Standard technical diligence takes two months and covers everything generically. You need answers in two weeks on the three things that actually matter. This is the diligence report written by someone who has sat where you will sit after close.
By the time a big-firm report lands, your deal has either closed or fallen apart. You need the view in two weeks. Not a template report. Not associates. A principal's read of what's actually there.
Standard reports cover everything, which means nothing gets sharp focus. You need clarity on two or three critical calls: Does the architecture hold at scale? Is the team real? Are the AI claims shipping or just demo?
Consultants who've never sat in a CTO chair miss the patterns that kill companies. Saksham has operated at scale and exited. The diligence reads like a memo from the person you're about to hire to fix things post-close.
Ten to fifteen business days. Is the platform real or a PoC? Can the team scale? What debt are you buying? You get an investor memo, a 100-day post-close plan, and a live readout for your deal team.
Six to ten weeks. One framework across all portfolio companies. Which ones are architecturally sound? Where's the team risk? What's your actual AI readiness? GPs use this for strategy and operating-partner deployment.
Three to five weeks. Are the AI claims real or noise? What data do they actually have? Will the model economics work at scale? You get a sharp yes-or-no before you move the deal.
Four to six weeks after close. A ninety-day roadmap for the new board and CTO. Which systems to fix first. Where to hire. Quarterly milestones that actually stick.
Thirty minutes. No pitch.
Five business days. Shape of engagement.
Principal on the work day one.
Recommendation with execution path.
The clock. Your deal moves at deal speed. Big firms take eight weeks. The practice delivers in two. That's the difference between diligence that informs the decision and a retrospective report.
The depth. Associates running templates miss everything. Saksham operates at the principal level, asking the questions that actually decide value. Same ground covered in a fraction of the time, with sharper calls where it counts.
The output. An investor memo that's actually useful. A 100-day plan the new board will use. A live readout so you know what you're buying before you close.
A mid-market PE firm was in the final stretch on a $180M deal. Technical diligence was holding up close. Saksham ran the assessment in eleven days.
The diligence flagged $12M of hidden modernization debt the seller hadn't mentioned, two architecture decisions that would have blown up post-close, and a team shape problem that explained the velocity claims. The deal closed at adjusted terms with a value-creation plan the board approved day one.
The target looked solid in standard diligence. Saksham dug deeper and found it: 70% of the product's value depended on a single third-party API with zero contractual protection. Worse, the API vendor was in talks with a competitor. The risk was real and massive.
Yes. The practice has supported diligence across SaaS, FinTech, HealthTech, commerce, and industrial software.
Both. The disciplines are different and the engagement is scoped accordingly.
Investor memo, executive summary, and a live readout for the deal team. A 100-day plan is included for buy-side mandates.
By exception. The practice protects against direct conflicts but does not generally sign sector exclusivity.
Yes. Many engagements run through operating-partner offices, not through deal teams.
Yes, through Acropolis under the same principal.
The first conversation is thirty minutes. By the end of it, the shape of the engagement is clear.