What We’re Seeing in Pitch Decks from our 15th Batch

Since we opened our latest batch for applications a few weeks ago, we have already reviewed close to one hundred decks. A wide range of ideas came through, yet one element stood out: nearly every team is trying to use AI to solve a clear, costly problem. The intention is strong. The ambition is strong. The technology is often impressive.

But across the decks, several patterns repeat. Some help a pitch land well. Others get in the way.

This post shares what we’re seeing, what works, and what trips founders up at the earliest stage of fundraising.

The Themes Shaping This Batch

A large portion of teams are building AI tools that focus on real, high-value work:

Replacing heavy manual processes in enterprise settings
Giving professionals a smart companion for a narrow workflow
Turning data into decisions faster and with less friction
Bringing personalization where past solutions have been generic

Examples range from AI tools for legal case prep, to forecasting global supply-chain instability, to improving renewable energy load balancing, to guiding cancer patients through their treatment plan. The common thread is a belief that a deep problem should be solved with a deep, domain-aware system, not with generic automation.

There is strong ambition here. Many of these markets are enormous. But how that ambition is presented is where things often fall short.

Where Decks Go Sideways

1. Market Size Claims That Don’t Land

Many decks show a market slide that says something like:
“This is a $500B market. We only need 1%.”

This feels reasonable from a founder point of view. It never lands with an investor.

Investors want to see:

A real customer segment you can reach first
A real price someone will pay
A believable first wedge

Example of a stronger message:
“There are 5,000 mid-sized law firms in the US. We can sell to them for €5k per year. Our first reachable segment is €25M. We expand next to corporate in-house teams.”

This reads as focused and credible. The “big market” is implied. No need to shout it.

2. Saying “We Have No Competitors”

This came up more than expected. Sometimes the tech truly is novel. But investors do not only look for other startups. They look for:

The current workaround
The conservative approach (do nothing)
The manual alternative
The spreadsheet

If the customer today is solving the problem with a messy workflow and internal labor, that is your main rival.

A strong deck shows:

What customers do today
The cost of that approach (money, time, burnout, lost revenue)
Why your approach replaces that cost directly

A feature-comparison table rarely shows this. A short narrative does.

3. Strong Tech, Weak Sales Path

Several teams have an impressive demo or early pilot. But the go-to-market section often reads like:

Direct sales + partnerships + content + community.

This is not a strategy. It is a list.

Investors look for repeatability:

How do you reach the next 10 customers?
Who signs the contract?
How long does the sale take?
How many calls?
How does pricing scale?

Even a rough path, if grounded in real conversations, is far stronger than a long list of channels.

4. Problem Statements Written for Engineers, Not Buyers

We saw many decks where the pain was explained through deep technical language. The physics, the network protocol, the encryption pattern, the computational model.

The investor wants the cost of the problem, not the mechanism.

Better framing:

Instead of:
“The network link suffers from unpredictable packet loss and sub-optimal congestion control.”

Try:
“Video calls break during board meetings. That costs the client trust, time, and revenue. Every failure has a visible price.”

The Decks That Stand Out Do This Well

They speak to the pain first.

Not the tech. Not the architecture. The pain.

A real example pattern that works:

“This job is currently done by five analysts working full time.”
“They make mistakes because the process is rushed.”
“Each mistake costs the organization €X.”
“Our product removes those mistakes.”

No buzzwords needed.

They use bottom-up market sizing.

Small first market. Clear price. Clear unit of scale.

They show proof.

Not dreams. Proof.

Pilot results
Quotes from users
Screenshots of real usage
Even a single strong metric

They highlight why this team is the one to do it.

Not with a list of past employers.
With evidence of lived experience that fits the problem.

Practical Advice for Founders Preparing Their Next Version

1. Anchor the story on the cost of the problem.
State the pain in financial or emotional terms that anyone can understand.

2. Show the wedge.
Who do you sell to first? Why them? What do they pay?

3. Treat the competitor slide as a strategic explanation, not a feature grid.
Show why others can’t copy your route.

4. Replace “vision language” with proof.
Quotes, metrics, pilot results, letters of intent, case studies.

5. Make the team slide about relevance, not prestige.
Why are you the ones who see this problem clearly?

Closing Note

The effort across these decks is high. The ambition is high. The talent is real. The next step for many teams is not “better tech” but clearer storytelling:

Show the pain.
Show the customer.
Show why the timing works.
Show that the team is built for exactly this.

If you get those right, the deck does the work for you.