is different.
Often there is one core product, a primary codebase and a small engineering team. Instead of working only with a data room, you can usually get read-only access to the repository, to the main cloud account and to monitoring dashboards. You can speak directly with the people who built the system. That makes the work more hands-on and less about documents.
Because the scope is smaller, you go deeper. You read the code and see how it is structured. You look at the data model and how hard it is to change. You trace a feature from commit to production to understand deployment and release. You check what monitoring and alerting is in place and how incidents are handled. You also confirm basic points like IP ownership and key third-party licences.
Time and budget follow this pattern. Enterprise DD can run for months and involve several teams. For SMBs, two to four weeks is common. If the DD budget grows to the size of a full-time salary for a small deal, the process is probably overbuilt.
Integration is narrower too. You are not planning a full IT merger. The questions are more direct: can this product authenticate against your current identity provider, can you move or sync data without rewrites, can you run it alongside your existing stack for a while.
Red flags land differently. In a small company, a single developer holding most of the knowledge, missing IP assignment, or a production setup with no backups can be enough to change or stop the deal. In larger companies, you see broader but more distributed problems: old architectures, mixed security practice, partial compliance. Those often lead to discounts and integration plans rather than an immediate no.
If you are the engineer involved, your main job is to keep the scope honest: small deal, focused DD; and to make sure the findings stay tied to the business decision, not just to technical taste.
Who You Bring In (and Why)
You can do some of this yourself, but many buyers bring in a firm that runs technical DD as their main work. These firms are not all the same. It helps to think in types rather than in brand names.
Some, like MEV, act much like external engineering leads. They read architecture, infrastructure and code, then link what they see to delivery speed, stability and integration effort. They are useful when the main concern is whether the product can support the growth case and how much work it will take to make it fit your environment.
Others have a background in testing and software quality, such as System Verification. They pay attention to coverage, test strategy, environments and release practices. They fit deals where long-term reliability and support cost are central.
In regulated sectors you see firms like Techrivo. They mix technical checks with detailed work on security controls, data handling and process maturity. They are relevant when a mistake does not just lead to downtime but to audits and fines.
Some groups, for example Liberty Advisor Group, look at IT and business together. They connect technical risk to operations and financial exposure. That is useful when the target depends on shared systems like ERP or when the finance team wants a direct link between technical findings and the model.
There are also providers tuned to early-stage companies, such as Upsilon IT, which use structured frameworks to assess team practices, scalability limits and immediate debt; benchmark-oriented firms like Crosslake Technologies that compare what they see with data from many past deals; and engineering-heavy shops like Mad Devs that focus on deep code and infrastructure review.
Beyond that, there are more specific specialists: Vysus Group works in industrial and asset-heavy environments; Zartis often appears in European cross-border deals; VisionX looks closely at AI and ML claims and checks whether the systems behind them are real and maintainable.
The point is simple: decide what sort of risk matters most in your deal—code quality, reliability, compliance, integration, AI, industrial systems—and pick a firm whose normal work lines up with that area.
Read more https://mev.com/blog/top-technical-due-diligence-firms-for-smbs
What a Useful DD Report Looks Like
Whatever firm you work with, the output should help you and your leadership make decisions and plan real work. A large slide deck with vague comments is not enough.
The report should start with a short summary that a non-technical reader can follow. It should say whether anything blocks the deal, which issues change what the buyer should pay, and what needs attention in the first year. If someone on the business side can read only this section and explain it back, it is doing its job.
Each major finding below that should answer four plain questions: what is the issue, why it exists, what it does to the business and what to do about it. For example, if a service cannot scale beyond a certain point, the report should say whether this comes from design, implementation or infrastructure limits, and what that means for the planned customer or data growth.
You will also need rough ranges for effort. Nobody expects exact estimates from a DD team, but it matters a lot whether a fix is measured in weeks or years, and whether you need one engineer or several. Without ranges, you cannot connect findings to valuation or to post-deal staffing.
A good report also suggests order. It should be clear which issues need work in the first ninety days, which belong in a one-year plan and which can wait. Many teams use the report as a starting point for their roadmap.
Finally, the report should show how the conclusions were reached. References to parts of the codebase, infrastructure diagrams, log samples and notes from interviews make it possible for your own engineers to verify and extend the work later.
Here is a simple test for any DD report:
- you can turn its findings into concrete tickets,
- you can see how those tickets link back to cost and risk,
- you can trace each major claim back to some piece of evidence.
Working With a DD Provider
Even a strong provider will produce weak results if the engagement is set up badly. Three things matter most: objectives, access and communication.
Start by writing down what you need to decide. Common examples: can the platform handle the growth in the business case, are there any security or compliance gaps that would block use, and will integration into your stack cost more than planned. Share this with the provider and ask them to frame the work and the report around these points.
Next, organise access. For small deals this usually means read-only access to the main repository, to cloud accounts or dashboards, to incident and uptime records and to the people who know how the system behaves. If the provider only sees prepared slides and policy documents, you will get generic output.
Finally, agree on how you will talk during the engagement. Short, regular check-ins let you catch misalignment early. If they are spending days on a component you plan to replace soon after closing, you can redirect them.
Throughout, ask them to keep translating into business terms. For each major issue, ask what it does to valuation, operating cost and integration timing. That is the layer your leadership will use when making decisions.
Three questions help when you are choosing or steering a provider:
- How will your findings change our model or integration plan?
- Who on your team has built and run systems similar to this target?
- What should our engineering team do differently in the first ninety days after closing because of this report?
If they can answer those clearly, the work they produce is more likely to be useful to both engineers and the rest of the company.
Top comments (0)