CherryPitch vs Crunchbase
Crunchbase and CherryPitch both start from investor data. What happens next is the whole difference. Crunchbase hands you the data and leaves the judgement to you. CherryPitch does the judgement and hands you a short list with the reasoning attached.
What Crunchbase does well
Crunchbase is a large, general database of companies, investors and funding rounds. It is the right tool for market research: mapping a landscape, tracking who funded a competitor, checking whether a firm has been active lately. Breadth is the point, and it delivers breadth.
Where the two part company
A search returns everyone who could theoretically be relevant. Somebody still has to work out which of them are worth six weeks of your life, and with a general database that somebody is you.
That work is not quick. For each firm you would need its real stage behaviour rather than its stated one, its recent check sizes, whether it still leads, and whether anything in its history rhymes with your company. Doing that honestly for eighty firms takes longer than most founders have, which is why most founder lists end up sorted by sector and stage, the two filters that fail last.
CherryPitch does that work and gives you the output: a short list where every name carries a written reason drawn from that investor's own record.
The difference
| Crunchbase | CherryPitch | |
|---|---|---|
| What you get | A searchable database | A short list built for one company |
| Who does the filtering | You | We do |
| Why a name is on your list | You worked it out | Written for you, traceable to that investor's record |
| Built for | Anyone researching private markets | A founder raising now |
Which to use
If you are mapping a market, tracking funding in your sector, or checking a firm's history, use Crunchbase. It is better at that than we are and we are not trying to replace it.
If you are raising now and the question is which twenty names deserve your next six weeks, that is the question CherryPitch was built to answer.