25 Proven Pitch Decks & What They Teach Us (2025)
Get the best investor pitch deck examples from successful startups. Learn how they built fundraising decks that angels and VCs couldn’t resist.
Amotz Harari
Get the best investor pitch deck examples from successful startups. Learn how they built fundraising decks that angels and VCs couldn’t resist.
Short answer
They solve a wide-spread problem with a defendable solution
They define a clear and accessible target market
They show solid promising traction
They present a structured business model that leads to profit
They showcase a capable and experienced founding team
They map the competitive landscape and the startup’s positioning
They promise realistic financial projections for hyper growth
Learn from pitch presentation examples by successful startups⤵
Study pitch deck examples by stage:
NOTE: Some of the pitch decks on this page are interactive remakes of the original presentations with the original content preserved.
Why remakes? Pitch deck design has evolved and improved over time, and interactivity has been shown to work better. Our data backs this up every day.
Full Uber pitch deck teardown
1. Problem/Solution: 5/5
✅ Touches on everyday frustrations perfectly: overpriced taxis, unreliable service, and no tracking.
✅ Stands out with a fresh approach—premium, tech-driven car service offering real-time tracking and convenience.
✅ Nails the "Why Now" by emphasizing how emerging GPS tech and mobile payments made Uber possible.
2. Market: 4/5
✅ Identifies a large, underserved market with clear potential—city transportation.
✅ Smart launch strategy by starting with busy urban hubs like San Francisco and New York.
❌ Underestimated the true market size—predicted $4.2 billion, which later proved way too low given Uber’s actual scale.
3. Traction: 3/5
✅ Offers some initial evidence of market demand, especially around its luxury positioning.
✅ Clearly presents the potential for using AI to manage fleets more efficiently over time.
❌ Could have been far more convincing with clearer user data, adoption rates, or financial metrics.
4. Business model: 2/5
❌ Lacks essential financial details—unclear on pricing, commission structure, or profit margins.
❌ Doesn’t explain important unit economics, such as customer acquisition costs or lifetime value.
✅ Premium pricing at least hinted to investors that profit margins could be attractive.
5. Team: 1/5
❌ Major oversight—no team slide included at all.
❌ Garrett Camp and Travis Kalanick had notable backgrounds, but investors wouldn’t have known it from the deck.
❌ Investors had little reassurance about the team's ability to execute on such a challenging vision.
6. Competition: 2/5
❌ Barely touches on competitors, ignoring deeper competitive threats from taxis or existing car services.
✅ At least clearly shows how Uber is different from traditional taxis.
✅ Misses the chance to address regulatory hurdles upfront, which later became crucial.
7. Projections: 1/5
❌ Completely missing financial forecasts, growth estimates, or cost breakdown.
❌ No clarity around how investor funds would be allocated or managed.
✅ The massive scalability potential was at least easy for investors to see.
Final score: 2.6/5 (rounded to 3/5 for historical significance and clarity of the initial idea)
Verdict:
Uber’s pitch was visionary but deeply flawed by modern standards.
Its clarity about the problem and timely market entry were strong points, but glaring gaps around the team, competitive landscape, and financial details meant investors were betting on the concept more than the specifics.
Today, this deck wouldn't work without clearer financials, a stronger team presentation, and a deeper competitive analysis.
Full Dropbox pitch deck teardown
1. Problem/Solution: 5/5
✅ Perfectly captures a pain we've all experienced: lost USB sticks, chaotic email attachments, and messy file syncing.
✅ Dropbox's solution was brilliantly simple—you didn't even need to think about it, it just worked.
✅ The live demo was a fantastic choice, instantly making investors see exactly why Dropbox was so easy to use.
2. Market: 3/5
✅ Spots a rising need for easy-to-use cloud storage.
✅ Smartly goes after early adopters—tech-savvy users likely to spread the word fast.
❌ Could have made this stronger by presenting market size numbers and plans for wider adoption.
3. Traction: 4/5
✅ Impressively memorable demo right in the pitch, clearly showing real value.
✅ Early user excitement hinted that Dropbox was onto something big.
❌ Would’ve been even stronger with clear numbers or detailed growth metrics to back it up.
4. Business model: 4/5
✅ Clearly explains a straightforward freemium model—free storage to attract users, premium features to earn money.
✅ Easy to see how premium upgrades could bring in solid revenue.
❌ Could have done better by detailing exactly how many users might upgrade and the expected profit margins.
5. Team: 3/5
✅ Founders showed genuine passion and deep technical expertise in solving this problem.
✅ Their understanding of users’ frustrations was obvious.
❌ Could've been stronger by clearly highlighting past wins or their ability to execute the vision.
6. Competition: 3/5
✅ Openly admits the presence of competitors like Google Drive and Box, even if they weren't yet dominant.
✅ Clearly communicates Dropbox’s big advantage: ease of use.
❌ Would’ve felt more reassuring with a detailed side-by-side comparison showing exactly why Dropbox stood apart.
7. Projections: 2/5
✅ Gives basic financial expectations, but remains cautious and conservative.
❌ Missing detailed revenue forecasts, breakdown of costs, and a clear burn rate.
❌ Investors would’ve liked a more precise look at how money would be spent and future growth milestones.
