Use an evidence-backed checklist to remove mismatched investors before preparing outreach, with a worked example and a record of unknowns.
By Ludovica De Pieri
Research checked 29 October 2026.
Qualify an investor list by comparing the company's actual stage, location, funding need and business model with each investor's current criteria and announced investments. Mark each candidate include, investigate or defer, and keep the source behind the decision. An unknown is a research task rather than proof of a mismatch. This check will not explain every unanswered pitch, but it can reveal cases where rewriting the deck would leave the same underlying targeting problem in place.
Key takeaways
- Keep the investor's statement separate from your inference about fit.
- Compare cheque information with your round, preserving currency and scope.
- Record uncertain cases and the question that would resolve them.
Use one version of the company's current position across the entire exercise. Otherwise it is easy to change the story slightly for every promising investor.
Take a hypothetical company building software for independent clinics. It is UK-based, has a working prototype and is planning a £300,000 round to test paid use. Those are invented details for the worksheet, not a recommended financing amount or a claim about a real company.
The snapshot should include the customer, product status, observed evidence, proposed work and location. If the legal registration or operating geography matters, state it accurately. If the amount is still a range, show the range rather than forcing precision you don't have.
Candidate discovery is a separate task. Use the guide to finding investors without a network to gather names, then use this process to decide which deserve more work.
Read what the investor says about the companies it considers. “Early stage” can cover different development points, so check the evidence requirements behind the phrase.
For example, Seedcamp's FAQ describes an earliest-stage focus extending from pre-product through early revenue. That is the fund's account, checked on 29 October 2026; it does not guarantee a particular company fits.
For the hypothetical clinic software business, that stage description could justify further research. It would not answer geography, portfolio overlap or the actual investment case. A fund expecting an established expansion model might need evidence the company does not yet have.
Use the funding stage map to describe the next work in plain language. Don't upgrade the round label simply to match a directory category.
Keep individual cheque, total round and network funding requirement in different fields. The same number can be misleading if its scope is missing.
Speedinvest's published approach separates early and growth investing. A founder should use the relevant strategy's information, rather than assume one fund name means one cheque range.
For a hypothetical £300,000 round, a candidate with a published minimum individual cheque above the entire round would need investigation. Perhaps the amount refers to a different strategy, or perhaps the investor is a poor match. Don't invent a smaller cheque to keep the name on your list.
Preserve original currency too. A dollar amount and a pound round should not be compared as equal values. If you need a conversion to make a decision, use an appropriate dated exchange rate and explain the source; otherwise retain the currency difference as an explicit check.
A local office doesn't prove a fund can back your company. Read its actual mandate and any application criteria about registration, operations or market.
For an example of specific published criteria, Cambridge Angels' entrepreneur page explains the businesses and funding requirements its network considers. Those criteria belong to that network, not to every UK angel.
A hypothetical founder whose company is registered elsewhere should not infer eligibility from having a UK customer. The next action is to check the stated rule and clarify the company's circumstances through the appropriate route.
Keep “where the firm has an office”, “where the company is registered” and “where customers are” separate in the sheet. If you combine them into one geography tag, you can lose the detail that determines whether an application is worth preparing.
An adjacent business can provide a reason to investigate. A direct substitute can raise a conflict that needs clarification. Neither observation should become an automatic prediction.
For the hypothetical clinic software company, a fund backing billing software may understand the buyer. It may also have information or obligations that affect whether it can consider another product. Read what the portfolio company sells before calling the businesses separate.
Write the connection and difference in two sentences. “Same buyer, different scheduling task” is a research hypothesis. “They have no overlap” would need more evidence. If you are uncertain, ask about policy before sharing sensitive material.
The Seedcamp Teardown demonstrates how to keep observations about selected investments narrower than claims about a whole fund.
You don't need a numerical fit score to make the research useful. A transparent decision and next question can be easier to assess than a formula with no evidence behind its weights.
Here is a wholly hypothetical five-candidate worksheet. The names are invented and do not describe actual investors.
| Candidate | Evidence or uncertainty | Decision | Next action |
|---|---|---|---|
| Alder | Published stage fits; cheque unknown | Investigate | Find current cheque guidance |
| Birch | Minimum cheque exceeds whole round | Defer | Confirm amount belongs to right strategy |
| Cedar | Geography rule unclear | Investigate | Check registration requirement |
| Dahlia | Same buyer; possible product overlap | Investigate | Clarify conflict before sharing |
| Elm | Relevant mandate and invited route | Include | Read recent deal evidence |
“Include” means worth preparing an approach, not likely to invest. “Defer” can change if the company's position or investor's mandate changes. Date the decision so an old conclusion doesn't become permanent by accident.
Look for recent official announcements and the published founder route. Treat them as separate pieces of evidence: activity doesn't necessarily identify the right way to make contact.
A hypothetical fund could have recent follow-on investments but say it is not considering new companies. Another could have an application window that is currently closed. Both deserve a different next action from a fund explicitly inviting pitches now.
An announcement date is also not always the investment date. Record the date as the source describes it and avoid claims such as “deploying today” unless you have evidence of that exact position.
Use the route invited for fundraising, follow its requirements and respect refusals. The cold email guide explains how to turn real relevance into a first line after qualification.
Keep a brief record of why you added, paused or removed a name. That lets you improve the list without rewriting history.
Suppose the hypothetical company learns that its prototype users won't pay for the current workflow. That changes the business case. It may need a product test before more investor outreach, regardless of how well the list was researched.
Alternatively, a fund might clarify that an apparently strict criterion is more flexible in a particular strategy. Update the source and decision. Don't treat every earlier uncertainty as a permanent exclusion.
The seed round guide shows how to keep business evidence and investor process visible together. A list is useful only while its reasons remain current.
Persephone, the investor-matching tool for UK and EU founders, helps organise this research and drafts first emails from the three closest deals a fund has done. You decide whether the evidence supports the approach.
Newsletter
Your weekly, one-minute read on the latest news and updates across the ecosystem.
See which VCs match your startup — instant scan, no credit card required.
Try the free scan