How to choose a GTM due diligence provider
Every credible GTM or sales due diligence offer has the same shape. Use it as a checklist to judge any provider, including us: questions and red flags.
By Semir Jahic
/ 8 min read
Ask three firms for a go-to-market review and the proposals look different: a strategy firm's deck, a boutique's one-pager, a tool's dashboard. Past the branding, every credible offer has the same shape. A named scorecard. Evidence from the records and from interviews. A risk and opportunity report with a plan. Two to four weeks. Some form of benchmark. That shape is the most useful thing to know about how to choose a GTM due diligence provider, because it gives you a checklist that works on any of them, including us. Below: the shape, the questions that separate a provider who reads the CRM from one who reads the deck, and where a new practice such as ours is weaker.
What do credible GTM diligence offers have in common?
They share five parts. A named scorecard of four to a few dozen areas, each scored on a scale. Evidence from the data room and the company's own CRM records, plus one to two days of interviews from leadership to the front line. A risk and opportunity report with a 100-day plan. Delivery in two to four weeks. And benchmarking against earlier engagements or public reference points.
The sameness is not a weakness; it is what a deal team can use inside an exclusivity window. Strategy firms, Big Four teams, specialist boutiques and operator-led practices all fit the shape. The differences sit underneath it: who reads what, who talks to whom, and what the report shows.
Why does what sits underneath the shape matter more?
Because two providers with identical proposals can be scoring different things. One works from the management presentation and three executive interviews, and scores the story. The other works from the raw CRM extract with stage history and talks to the people who enter the records, and scores the engine.
Three questions decide which one you are buying. Do they ask for a read-only export of every opportunity with stage history, or for a pipeline summary? Do they rebuild forecast accuracy from historical snapshots, or accept the stated figure? Do they interview account executives and development reps, or stop at the CRO?
Leadership describes the process as designed; the front line describes it as run. That gap is a finding in itself, and a provider who skips the front line cannot see it. What GTM due diligence checks covers why the records matter more than the slides, and testing a forecast in a week shows what a clean extract allows.
Which questions should you ask a sales due diligence provider?
Ten questions, asked before the proposal arrives, tell you most of what you need. The table sets out what a good answer sounds like and what should worry you.
| Criterion | What good looks like | Red flag |
|---|---|---|
| Scorecard | Named areas with written anchors per score, published | A "proprietary framework" whose anchors are never shown |
| Evidence | Raw CRM export with stage history and forecast snapshots, rebuilt by the provider | Pipeline figures taken from the management deck |
| Interviews | CEO to front line, including account executives and development reps | Executives only, or a questionnaire |
| Who does the work | A named senior person reads the records and runs the interviews | A partner sells, juniors deliver |
| Method and price | Both published before the first call | No fee basis before scoping, method on request |
| Data and AI | NDA first, read-only exports, names coded, no training on your data, deletion confirmed in writing | "We use AI", with no provider, terms or deletion date |
| Conflicts | No fee from the target, no software sold, referral fees disclosed | Recommends tools it resells or is paid to place |
| Report | A sample exists; each score carries its evidence and a deal consequence | A deck of observations with no verdict |
| Scope | Says plainly what it does not do | Promises market sizing and customer surveys in three weeks |
| Benchmarks | Named public sources with year and size band; own base quoted with its size | "Our proprietary database", size and labels withheld |
One row deserves a word. A seller who hears a junior question in an interview gives a junior answer, so the seniority of the interviewer sets the quality of the evidence.
Where is a new practice weaker, and what makes up for it?
A new practice has no benchmark base of its own yet, and it should say so. If a provider's main claim is the size of its database, a new entrant loses that comparison.
The method makes up for it in two ways. First, most of the scoring needs no benchmark. Forecast accuracy, pipeline coverage after removing stale deals, slipped close dates and the spread of quota attainment are read against the company's own plan and history. A forecast that missed by 25% for four quarters is a finding whatever the industry median is.
Second, where an outside reference helps, it comes from a named public study with the year and company-size band stated, labelled as such. Where no verifiable figure exists, the report says "no reliable benchmark" rather than passing off a vendor's rule of thumb as a median. Ask any provider the same: how large is the base, which size band, and how are vendor figures labelled? A large base whose owner will not show its labels is not obviously better than a small one whose owner will.
How does our method score against the checklist?
It meets the checklist with two gaps. The scorecard is ten areas scored 1 to 5 against written anchors, with a Proceed, Adjust or Stop verdict; the anchors are on the method page. The evidence is an eight-quarter CRM extract for Deal DD, four quarters for a Health Check, rebuilt from the raw records, plus interviews from the CEO to the front line. Every score cites the record or the conversation it rests on, and the total is a guide: the operator's judgement decides the verdict.
One senior operator reads the records, runs the interviews and signs every score; AI does the counting. The output is the scorecard, the reasoning behind each score, a 100-day plan and a benchmarking page, and for Deal DD a risk register that ties each finding to price, structure or a condition. The sample report shows the format.
Price and time are published: Deal DD for GTM is CHF 20,000 in 15 working days, the GTM Health Check CHF 8,000 in five. Data is handled under your NDA as read-only exports, with customer names coded where practical, a named AI provider whose terms exclude training on client data, and deletion confirmed in writing. We take no fee from the target, sell no software, and disclose any referral interest or link to the deal before you decide. Market sizing and customer surveys are out of scope.
The two gaps: there is no own score base yet, so it starts with the first engagements and is quoted only once it is large enough to mean something. And the scoring thresholds are working figures, to be calibrated on the first engagements. If you are comparing providers for a live deal, book 30 minutes with me and bring the proposal you are least sure about.
Key takeaways
- Every credible GTM or sales due diligence offer has the same five-part shape; use it as the checklist.
- The difference sits underneath: raw CRM extract or management deck, front line or executives only.
- Ask who does the work by name, and whether method and price are published before the scoping call.
- Data and AI handling should be specific: NDA, read-only exports, coded names, no training, confirmed deletion.
- A small benchmark base is a weakness a provider should admit; the company's own records need no benchmark.
Frequently asked questions
What is the difference between GTM due diligence and sales due diligence?
Little in practice. Sales due diligence usually means the sales team and its pipeline. GTM due diligence adds marketing, customer success, tooling and the operating model around them. Both test whether the revenue plan can be delivered. Ask which functions are scored rather than which label is used.
How much should GTM due diligence cost?
It depends on depth, team and brand, and many providers price after a scoping call. Ours are fixed and published: CHF 20,000 for Deal DD for GTM in 15 working days and CHF 8,000 for a GTM Health Check in five. Ask for the fee before the call, and for how much of your team's time it needs.
Can an automated tool replace a diligence provider?
Partly. A tool can rebuild coverage, stage ageing and slipped deals from an export in hours, and that counting should be automated. It cannot interview a seller, judge whether the evidence matches a written anchor, or tie a finding to price and terms. Use tools for the counting and an experienced person for the verdict.
How long should GTM due diligence take?
Two to four weeks for a deal, which fits inside a typical four to ten week exclusivity window. Faster is possible when the extract is clean and the interviews are booked in the first week. Longer usually means market work has been added to the scope.