Final score: 3.4/5 (rounded up to 3.5/5 for exceptional clarity in the problem-solution fit and demo)
Verdict:
Dropbox's pitch was incredibly persuasive, mostly thanks to its relatable storytelling and standout product demo. Investors instantly "got it" because the deck made a complicated problem feel refreshingly simple.
Where it slipped a bit was in clearly showing how it'd beat competitors and detailing financial plans. But ultimately, the clarity of the idea and the strength of the demo made Dropbox a clear winner in investors' eyes.
Full Airbnb pitch deck teardown
1. Problem/Solution: 3/5
✅ Points out a common frustration: traditional travel options are expensive and often lack authenticity.
✅ Presents an innovative solution—renting out spare rooms or entire homes—but this idea wasn't easy to grasp initially.
❌ The presentation felt overly literal and didn’t build enough excitement around the problem and solution.
❌ In 2008, the idea of staying in a stranger’s home seemed too unusual to many investors.
2. Market: 4/5
✅ Demonstrates the large size and opportunity within the travel and accommodation market.
✅ References CouchSurfing and Craigslist to show existing demand for alternative lodging.
❌ Could have been clearer on exactly who Airbnb’s target audience and early adopters would be.
3. Traction: 2/5
✅ Shows initial signs of user interest and early adoption.
❌ Missing substantial evidence like growth figures, revenue numbers, or clear indicators that the model could scale.
❌ Investors had to trust that people would eventually feel comfortable using the service at scale.
4. Business model: 4/5
✅ Describes Airbnb’s straightforward commission model, earning 10% per booking.
✅ The simplicity and scalability of the model were attractive to investors.
❌ Could have included more specifics about pricing strategies, fees, and expected revenue per user.
5. Team: 3/5
✅ Founders appeared highly committed, resourceful, and had valuable design and product skills.
❌ The presentation overly emphasized academic backgrounds rather than directly relevant industry experience.
❌ Investors needed more assurance that the team could effectively handle regulatory, legal, and trust issues in hospitality.
6. Competition: 3/5
✅ Identifies indirect competitors like Craigslist and CouchSurfing.
✅ Highlights Airbnb’s advantages, particularly around safety, ease of use, and payment processing.
❌ Doesn’t address how difficult it might be for others to copy Airbnb’s approach.
7. Projections: 2/5
✅ Offers some general expectations around potential revenue.
❌ Missing detailed financial projections and clearly defined milestones.
❌ Investors lacked an understanding of growth trajectory, burn rate, or detailed future plans.
Final score: 3.0/5
Verdict:
Airbnb’s pitch deck definitely presented a bold vision and an easy-to-understand business model, but it was far from perfect. Back in 2008, convincing investors that staying in a stranger’s home was realistic proved challenging.
The deck fell short in areas like demonstrating traction, providing detailed financial forecasts, and proving a strong competitive advantage. Investors had to trust the founders' vision more than the numbers on the page.
Full Tinder pitch deck teardown
1. Problem/Solution: 5/5
✅ Nails a problem we've all felt: dating apps can be awkward and stressful because of the fear of rejection.
✅ Offers a brilliantly simple solution—mutual matching that takes away the anxiety.
✅ The story-based approach, following the journey of "Matt," made the concept easy to connect with and understand.
2. Market: 4/5
✅ Highlights dating as a huge, consistently popular market.
✅ Smartly targets college students and young professionals as the ideal initial users.
❌ Could have been even more convincing with detailed numbers about total market size and clearer plans for growth.
3. Traction: 4/5
✅ Shows strong early user excitement and adoption.
✅ Includes a great demo that highlights the app’s ease of use and addictive swiping experience.
❌ Would have felt even stronger with more detailed engagement data or specific user growth stats.
4. Business model: 3/5
✅ Describes a simple, scalable approach with a freemium model and premium features.
✅ Makes it obvious there’s potential for profitable upgrades like subscriptions and premium boosts.
❌ Needed details on pricing and more thorough revenue projections.
5. Team: 3/5
✅ Shows that the founders understand how to build products people want to share and talk about.
✅ Credibility is boosted by their connection to IAC, a well-known player in online dating.
❌ Could have emphasized the team’s past successes and execution skills more clearly.
6. Competition: 2/5
✅ Openly acknowledges existing competitors such as OkCupid, Match, and eHarmony.
❌ Doesn’t explain how Tinder’s user experience is significantly better.
❌ Needed stronger evidence of barriers to entry beyond just being the first to market.
7. Projections: 2/5
✅ Gives a basic sense of how the app could scale financially.
❌ Missing detailed financial projections and cost breakdowns.
❌ Investors would appreciate more clarity on strategies for user acquisition and long-term growth.
Final score: 3.3/5
Verdict:
Tinder’s pitch deck worked incredibly well at quickly and clearly communicating why users would love the app. Its greatest strength was making investors instantly "get it," thanks to compelling storytelling and product-market fit.
However, it fell short in detailing competitive advantages and financial forecasts, both critical areas for investors. A bit more depth in these sections would have taken an already impressive pitch to the next level.
Full Loom pitch deck teardown
1. Problem/Solution: 5/5
✅ Presents a relatable pain point: emails and text-based async communication can be slow and ineffective.
✅ Offers a simple, practical solution: short, easy-to-share video messages instead of lengthy emails.
✅ Makes a strong case for why video messaging is the future of communication.
2. Market: 4/5
✅ Describes the growing trend towards remote and asynchronous work.
