For Investors
Our proprietary framework — evidence-based with 961% historical accuracy — catches the clinical adoption barriers and technical risks that standard DD structurally misses.
Clinical adoption barriers, regulatory missteps, and reimbursement gaps drive the majority of failures. When they matter most, standard due diligence structurally misses them.
Get a rapid risk assessment before your next IC meeting
Company deck, regulatory filings, clinical data summary
Top 5 risk factors, Vantage Score preview, go/no-go recommendation
48 hours from document receipt to findings call
Financial and legal DD evaluates what it's designed to evaluate. These six dimensions require a physician-engineer perspective that standard advisory teams structurally cannot provide.
Predicate viability, classification assumptions, and pathway failure prediction. Is the 510(k) strategy defensible given recent FDA guidance patterns?
Workflow integration analysis and adoption barriers. Can physicians realistically integrate this into their practice without disruption?
Supply chain viability, QSR compliance readiness, and cost of goods at scale. Can this be manufactured reliably and economically?
CPT code availability, payer coverage likelihood, and commercial viability. Will payers reimburse this at the assumed ASP?
Patent defensibility and commercial significance. Will your patent portfolio actually create durable competitive advantage in practice?
Evidence strength, methodological rigor, and peer acceptability. Can the clinical positioning survive KOL scrutiny and hospital adoption committees?
These aren't theoretical. They're patterns from our proprietary database of medtech outcomes.
Market validation and surgeon adoption looked strong on paper. The DD team focused on market sizing and clinical adoption but skipped manufacturing QMS audit. Within 18 months: FDA warning letter over quality control practices. Commercialization halted. Investment thesis destroyed.
What was missed: Manufacturing risk assessment (the dimension that best predicts device failure outcomes)
All boxes checked during pre-acquisition DD. Post-close discovery: the 510(k) predicate was under active FDA review, creating unexpected pathway risk. Standard legal and financial DD had missed the regulatory nuance entirely. Strategic thesis required rework.
What was missed: Predicate viability assessment and regulatory pathway validation
Clinical data appeared validated. Full review revealed the clinical evidence relied on a single retrospective study with methodological flaws. KOL pushback emerged during adoption discussions. Hospital P&T committees rejected the clinical positioning based on peer review scrutiny.
What was missed: Clinical evidence quality and peer acceptability assessment
Pattern recognition across documented outcomes. Our assessment framework synthesizes failures across regulatory pathways, manufacturing, clinical evidence, and adoption barriers. These six risk dimensions are where the failure patterns cluster.
Standard DD clears deals that shouldn't clear. Here's what happens when clinical-technical evaluation is added.
Market thesis fits, team looks credible, financials check out. These deals pass every traditional filter your fund applies.
Legal, financial, and market analysis reveal some surface-level issues. But clinical evidence quality, regulatory pathway viability, manufacturing risk, and reimbursement feasibility go unexamined.
75% of these carry material clinical-technical risks that standard DD structurally cannot detect
Only deals with a defensible FDA pathway, peer-reviewed clinical evidence, scalable manufacturing, and viable reimbursement strategy. These are the deals worth your capital.
96% of companies we assessed had material risks their existing due diligence missed.†1
The gap between generalist DD and physician-engineer validation is where capital is lost.
Assessment Breadth
What standard financial/legal DD covers vs. what medical device risk assessment requires
Your financial and legal counsel cover their domains. These are the clinical-technical risks they can't see.
Will physicians actually use it? Workflow barriers, evidence gaps
Scale-up readiness, supplier risk, DFM gaps
Predicate viability, pathway risk, submission readiness
CPT pathway, coverage probability, payer landscape
Vantage doesn't replace your financial or legal DD — it adds the clinical-technical layer they structurally can't provide. Your existing advisors continue handling financial and legal diligence. We provide the physician and engineering perspective on adoption risk, manufacturing scalability, regulatory pathway viability, and reimbursement sustainability that generalist DD misses.
How It Works
Your assessment moves through six integrated stages — each combining physician expertise with engineering rigor.
What You Receive
Comprehensive report with executive summary, full risk scoring, and actionable remediation roadmap.
Full Remediation Roadmap Included: 47-point action plan with clinical, regulatory, manufacturing, and commercial priorities prioritized by time-to-value and capital impact.
How We Fit
We don't replace your regulatory counsel, financial modeler, or IP attorney. We add what they structurally miss.
| Advisor Type | What They Cover | What Vantage Adds |
|---|---|---|
| Regulatory Counsel | FDA pathway, submission strategy, classification | Predicate viability patterns across documented outcomes, reclassification risk signals, pathway failure prediction |
| Financial Advisors | DCF models, market sizing, comparable analysis | Unit economics reality-check (BOM-to-ASP gap), reimbursement pathway validation, payer coverage probability |
| IP Attorneys | Freedom-to-operate, patent prosecution | IP commercial significance — will the patent actually create a durable competitive barrier in practice? |
| Clinical KOLs | Clinical opinion, trial design input, endorsement | Clinical adoption analysis across multiple proprietary evaluation dimensions |
For deals requiring additional category-specific clinical depth, physician specialist consultation is available across multiple device categories.
Why Vantage
How we compare to traditional approaches.
0.2%
Full Due Diligence on a $15M Series A
60%
Failure patterns caught that standard DD misses
Proprietary
Risk Intelligence — synthesized across hundreds of evaluated outcomes
For context: McKinsey, L.E.K., and similar consulting firms charge $150K–$500K+ for strategy-level market analysis — without clinical, regulatory, or engineering risk assessment. We deliver device-level risk scoring at a fraction of the cost and in a fraction of the time.
No equity positions. No outcome-based fees. Engagement-level NDA with zero cross-client data sharing. All material conflicts disclosed in writing. Full policies available →
After Your Assessment
Your Vantage assessment is the beginning of the conversation, not the end.
60-minute presentation of findings to your investment team. We walk through each risk category, explain the scoring, and answer questions in real time.
Need to brief your partners or IC? We provide a condensed executive summary, supporting data appendix, and are available for follow-up questions during your deliberation.
Questions that come up during management meetings? New data from the company that changes the picture? We're available for 30 days post-delivery at no additional cost.
Many investors return for subsequent deals. Repeat clients receive priority scheduling, established context (we already know your thesis), and preferred rates.
At $15K–$45K per assessment, Vantage DD costs less than a single month of a failed portfolio company's burn rate.
Typical cost of a failed Series A investment when clinical-technical risks surface post-funding
Pre-investment Vantage assessment identifies the same risks before you write the check
Risk-adjusted return on diligence spend when material risks are caught early
Practicing physician and Medical Director at Adventist Health White Memorial. Chairs P&T Committee evaluating device adoption for 150+ physicians. Brings the clinical adoption perspective that financial DD structurally can't provide.
BS Biomedical Engineering, UC Irvine; MSE Quality, Reliability & Statistical Engineering, ASU. Part of the Axonics operations engineering team that navigated the regulatory and manufacturing path leading to Boston Scientific's $4.1B acquisition.
Schedule a consultation to discuss your portfolio needs.
In 20 minutes, we'll identify the 3 biggest risks for your specific deal — no charge, no obligation.
All statistics presented with citations. Vantage methodology documentation available upon request for qualified investors. For detailed methodology, see Methodology page.