Give the files a path to an investment decision.
Colabra is built for the analytical work that turns a sell-side folder into a buy-side conclusion. Connect evidence to review requirements, material findings, and follow-up questions, then carry the result into models and memos. Choose it when the challenge is organizing the review across the files and the people using them.
Organize the review
Keep the buyer’s questions and requirements alongside the supporting material.
Surface the work still open
Make missing support and unresolved findings part of the diligence record.
Carry the context into the memo
Give reviewers an investment work product with the evidence needed to understand its conclusions.
Compare the VDR plan actually being proposed
Existing content infrastructure can be the right foundation when the review is straightforward and well controlled. Adding a diligence workspace should reduce real coordination or analytical work. Start with the tools and licenses already available, including their AI features.
ShareFile
ShareFile offers a dedicated virtual data room product with controlled document access and transaction-sharing features. It should be evaluated separately from a generic file-sharing configuration.
ShareFile 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 ShareFile when…
The team primarily needs file sharing and collaboration, with a manageable volume of review and a reliable existing issue process. Include supported AI features and administrative controls in the baseline. Familiarity and low setup effort are legitimate advantages.
Consider Colabra when…
The difficult work is connecting files to questions, conclusions, and deliverables across reviewers and repeated updates. Evaluate the additional workspace by the coordination and analytical effort it removes, while retaining the content system where it remains useful.
Using them together
Keep a clear source-of-record policy. Define whether files are linked, copied, or otherwise connected in the proposed setup, who handles replacements, and how permissions and references are checked at handoff. Demonstrate the actual integration rather than assuming automatic synchronization.
Three tasks to bring to the pilot
Use a shared deal folder, restricted adviser access, a source replacement, an open issue list, and a draft review memo. Give both workflows the same scope, access, and expected deliverable: an accepted findings record with stable, understandable source references. Have the people who will own the work perform the review.
- 01
Test the actual content and access setup
Create a bidder and adviser group in the proposed VDR plan and test access, download restrictions, and a shared document’s lifecycle. Confirm the required features belong to that configuration.
- 02
Follow a source through a changed conclusion
Follow a reviewed source into the buyer’s report and then replace it. Evaluate how the team detects and handles the change across the room and its analytical tools.
- 03
Evaluate the exit as well as the setup
At the end of the pilot, export the reviewed work and ask another teammate to locate its sources. Check the archive, links, and access after the temporary deal group is removed. The final record should remain useful to the team that owns it.
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.