✅ Targets a broad, appealing market—from individual users to large enterprises.
❌ Would have benefited from clearer market sizing and detailed expansion plans.
3. Traction: 4/5
✅ Demonstrates strong early adoption with compelling engagement metrics.
✅ Shows rapid user growth and impressive product virality.
❌ Could be even stronger by including revenue-related metrics.
4. Business model: 3/5
✅ Outlines a proven SaaS approach with a freemium model and premium tiers.
✅ Shows potential for expansion into enterprise markets.
❌ Missing detailed breakdowns of pricing strategies and specific revenue forecasts.
5. Team: 4/5
✅ Features a strong founding team with solid technical and product skills.
✅ Clearly communicates the team's vision for scaling the product.
❌ Could have added more detail on relevant past successes and experiences.
6. Competition: 2/5
✅ Acknowledges competitors such as Zoom and Slack.
❌ Doesn't sufficiently explain why Loom’s approach is unique or hard to replicate.
❌ Needs clearer arguments on what prevents competitors from quickly copying their idea.
7. Projections: 2/5
✅ Offers a basic sense of financial potential.
❌ Lacks detailed financial forecasts, including expected revenue streams and cost management.
❌ Investors would expect clearer insights into future spending, scaling costs, and profitability.
Final score: 3.5/5
Verdict:
Loom’s pitch deck is compelling, with a clear, engaging narrative and strong evidence of market demand. Its biggest strength is effectively demonstrating why the product resonates with users.
However, it falls short in differentiating itself from competitors and providing long-term financial details. Investors would want stronger reassurance around scalability and revenue planning to fully buy into Loom’s vision.
Full Buffer pitch deck teardown
1. Problem/Solution: 4/5
✅ Clearly identifies a relatable problem: managing and scheduling social media posts takes too much time.
✅ Offers a straightforward and easily understandable solution—a tool that automates social media scheduling.
✅ Smartly positions itself as a business tool rather than just another social media app, making it attractive to investors.
❌ Could have made a stronger case about why existing solutions aren't good enough.
2. Market: 4/5
✅ Highlights the growing demand for social media automation.
✅ Effectively uses a relevant quote from Mark Zuckerberg to back up the rising importance of social media marketing.
✅ Explains the business need for optimized content strategies.
❌ Would’ve been stronger with detailed figures on market size and potential revenue opportunities.
3. Traction: 5/5
✅ Easily the strongest part of the deck—showing impressive numbers like 55,000 users, 800 paying customers, and a $150K annual revenue run rate.
✅ Demonstrates real product-market fit and a reliable path to growth.
4. Business model: 4/5
✅ Explains the pricing structure, revenue growth, and how customers are acquired.
✅ Shows a sensible profitability-first approach, reassuring investors.
✅ Highlights opportunities for long-term growth through integrations and partnerships.
❌ Could have gone deeper into future expansion plans beyond current traction.
5. Team: 3/5
✅ Includes the team slide but doesn’t fully showcase leadership strengths or experiences.
✅ Investors might feel more confident seeing concrete examples of past execution success.
❌ With such strong traction, a stronger team slide would’ve significantly boosted credibility.
6. Competition: 2/5
✅ Acknowledges the competitive nature of social media tools.
❌ Competition analysis feels too general and lacks detail.
❌ Investors would prefer a clear, detailed comparison showing how Buffer differentiates itself from competitors.
7. Projections: 2/5
✅ Provides a sense of revenue potential based on existing traction.
❌ Missing detailed financial projections or breakdowns of future revenue streams.
❌ Would benefit significantly from clearer plans for use of funds and long-term growth strategy.
Final score: 3.4/5
Verdict:
Buffer’s pitch deck successfully made its point with strong traction numbers that speak louder than anything else. The impressive growth figures effectively covered gaps in competitive analysis and financial details.
Investors saw proof of demand, but adding clearer differentiation and detailed projections would’ve made this even more convincing
Full Orange pitch deck teardown
1. Problem/Solution: 5/5
✅ Clearly highlights a pressing issue: installing EV chargers in multi-unit buildings is currently complex.
✅ Offers a practical, scalable solution, simplifying the installation and management process for property owners.
✅ Clearly explains why this matters now, aligning with rapid EV adoption and available government incentives.
2. Market: 4/5
✅ Presents the booming growth of the EV market and the underserved niche of multi-unit residential charging.
✅ Demonstrates strong demand from renters and property managers.
❌ Would benefit from clearer market-size numbers and a deeper dive into the total addressable market.
3. Traction: 3/5
✅ Shows promising initial partnerships and signs of early interest from property developers and building managers.
✅ Provides some evidence of market validation through existing relationships.
❌ Missing stronger evidence of traction such as revenue figures or clear customer growth metrics.
4. Business model: 4/5
✅ Gives a breakdown of revenue streams: installation fees, software subscriptions, and recurring revenue potential.
✅ Illustrates scalability, particularly with the software subscription model for property managers.
❌ Could have offered more detailed insight into pricing strategies, margins, and longer-term revenue expectations.
5. Team: 3/5
✅ Introduces a credible team with relevant experience in both real estate and EV infrastructure.
✅ Demonstrates that the team understands the core challenges of their market.
❌ Would have benefited from stronger emphasis on past successes and evidence of execution capability.
