Give recurring diligence a dedicated workflow.
Colabra brings the structure of M&A diligence to AI-assisted work: deal files, review requirements, findings, requests, and reports. Choose it when the team needs a shared process for producing source-linked findings, financial models, and investment memos across successive deals.
Begin with the diligence structure
Organize the work around the review your team is responsible for delivering.
Keep the evidence with the conclusion
Connect findings to supporting material and retain the outstanding questions that affect confidence in the result.
Make the output the working surface
Work toward models and memos that reviewers can inspect and improve as the deal develops.
Define the exact Google product before comparing workflows
A capable enterprise assistant can analyze files, generate work products, and connect to tools. The case for a dedicated workspace must therefore rest on practical workflow value: the structure, review process, and ongoing operating effort needed for recurring diligence.
Google Gemini
Google offers Gemini within its enterprise productivity environment and broader enterprise AI offerings. Workspace assistance and separate enterprise agent products have different scopes and purchasing requirements.
Google Gemini 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 Google Gemini when…
Your organization already has a capable enterprise assistant, approved connections, and people who can maintain reusable instructions and review practices. Start there as a serious baseline. Its breadth can be valuable across tasks well beyond M&A.
Consider Colabra when…
Recurring deal work benefits from an agreed structure for evidence, review requirements, findings, and deliverables. Assess whether that structure reduces setup and coordination effort enough to justify a dedicated workspace alongside existing AI licenses.
Using them together
Define which system owns the accepted deal record. An enterprise assistant can remain useful for general work, but transferring a conclusion into diligence should include its supporting evidence, assumptions, and review status rather than only the generated prose.
Three tasks to bring to the pilot
Use a messy deal folder, an approved checklist, a source spreadsheet, and a memo template, using the connections your tenant actually permits. Give both workflows the same scope, access, and expected deliverable: a source-supported finding, a calculation, and a memo a second reviewer can revise. Have the people who will own the work perform the review.
- 01
Use your actual enterprise configuration
Identify whether the pilot uses Gemini in Workspace, the Gemini app, or a separate enterprise agent offering. Record the license, available connections, and administrative setup so the comparison can be reproduced.
- 02
Test continuity across people and revisions
Use a Drive folder, a spreadsheet, and a draft memo in the team’s normal process. Ask another reviewer to trace a material conclusion and repeat the analysis after a revised source arrives.
- 03
Measure what must be maintained
Have an internal operator modify a review requirement and repeat the workflow without vendor preparation. Track configuration effort, permissions review, error handling, and the time needed to verify the final output. Include existing licenses in the cost baseline.
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.