Is Colabra right for your team?
Choose Colabra when the review needs a dedicated home.
Choose Colabra when the review needs a dedicated home.
Colabra is built for buy-side teams turning sell-side material into source-linked findings, financial models, and investment memos. It is a strong candidate when recurring diligence requires coordination across evidence, reviewers, and changing conclusions, and your team wants to organize that work around the deal.
A clear job to do
Turn the target’s files into reviewed findings and investment deliverables.
A connected review
Keep requirements, evidence, findings, and open questions in the diligence workflow.
An inspectable result
Give reviewers the supporting context needed to challenge and refine the investment case.
Use Colabra when the deal workflow itself needs a dedicated home.
A single document question, a small one-off review, or a process already working well in existing tools may not justify a separate workspace. A team that needs professional legal or financial advice must still engage the appropriate specialists. Evaluate the product when evidence, questions, and conclusions are becoming difficult to keep aligned across people and revisions.
Who Colabra is for
Colabra is designed around M&A due diligence: organizing deal evidence, review requirements, findings, requests, and investment work products. The best fit depends on recurring workflow needs and the people responsible for review.
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 your existing process when…
Your existing tools already support the review, the workload is occasional, or the core problem is missing evidence or specialist judgment. A dedicated workspace is useful only if it addresses an identifiable part of the work.
Consider Colabra when…
You repeatedly coordinate diligence across people, documents, and changing conclusions, and an accountable team member can own the review process. Evaluate the product on a representative task before changing the wider operating model.
Using them together
Start with a bounded workstream while preserving the tools that serve the team well. Agree which record is authoritative and which reviewer accepts the output. Expand only when the pilot demonstrates a practical improvement.
Three tasks to bring to the pilot
Use one recurring diligence task, the current tools, the required deliverable, and the people responsible for approving it. Give both workflows the same scope, access, and expected deliverable: a side-by-side comparison of reviewed outcomes and operating effort. Have the people who will own the work perform the review.
- 01
Identify the bottleneck before choosing a tool
Describe the last diligence task that consumed avoidable effort. If the issue was missing seller evidence, unavailable expertise, or an unresolved commercial decision, software alone will not remove it. Identify the specific coordination or analytical work a workspace could improve.
- 02
Check whether there is an operating owner
Name the person who will maintain the review structure, approve findings, and ensure the team uses the agreed process. Without an owner, adding software may create another incomplete record rather than improving the existing one.
- 03
Run a small, meaningful comparison
Choose one recurring review and compare Colabra with the process you already use. Include setup, review, revisions, and handoff. Adopt only if the result improves the work enough to justify switching and ongoing use.
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.