6. Competition: 2/5
✅ Acknowledges existing competitors in the EV charging market.
❌ Falls short in differentiating from larger competitors like ChargePoint or Tesla.
❌ Investors would want to see a more detailed competitive analysis, highlighting unique features or advantages.
7. Projections: 2/5
✅ Provides some general indication of growth expectations.
❌ Missing detailed financial forecasts, cost structures, and allocation of funding.
❌ Investors need a better picture of expected ROI and specific milestones.
Final score: 3.3/5
Verdict:
Orange Charger’s pitch deck tackles an urgent problem with a solution that feels timely and relevant. It makes a convincing case about the market opportunity but could do more to stand out from competitors.
Investors will likely look for stronger financial details and a clearer plan on how Orange Charger plans to differentiate itself to fully believe in its growth potential.
Full MetaCert pitch deck teardown
1. Problem/Solution: 4/5
✅ Describes a cybersecurity issue: phishing and malware attacks within collaboration tools.
✅ Provides a smart, user-friendly solution by embedding security directly into messaging platforms.
✅ Uses effective visuals to show how the product works in practice.
❌ Could’ve strengthened the argument by including specific industry statistics on the scale and urgency of this threat.
2. Market: 3/5
✅ Positions itself within the rapidly growing cybersecurity landscape.
✅ Effectively targets popular collaboration platforms like Slack and Microsoft Teams.
❌ Needs clearer market-sizing figures, including TAM and more detail on adoption trends.
3. Traction: 2/5
✅ Highlights early signs of interest and initial product use.
❌ Lacks compelling evidence of traction—missing user growth data or significant revenue milestones.
❌ Investors would’ve felt more confident with stronger proof of product-market fit.
4. Business model: 3/5
✅ Effectively presents a security-as-a-service approach.
✅ Identifies revenue opportunities through business licensing.
❌ Pricing details, projected margins, and long-term profitability need more clarity.
5. Team: 4/5
✅ Demonstrates strong cybersecurity expertise and relevant industry experience.
✅ Team has credible backgrounds in developing security-focused solutions.
❌ Could have emphasized prior successes or achievements more effectively.
6. Competition: 2/5
✅ Acknowledges existing competitors in the cybersecurity space.
❌ Lacks an explanation of how MetaCert specifically stands out or defends against competitors.
❌ Investors would benefit from a detailed competitive comparison and differentiation.
7. Projections: 2/5
✅ Offers some insight into expected financial outcomes.
❌ Missing essential details—no revenue forecasts, burn rate analysis, or cost breakdown.
❌ Investors would prefer a well-defined growth roadmap and milestones.
Final score: 3/5
Verdict:
MetaCert’s pitch deck does a great job identifying a real cybersecurity problem and offering an attractive solution. However, it misses crucial elements like solid traction data, financial projections, and competitive differentiation.
For investors to feel fully confident, MetaCert needs stronger proof points and a strategy for scaling and growth.
Full Holorun pitch deck teardown
1. Problem/Solution: 4/5
✅ Pinpoints the main issue: 3D visualizations are trapped behind screens or clunky wearables, limiting their usefulness.
✅ Offers an intriguing solution—holographic visuals in real-world spaces, completely screen-free.
✅ Makes a solid argument for Holorun's potential impact in fields like medicine, engineering, and education.
❌ Could have strengthened the urgency by better showing how pressing this issue really is for businesses and everyday users.
2. Market: 3/5
✅ Highlights the growing excitement around spatial computing and immersive 3D visuals.
✅ Identifies promising use cases across multiple industries, adding credibility.
❌ Needs numbers on market size and anticipated growth (TAM).
❌ Should specify more clearly who the early adopters are.
3. Traction: 2/5
✅ Mentions some initial partnerships and early interest.
❌ Missing meaningful data on user engagement or feedback from actual customers.
❌ No real evidence yet—like revenue, pilot successes, or concrete sales figures.
4. Business model: 2/5
✅ Lists possible ways to make money, including hardware sales and enterprise software licenses.
❌ Lacks detail around pricing, revenue predictions, and long-term strategies.
❌ Investors need more assurance on scalability and a reliable recurring revenue model.
5. Team: 4/5
✅ Demonstrates strong technical know-how in holographic tech.
✅ Team members have relevant industry backgrounds, which is reassuring.
❌ Could’ve added more examples of past successful projects or ventures.
6. Competition: 2/5
✅ Acknowledges current AR and VR alternatives.
❌ Falls short in explaining why Holorun’s solution stands out or can't be easily copied.
❌ Investors would prefer a stronger explanation of competitive advantages and barriers.
7. Projections: 2/5
✅ Shares a clear vision of where the product aims to go long-term.
❌ Missing vital financial projections, like revenue targets and a profitability timeline.
❌ Would’ve helped to have milestones for product launch and market entry.
Final score: 3/5
Verdict:
Holorun’s pitch deck paints an exciting picture of the future but lacks the solid groundwork investors typically look for.
The concept is intriguing and forward-thinking, but without clearer proof points around financials, traction, and competitive positioning, investors might see it as too speculative at this stage.
Full Canva pitch deck teardown
1. Problem/Solution: 5/5
✅ Nails a problem everyone has faced: graphic design software is intimidating unless you're already a pro.
✅ Offers a refreshingly simple solution—drag-and-drop design tools anyone can use.
