Connect the model to the complete diligence story.
Colabra helps the buy-side team keep the evidence, findings, and open questions behind an investment work product together. Choose it when the model needs to sit within a broader review of contracts, management evidence, and commercial assumptions, with the resulting conclusions carried into the investment memo.
Keep assumptions grounded
Connect material findings to the evidence that informs the model.
Follow up on missing support
Keep unresolved questions visible before accepting a management adjustment.
Align the investment narrative
Carry reviewed findings into the memo alongside the financial work product.
Keep the model where it works; evaluate the evidence workflow around it.
Excel may remain the appropriate place for a detailed financial model. The comparison is whether a workbook and your existing document process adequately preserve source evidence, assumptions, questions, and review decisions. Colabra should be assessed on the work it improves around the model, not on a claim that spreadsheets cannot analyze data.
Excel
Excel provides spreadsheet modeling, analysis, formulas, and collaborative workflows. Microsoft also offers Copilot-assisted data analysis, including answers linked to supporting data.
Excel product documentationReviewed 9 September 2026
Colabra
Colabra is an AI workspace for M&A due diligence, organized around deal files, review requirements, findings, requests, and reports. Its focus is helping buy-side teams turn sell-side material into source-linked findings, financial models, and investment memos.
Explore the Colabra workflow →Where each approach fits
Consider Excel when…
The main job is detailed spreadsheet modeling and the team already maintains a clear evidence and review process. Keep the model where analysts can inspect formulas, assumptions, and sensitivities efficiently.
Consider Colabra when…
The model is one part of a broader review that also needs document evidence, questions, and accepted conclusions. Evaluate the surrounding diligence workflow and the work required to keep the model and memo consistent.
Using them together
Use an explicit handoff between source evidence, reviewed assumptions, model versions, and the memo. Identify who approves an adjustment and who updates the workbook. Do not assume that changing an input automatically updates every related conclusion.
Three tasks to bring to the pilot
Use a revenue schedule, an earnings bridge, a contract affecting revenue, and the current Excel model. Give both workflows the same scope, access, and expected deliverable: a reconciled adjustment with a model sensitivity and memo explanation. Have the people who will own the work perform the review.
- 01
Reconcile a model input to the source
Choose a revenue adjustment and follow it from a source schedule into the model formula and memo. Ask a different analyst to repeat the calculation and explain each assumption without help from the original author.
- 02
Change a supporting document
Replace a source schedule with an updated version and identify affected assumptions, charts, and conclusions. Measure the reconciliation effort rather than treating a workbook recalculation as proof that the whole review is current.
- 03
Test the handoff package
Give the final workbook and supporting memo to a reviewer who did not build them. Ask them to locate unresolved assumptions and distinguish hard-coded values from derived calculations. Include the time needed to reconstruct context in your comparison.
Judge the reviewed result
Agree the acceptance criteria before the demonstration. Record the evidence behind each assessment so the decision can be revisited after the pilot.
| Criterion | Question to answer | How to check |
|---|---|---|
| Evidence quality | Can a reviewer locate the controlling source and explain how it supports the exact conclusion? | Record unsupported statements, incorrect references, and ambiguity that the output hides. A source link is useful only if the source substantiates the claim. |
| Coverage and exceptions | Can the team tell what was reviewed, what failed to process, and what is still missing? | Seed a missing attachment and an unreadable file. The reviewer should distinguish incomplete evidence from a clean result and know what to request next. |
| Revision and handoff | Can another person challenge the finding and update the work after new evidence arrives? | Repeat one material change. Count the places that need manual updates and check whether the new memo still agrees with the supporting analysis. |
| Operating effort | How much setup, specialist review, administration, and coordination does the completed task require? | Measure total reviewer time through an accepted deliverable. Include correction and handoff time, not only time to the first generated draft. |
Use a simple result for each criterion: demonstrated, requires configuration, or unresolved. Do not turn an unanswered question into a feature claim. Ask for a follow-up demonstration when a material requirement remains unresolved.
Inside the work product
Explore a
diligence review
Browse a sample investment committee memo, the findings behind it, and the requests that move the review forward.
Investment team · Working review
Investment committee memo
Executive view
Resolve the earnings adjustment and currency difference before finalizing the investment case. Keep customer consent visible in the closing discussion.
Matters for attention
Earnings adjustment
The adjustment combines remediation with support. Separate ongoing costs before accepting the full add-back.
Management earnings bridge · note 4Currency reconciliation
The stated rate implies $1,296,000, leaving a $24,000 difference to explain.
Revenue schedule · European subsidiaryCustomer consent
Confirm whether the proposed transaction triggers consent before relying on the contract at close.
Acme customer agreement · §12.3Evidence reviewed
- Management earnings bridge
- Subsidiary revenue schedules
- Key customer agreements
Source-linked findings
Risk register
Earnings adjustment
The adjustment combines remediation with support. Separate ongoing costs before accepting the full add-back.
Inspect the source
$230,000 cybersecurity remediation and support included in adjusted EBITDA.Management earnings bridge · note 4
Currency reconciliation
The stated rate implies $1,296,000, leaving a $24,000 difference to explain.
Inspect the source
EUR revenue: €1,200,000. Translation rate: 1.08 USD/EUR. Consolidated amount: $1,320,000.Revenue schedule · European subsidiary
Customer consent
Confirm whether the proposed transaction triggers consent before relying on the contract at close.
Inspect the source
Assignment, including by change of control, requires prior written consent.Acme customer agreement · §12.3
Outstanding evidence
Seller request list
Earnings adjustment
Provide invoices and the statement of work, separating one-time remediation from recurring support.
Currency reconciliation
Provide the translation-rate policy and reconciliation for the $24,000 difference.
Customer consent
Provide written consent or confirm the status of the customer discussion.
When the response arrives
Review the supporting document against the original question, then update the finding and the review conclusion.
Compare the cost of the complete workflow
Start with licenses and services already in place. Add implementation, permitted usage, storage, external reviewers, specialist review, support, and the internal time needed to maintain the process. Request a written quote for your actual configuration; a generic seat price will not describe every deployment.
Before the pilot
Confirm the product edition, available connections, document limits, access roles, and who can configure the workflow. Agree which sample material is authorized for the evaluation and which deliverables the reviewers must produce.
Before adoption
Review the proposed data handling, retention, access, and contractual arrangements. Test export and handoff with the people who will own the deal record after close. Include source references and unresolved questions in that final package.
Compare total effort through the first accepted result and one meaningful revision. If your existing workflow performs well, keeping it is a valid outcome. If another approach wins, identify the specific task it improves and the changes needed to make that improvement repeatable.