Compare a portfolio of product bets like investments — not chat-transcript notes.
Same dimensions, same scale, same framing. The portfolio canvas shows the gap between candidates so the pick stops being who shouts loudest and starts being what the evidence backs.
The workflow
Founders pick the wrong bet because they compared notes, not portfolios.
A notebook of ideas is a list. A portfolio is a defensible comparison — same dimensions, same scale, same framing. The comparison ends with a pick you and your team can audit, not a decision you have to keep re-defending.
Step by step
From a candidate list to a defensible portfolio pick — step by step.
Each step reads the previous artifact. You see the input, what happens, the output, and the decision the step unlocks.
Generate or import multiple candidates
Input
Topics, notes, or competitor URLs for candidate ideas you're weighing.
What happens
Each idea becomes a framed candidate with customer + problem + outcome — ready for scoring.
Output
A portfolio of a handful of framed candidates in the workspace.
Decision unlocked
Which candidates earn the deep pass.
Refine each candidate
Input
The portfolio of framed candidates.
What happens
Each candidate is sharpened — vague customer becomes specific segment, vague outcome becomes measurable.
Output
Refined sibling versions, one per candidate, with lineage to the original.
Decision unlocked
Whether each candidate is sharp enough to compete fairly.
Score the portfolio
Input
The refined portfolio.
What happens
Each candidate scores 0-100 across the same investor-relevant dimensions — wedge, willingness-to-pay, defensibility, founder fit, and more.
Output
A scored portfolio with per-candidate breakdown and tier.
Decision unlocked
Which candidates clear the bar — and which are noise.
Compare side by side and pick
Input
The scored portfolio.
What happens
The portfolio renders as a band-organized canvas. Per-dimension deltas surface where each candidate wins or loses.
Output
A defensible pick plus the runners-up parked for later.
Decision unlocked
Which bet earns the next 12 months — and which to revisit next quarter.
Example walkthrough
A portfolio of candidates resolved into one defensible pick.
Follow a founder comparing a handful of product ideas — and watch the portfolio resolve to one bet plus parked runners-up.
High conviction
80-100
Async-First Standup OS
ScoreElevatedCustomer
Eng managers on 8-30 person distributed teams
Wedge
A reconciled standup feed across the surfaces teams already use
Moderate
60-79
Compliance Memory for Solo CFOs
ScoreSteadyCustomer
Solo finance leaders at 50-200 person SaaS
Wedge
Renewal-ready compliance pack in under 30 min
Low signal
40-59
Field-Team Inspections OS
ScoreMarginalCustomer
Ops directors at multi-site service businesses
Wedge
All inspection data in one auditable dashboard
Park or kill
0-39
Niche Forum Auto-Moderator
ScoreDeficientCustomer
Independent forum operators
Wedge
Pattern-match abuse without a human moderator
Starting point
A founder brings four product ideas they've been mulling for months — pulled from notes, a competitor URL, and a long topic they've been thinking through.
- 1
Generate
Founder imports a handful of candidate ideas — some from notes, some from topics, some from competitor URLs.
→ All candidates pinned to the portfolio canvas.
- 2
Refine
Each candidate sharpened individually — vague "teams" becomes specific "eng managers leading mid-size distributed teams".
→ Every candidate carries lineage to its originals.
- 3
Score
Portfolio scored on the same dimensions: 81, 67, 54, 39.
→ Two clear leaders, one parker, one noise.
- 4
Compare
The 81 and 67 sit in different bands — but the 67 has a stronger founder fit dimension.
→ Founder weighs founder-fit vs commercial-fit explicitly.
- 5
Pick
The 81 selected for the next 12 months. The 67 parked with a re-check date.
→ Decision captured with rationale for future review.
81 wins — three parked candidates remain pinned for next quarter's re-check.
Example walkthrough — your candidates, scores, and pick will vary.