✅ Clearly illustrates how Canva opens up design to the masses, removing technical barriers.
2. Market: 4/5
✅ Points out a massive opportunity by highlighting diverse users like businesses, students, marketers, and everyday creators.
✅ Smartly taps into the growing trend of visual content dominating social media and marketing.
❌ Could've boosted credibility with market-size figures (TAM, SAM, and SOM).
3. Traction: 5/5
✅ Demonstrates impressive early momentum with solid user numbers and high engagement.
✅ Makes it obvious there's a real appetite for the product, proving people actively use and value Canva.
✅ Gives investors confidence with evidence of rapid user growth.
4. Business model: 3/5
✅ Explains clearly how Canva leverages a freemium model to hook users and upsell premium options.
✅ Outlines additional revenue streams through subscriptions and enterprise plans.
❌ Needed more specifics—pricing details, revenue forecasts, and a solid long-term monetization vision.
5. Team: 4/5
✅ Highlights a capable founding team with proven expertise and strong technical skills.
✅ Melanie Perkins's successful experience with Fusion Books reassures investors about execution capabilities.
❌ Could have further clarified the team's strategy for scaling up effectively.
6. Competition: 3/5
✅ Acknowledges established competitors like Adobe upfront.
✅ Explains Canva’s simplicity as its advantage over more complex traditional tools.
❌ Missing a deeper dive into competitive strengths and a differentiation strategy.
7. Projections: 3/5
✅ Presents a solid vision, focusing on potential expansions into business and educational sectors.
❌ Lacks essential details like specific revenue projections or a clear burn rate.
❌ Investors would have appreciated a more concrete financial roadmap.
Final score: 4/5
Verdict:
Canva’s Series A pitch clearly nailed what makes the product exciting—an accessible, easy-to-use design tool with obvious market demand. It grabbed investor attention by addressing a relatable frustration and showing real user enthusiasm.
The pitch was let down a bit by vague financial details and a lack of detailed competitive insights, but overall, it was strong enough to convince investors that Canva was onto something big.
Full YouTube pitch deck teardown
1. Problem/Solution: 5/5
✅ Clearly explains the challenge—there was no easy way for people to upload and share videos online.
✅ The solution is simple and compelling—a free platform where anyone can instantly share their content.
✅ The timing was right, as broadband internet was finally fast enough to support video consumption.
2. Market: 3/5
✅ Highlights the growing demand for user-generated content and digital media.
✅ Shows that people don’t just want to watch videos—they want to create and share them too.
❌ Lacks a detailed breakdown of market size, key audience segments, or how YouTube planned to monetize.
3. Traction: 3/5
✅ Shows that users were already uploading and watching videos, proving demand.
✅ Mentions the viral nature of video sharing, which helps with organic growth.
❌ Would have been stronger with more data on user engagement, retention, and growth metrics.
4. Business model: 2/5
✅ Includes potential revenue streams like ads and premium content.
❌ No clear plan for how or when YouTube would start making money.
❌ The lack of an immediate monetization strategy made this a risky bet for investors.
5. Team: 4/5
✅ Strong technical founders with PayPal experience, giving them credibility.
✅ Investors could see they had the skills to build and scale the platform.
❌ Would have been stronger with more focus on business strategy and marketing expertise.
6. Competition: 2/5
✅ Recognizes that other video hosting services exist.
❌ Doesn’t do enough to explain how YouTube would stand out from platforms like Google Video or MySpace.
❌ Investors would have wanted to see a clear strategy for staying ahead of competitors.
7. Projections: 2/5
✅ Presents a vision for growth and mass adoption.
❌ No financial projections or clear timeline for profitability.
❌ Lacks a plan for handling the rising costs of video hosting and bandwidth.
Final score: 3.0/5
Verdict:
YouTube’s pitch was all about potential—it sold the dream of a video-sharing revolution without a clear business model.
The idea was exciting, and the traction showed early signs of success, but investors had to take a leap of faith on monetization.
The deck could have been much stronger with a defined plan for revenue and a better strategy for staying ahead of competitors.
Full e-Shares pitch deck teardown
1. Problem/Solution: 5/5
✅ Explains the headache of managing cap tables, stock options, and equity manually.
✅ The solution is simple but powerful—digitizing and automating equity management through a SaaS platform.
✅ Strong "Why Now" argument, as more companies shift toward digital financial operations.
2. Market: 4/5
✅ Identifies a growing demand for better equity management, particularly among startups and investors.
✅ Highlights how the rise of equity compensation is driving demand for easier solutions.
❌ Could have gone deeper into the total addressable market (TAM) and potential expansion beyond startups.
3. Traction: 5/5
✅ Shows strong revenue growth and steady month-over-month expansion.
✅ Customer adoption metrics validate early product-market fit.
✅ Makes it clear that demand for this type of platform isn’t slowing down anytime soon.
4. Business model: 4/5
✅ SaaS-based subscription model ensures predictable recurring revenue.
✅ Highlights strong unit economics and long-term scalability.
❌ Would have been more compelling with details on pricing strategy and upsell potential.
5. Team: 3/5
✅ Founders have relevant experience in finance and tech.
✅ Investors could see they understood the problem well.
❌ The deck didn’t highlight much about past execution success or key leadership hires.
6. Competition: 3/5
✅ Recognizes that many companies still use law firms, spreadsheets, or internal tools for equity management.
