Fundraising Intelligence Research
Fundraising Intelligence Research
What CherryPitch data shows about how investors actually behave. One report a quarter, aggregate and anonymised, drawn from decks founders have run through the product.
Findings are aggregate and anonymized. No company and no individual deck is identifiable in any report.
What Predicts a Meeting, and What Comes After
A curated, well-fit investor list more than doubled replies against a self-sourced one. Warm introductions lifted the first reply and the first meeting, then stopped making a difference once a founder was in the room.
Read the report →What we're studying next
Q3 2026, publishing in October. How often a fund's stated focus differs from where its recent cheques actually went, and what that gap costs a founder who works from the stated version.
How we measure
How we sort decks. Each deck is grouped by how much an investor has to infer. One group states plainly what the company is, how far along it is, and what it is raising. The other leaves at least one of those to be worked out. This measures legibility, not effort.
How we sort matches. Matches are grouped by how much of an investor's own record lines up: the stage they have actually funded, where their recent cheques went, and the cheque sizes they write. A close match has all three. A looser one has fewer.
Progress toward a round. A founder-level milestone: active diligence, verbal interest, or terms in discussion. Counted once per founder.
Every report states its own dataset and scope. Cohorts differ by report and are not directly comparable across quarters.