Outcomes
What the workflow returns — by how many candidates.
| Inputs | Time | Output | Decision unlocked |
|---|---|---|---|
| a handful of candidate ideas in any format | 2-3 hr for a full deep-pass comparison | Band-organized portfolio canvas, per-dimension deltas, defensible pick, parked runners-up | Which bet earns the next 12 months |
| A long list of candidates | 30-45 min for the quick-score pass + deep pass on the top 5 | Funnel-shaped ranking; deep-pass artifacts on the finalists only | Which finalists deserve deeper attention |
| Two pivots of the same idea | 60-90 min for the sibling comparison | Before/after framing, score delta, the framing that wins | Which framing earns the next quarter |
Inputs
a handful of candidate ideas in any format
Time
2-3 hr for a full deep-pass comparison
Output
Band-organized portfolio canvas, per-dimension deltas, defensible pick, parked runners-up
Decision unlocked
Which bet earns the next 12 months
Inputs
A long list of candidates
Time
30-45 min for the quick-score pass + deep pass on the top 5
Output
Funnel-shaped ranking; deep-pass artifacts on the finalists only
Decision unlocked
Which finalists deserve deeper attention
Inputs
Two pivots of the same idea
Time
60-90 min for the sibling comparison
Output
Before/after framing, score delta, the framing that wins
Decision unlocked
Which framing earns the next quarter
Prerequisites
What each step needs before it can run.
A fair fight needs sharp candidates on a common scale. Skipping refinement is the most common reason portfolio comparisons stay ambiguous.
Generate or import
Needs
Topics, notes, or competitor URLs
Why
Comparison needs candidates — bring them in any format; framing happens here.
Refine
Needs
Framed candidates from step 1
Why
Refinement sharpens individual candidates so step 3 measures a fair fight.
Score
Needs
Refined candidates (refinement strongly recommended)
Why
Scoring vague vs sharp produces noise; refined candidates score on real differences.
Compare and pick
Needs
A scored portfolio of multiple candidates
Why
The canvas needs at least a pair of reference points; a single candidate compared to itself isn't a comparison.
Start free
Compare your first portfolio for free.
Generate, refine, score, and compare without a credit card. Upgrade when you want exports, deeper intelligence, or larger portfolios.
FAQ
Portfolio comparison questions answered.
How many candidates should I compare?
A small handful works best. Too few candidates and there's no real gap between bands; too many and attention dilutes. If you're carrying a long list, generate quick scores first, then pull the top contenders into the deeper comparison.
Can I use the comparison for partner conversations?
Yes. The comparison output is a defensible artifact — same dimensions, same scale, sourced rationale per candidate. Co-founders, advisors, and angel partners can audit the reasoning, push back on specific dimensions, and the conversation moves forward instead of looping.
How does re-comparison work after I pivot a candidate?
Re-run the affected candidate through refinement and scoring. The portfolio comparison auto-refreshes — the pivoted candidate moves bands if the score changes, and the side-by-side highlights what shifted versus the prior snapshot.
How much time should I budget per candidate?
30-45 minutes per candidate for a deep pass — framing, scoring, dimension-level review. Less if the candidate is already framed; more if you're pivoting the framing mid-comparison. Quick-score passes are 5-10 minutes per candidate before the deep dive.
Can I use the portfolio output for investor decks?
Yes. Export the comparison as Markdown or PDF, drop the score band into your deck, and reference the per-dimension breakdown as appendix. Investors appreciate seeing the alternatives you considered — not just the one you picked.
Should I share the portfolio view with my team before deciding?
If you have one — yes. The comparison surfaces the trade-offs your co-founder or advisor would push back on anyway. Sharing the view earlier means the decision arrives with the team already aligned, not still negotiating.
Continue exploring
Sharpen the portfolio further.
Idea Comparison
Step 4 — the side-by-side canvas
Idea Score
Step 3 — the scoring engine portfolios share
Idea Refinement
Step 2 — sharpen before scoring
Idea Generator
Generate fresh candidates for the portfolio
Validate single idea
Pivot to single-idea validation instead
Investor-ready exports
Export the portfolio comparison for partners
Stop comparing notes. Compare a portfolio.
Same dimensions, same scale, same framing. The pick stops being a debate and starts being a decision.