✅ Positions eShares as a more scalable and efficient alternative.
❌ Lacked a direct comparison with other fintech competitors or emerging solutions.
7. Projections: 4/5
✅ Comes with a clear roadmap for growth and scaling.
✅ Mentions potential expansion into other financial services.
❌ Could have provided more insight into cost structure and profitability timelines.
Final score: 4.0/5
Verdict:
eShares (now Carta) made a strong case for why equity management needed an upgrade. The traction was there, the business model made sense, and the timing was right for digitization. Investors could see the potential.
Where it fell short was in competitive positioning and financial depth. The deck could have done a better job of showing how eShares stacked up against fintech competitors and providing a clearer path to profitability.
Full Front pitch deck teardown
1. Problem/Solution: 5/5
✅ Defines the problem well—email wasn’t designed for teams, leading to inefficiencies and communication bottlenecks.
✅ The solution makes sense—Front provides a shared inbox that improves collaboration, efficiency, and responsiveness.
✅ Shows how Front integrates with existing tools, making adoption seamless and reducing friction for new users.
2. Market: 4/5
✅ Highlights the booming SaaS market for communication and productivity tools.
✅ Mentions that email is still the dominant communication channel for businesses, proving demand isn’t going away.
❌ Could have strengthened the case with more data on total addressable market (TAM) and trends in enterprise adoption.
3. Traction: 4/5
✅ Strong customer adoption and retention prove there’s a real need for the product.
✅ Demonstrates capital efficiency—spending less than their ARR, which is a great signal for investors.
✅ Shows impressive customer expansion—users were spending 50% more after 12 months.
❌ Could have been even stronger with deeper engagement metrics like daily active users (DAUs), monthly active users (MAUs), or churn rate.
4. Business model: 4/5
✅ SaaS subscription model with predictable, recurring revenue.
✅ Strong customer expansion strategy—Front’s “land and expand” approach was working.
❌ Lacked detail on long-term pricing strategy and how Front planned to maximize upsell opportunities.
5. Team: 4/5
✅ Led by a team with solid experience in SaaS and product-led growth.
✅ Investors could see they had the ability to execute and scale effectively.
❌ Could have done more to highlight key hires or expansion plans for leadership.
6. Competition: 3/5
✅ Identifies email and ticketing systems as primary competitors.
✅ Makes a solid case for why Front is different—team-focused email with collaboration features.
❌ Would have been stronger with a direct feature-by-feature comparison to competitors like Zendesk, Intercom, or Outlook Shared Mailboxes.
7. Projections: 3/5
✅ There's a roadmap for customer growth and new feature development.
✅ Shows the potential for Front to scale globally.
❌ Missing key financial projections, expected ROI, and a clearer picture of long-term growth strategy.
Final score: 3.9/5
Verdict:
Front’s pitch deck clearly showed why team email was overdue for a major upgrade. It presented strong traction, impressive capital efficiency, and an easy-to-see path for scaling up. Investors immediately understood the potential.
However, it stumbled a bit on the specifics. The competitive analysis felt shallow, missing the opportunity to fully explain how Front would stay ahead.
Financially, the pitch could have been clearer about pricing plans, how they'd encourage upselling, and what long-term revenue growth might look like.
Full Flipside pitch deck teardown
1. Problem/Solution: 4/5
✅ Explains the problem well—blockchain data is scattered, hard to analyze, and not user-friendly.
✅ The solution is clear—Flipside pulls all that data together, making it accessible and actionable.
✅ Highlights why this matters, especially for investors, developers, and institutions trying to navigate the crypto space.
❌ Could have done a better job explaining what makes Flipside different from other blockchain analytics tools.
2. Market: 4/5
✅ Makes a strong case that blockchain adoption is growing fast and better analytics tools are needed.
✅ Shows how different groups—developers, institutions, and investors—all benefit from blockchain insights.
❌ Would have been even stronger with a more detailed breakdown of market size and future growth projections.
3. Traction: 5/5
✅ Shows strong user adoption and engagement, which proves demand is there.
✅ Early partnerships help validate the business and show it’s solving a real problem.
✅ Reinforces that blockchain data tools are becoming more essential as the industry grows.
4. Business model: 3/5
✅ Describes multiple revenue streams, including SaaS subscriptions, API access, and enterprise solutions.
✅ Shows potential to scale as blockchain adoption increases.
❌ Would have been more convincing with details on pricing, revenue breakdowns, and customer segmentation.
5. Team: 4/5
✅ Highlights a leadership team with experience in blockchain and data analytics.
✅ Investors can see they have the technical skills to build and scale the platform.
❌ Could have included more on their past successes and experience in scaling businesses.
6. Competition: 3/5
✅ Mentions other blockchain analytics tools but doesn’t go deep enough.
✅ Points out Flipside’s focus on data accessibility and ease of use.
❌ Would have been stronger with a direct side-by-side comparison to competitors like Dune Analytics or Nansen.
7. Projections: 3/5
✅ Includes a roadmap for product expansion and future growth.
✅ Shows how Flipside plans to evolve as blockchain adoption increases.
❌ Missing key financial details like revenue projections, cost breakdowns, and a path to profitability.
Final score: 3.7/5
Verdict:
Flipside Crypto’s pitch deck made it clear that blockchain analytics is an exciting, fast-growing space. The traction was believable, the market demand obvious, and investors could easily sense the momentum behind the company.
