Technical due diligence is often treated as a formality, a checklist item after the term sheet handled by whichever engineer has a spare afternoon. That is a mistake for investors, who inherit risks no pitch deck shows, and for founders, who miss a chance to turn engineering maturity into an advantage.
I recently read iAastha's article on technical due diligence for investors, and its framing is the clearest I have seen. Good diligence is not a code-quality audit for its own sake. It answers three questions that map directly to investment risk.
The three questions
- Can the product scale with the growth the business plan assumes?
- Can the team maintain and extend it, including people not yet hired?
- How much lives in one person's head instead of in the system?
Those matter more than any individual code smell. A slightly messy codebase from a team that ships fast, tests critical paths and documents decisions is a better bet than pristine code with no tests, no CI and one founder who is the only person able to deploy.
Red flags worth weighting
- No automated tests on paths that touch money or user data (checkout, auth, fund movement), even if overall coverage is low.
- A single point of failure in people or access.
- Infrastructure costs that will multiply once growth accelerates.
For founders
Prepare weeks ahead. Write down architecture decisions, make deploys boring and repeatable, spread knowledge across the team, and know your cost curve. Diligence then becomes a conversation where you demonstrate control, not a test you hope to survive.
If you are on either side of a funding round, the full piece, Technical Due Diligence: What Investors Actually Need to Know, is a practical framework you can use immediately.
Top comments (0)