However, the pitch wasn't perfect. It left some big questions unanswered, especially around competition—how exactly Flipside Crypto planned to stand out was unclear.
The business model also felt incomplete, missing crucial details like pricing strategy, revenue forecasts, and a solid path to profitability.
Without these details, investors had to take a bit of a leap of faith.
Full Mixpanel pitch deck teardown
1. Problem/Solution: 4/5
✅ Explains the challenge well—businesses struggle to understand how users interact with their digital products.
✅ Mixpanel’s solution is real-time, event-based analytics that go beyond simple page views.
✅ Effectively communicates why this is valuable for product teams and marketers.
❌ Could have done more to explain what makes Mixpanel better than competitors like Google Analytics.
2. Market: 4/5
✅ Highlights the growing demand for data-driven decision-making in tech.
✅ Investors could see that nearly every digital business could be a potential customer.
❌ Would have benefited from a more detailed breakdown of the total addressable market (TAM) and long-term growth projections.
3. Traction: 5/5
✅ Strong revenue growth, nearly tripling ARR in one year.
✅ Shows high customer adoption and engagement, proving product-market fit.
✅ Investors could see that demand was growing fast and Mixpanel was scaling efficiently.
4. Business model: 4/5
✅ SaaS pricing model based on data volume and usage, ensuring predictable revenue.
✅ Demonstrates strong margins and a scalable growth strategy.
❌ Could have expanded on how Mixpanel planned to monetize beyond its core offering, especially in the enterprise market.
5. Team: 4/5
✅ Introduces a founding team with strong technical and business expertise.
✅ Investors could see they had the experience to build and scale a complex analytics product.
❌ Would have been stronger with details on key leadership hires or future team expansion plans.
6. Competition: 3/5
✅ Identifies Google Analytics and other analytics platforms as competitors.
✅ Differentiates Mixpanel by focusing on event-based tracking instead of just page views.
❌ The competitive analysis felt unclear—Mixpanel didn’t position itself well within the market.
❌ A direct feature-by-feature comparison against competitors would have made its strengths more obvious.
7. Projections: 3/5
✅ Presents a two-year expansion plan, including international growth.
✅ Provides a roadmap for increasing revenue and customer base.
❌ Lacks detailed financial forecasts, burn rate insights, or cost breakdowns.
Final score: 3.9/5
Verdict:
Mixpanel’s pitch deck clearly showed investors the company was on a promising growth path. The traction numbers spoke for themselves, and the core problem was relatable and easy to grasp.
Anyone reviewing the deck could quickly see why customers needed this solution.
But it wasn’t perfect. The pitch stumbled a bit on clearly explaining why customers would choose Mixpanel over strong competitors like Google Analytics.
Additionally, the financial strategy wasn't fleshed out enough—without clear details on long-term revenue or growth strategy, investors had to rely heavily on the strong early traction numbers.
Full Brex pitch deck teardown
1. Problem/Solution: 5/5
✅ Presents the problem effectively—startups have a hard time getting corporate credit cards because banks rely on traditional credit scores.
✅ Brex offers a smarter solution—approving businesses based on cash balance, funding, and income instead.
✅ Makes it easy to see why this would be a game-changer for early-stage companies.
2. Market: 4/5
✅ Highlights a huge opportunity in fintech and corporate spending.
✅ Makes a strong case that Brex isn’t just for startups—high-growth companies and even enterprises could benefit.
❌ Could have provided a more detailed breakdown of total addressable market (TAM) and how Brex planned to expand into new segments.
3. Traction: 5/5
✅ Shows rapid customer adoption and strong transaction volume.
✅ Highlights impressive revenue growth and scaling within just 22 months.
✅ Makes it clear Brex already had strong product-market fit.
4. Business model: 4/5
✅ Revenue comes from interchange fees rather than charging interest like traditional credit cards.
✅ Investors could see the potential for steady, scalable growth.
❌ Could have shared more about long-term revenue expansion, such as SaaS fees, lending, or strategic partnerships.
5. Team: 5/5
✅ The founders had already proven themselves with their previous fintech startup, Pagar.me.
✅ Shows they understand the banking and payments space, as well as what startups need.
✅ Investors could feel confident backing a team that had already executed successfully.
6. Competition: 3/5
✅ Acknowledges competition from both traditional banks and fintech startups.
✅ Explains what sets Brex apart—instant approvals, no personal guarantees.
❌ Would have been stronger with a direct comparison to other fintech players like Ramp or Divvy.
7. Projections: 3/5
✅ Shows a vision for scaling beyond startups into larger businesses.
✅ Mentions international expansion as a goal.
❌ Lacks detailed revenue forecasts, burn rate insights, or a clear timeline for profitability.
Final score: 4.1/5
Verdict:
Brex’s pitch deck did an excellent job explaining why traditional banks simply weren't designed for startups—and why Brex’s approach made much more sense.
The problem felt urgent and relatable, the traction was clearly impressive, and the founders’ strong track records made it easy for investors to trust them.
However, the pitch wasn't flawless. It left some important questions open, especially regarding competition. While it clearly showed how Brex stood apart from traditional banks, it didn’t dive deep enough into how the company would compete against other fintech startups.
The revenue model seemed promising, but there was some uncertainty around how Brex intended to grow beyond just interchange fees.
Full SuperMetrics pitch deck teardown
1. Problem/Solution: 4/5
✅ Defines the problem well—marketers waste time pulling data from multiple platforms and trying to make sense of it.
✅ The solution is straightforward—an automated tool that pulls data from platforms like Google Ads and Facebook Ads into spreadsheets and dashboards.
✅ Highlights the efficiency and time-saving benefits for data-driven teams.
❌ Could have done more to explain what sets Supermetrics apart from other data automation tools.
2. Market: 4/5
✅ Taps into the growing demand for marketing analytics and automation.
✅ Makes a strong case that businesses of all sizes—marketers, agencies, and enterprises—need a better way to consolidate data.
❌ Could have given a more detailed breakdown of the total addressable market (TAM) and future growth projections.
3. Traction: 5/5
✅ Shows strong revenue growth, proving demand is already there.
✅ Highlights enterprise adoption, which gives credibility and market validation.
✅ Makes it clear that Supermetrics is scaling efficiently.
4. Business model: 4/5
✅ SaaS subscription model ensures steady, recurring revenue.
✅ Different pricing tiers make it accessible for both small teams and large enterprises.
❌ Would have been stronger with more insight into upsell strategies and plans to expand into new verticals.
5. Team: 3/5
✅ Introduces the leadership team and their background in analytics and SaaS.
✅ Investors can see they’ve executed well so far.
❌ Lacks details on key hires, leadership depth, or future expansion plans.
6. Competition: 3/5
✅ Mentions existing analytics and data integration tools.
✅ Highlights how Supermetrics simplifies data extraction compared to manual work.
❌ Misses the opportunity to compare directly with competitors like Funnel.io or Fivetran and explain its competitive edge.
7. Projections: 3/5
✅ Breaks down plans for scaling and expanding the business.
✅ Points to market expansion as a growth opportunity.
❌ Doesn’t include clear revenue forecasts, profitability timelines, or details on how funding will be used.
Final score: 3.9/5
Verdict:
Supermetrics makes a convincing argument that marketers desperately need a simpler, smarter way to handle their data—and their impressive traction clearly shows they've tapped into real demand.
The growth numbers speak for themselves, the market opportunity is clearly expanding, and their recurring revenue model provides reassuring financial stability.
However, the pitch didn't dig deeply enough into the competition, leaving investors wondering how Supermetrics would maintain its edge in the long run.
While their monetization plan was solid, more specifics on upselling opportunities and expansion strategies would have given investors greater confidence in their ability to scale.
Full LinkedIn pitch deck teardown
1. Problem/Solution: 5/5
✅ Explains the gap—no professional networking platform existed to help people build meaningful career connections.
✅ The solution makes sense—an online network where professionals can find job opportunities, partnerships, and grow their careers.
✅ Smartly justifies the network-first approach before monetization, drawing comparisons to eBay and PayPal.
2. Market: 4/5
✅ Highlights a massive opportunity in professional networking.
✅ Shows how growing internet adoption is changing hiring and recruitment.
❌ Could have provided a more detailed breakdown of the total addressable market (TAM).
3. Traction: 4/5
✅ Proves early user adoption and engagement.
✅ Highlights network effects as LinkedIn’s biggest strength—the more people join, the more valuable it becomes.
✅ Demonstrates strong growth potential but doesn’t have much revenue data at this stage.
4. Business model: 3/5
✅ Outlines multiple ways to make money—premium subscriptions, recruiting tools, and advertising.
✅ Investors could see the long-term potential for monetization.
❌ Lacks a clear plan for which revenue stream would take off first, making it feel a bit uncertain.
5. Team: 5/5
✅ Led by Reid Hoffman, backed by a team with deep experience in scaling internet businesses.
✅ Investors could feel confident in the team’s vision and ability to execute.
✅ Strong track record in launching and growing online platforms.
6. Competition: 3/5
✅ Acknowledges social networking competitors like Friendster and MySpace.
✅ Differentiates LinkedIn as a platform focused entirely on professional connections.
❌ Could have included a more detailed competitor breakdown to highlight LinkedIn’s unique advantages.
7. Projections: 3/5
✅ Presents a vision for long-term monetization.
✅ Shows a strategy for scaling user acquisition.
❌ Missing key financial forecasts and a roadmap for revenue growth.
Final score: 4.0/5
Verdict:
LinkedIn’s pitch deck made a strong case for why professional networking needed a dedicated platform. The concept was easy to grasp, and the parallels to eBay and PayPal helped justify the “build the network first, monetize later” approach.
The early traction and team credibility were clear strengths, but the deck left some big questions unanswered.
Investors had to bet on the long-term vision without much clarity on how LinkedIn would turn users into revenue or how it stacked up against competitors.
Full Paddle pitch deck teardown
1. Problem/Solution: 5/5
✅ Introduces the problem—SaaS companies struggle with international billing, tax compliance, and payments.
✅ Paddle solves it by acting as a merchant of record, handling all the financial headaches so SaaS businesses can focus on growth.
✅ Investors can immediately see why this is a major pain point for software companies expanding globally.
2. Market: 5/5
✅ Highlights the explosive growth of the SaaS industry and the increasing demand for better payment infrastructure.
✅ Makes it clear that global expansion is a key driver for growth.
✅ Shows that this isn’t just a big market—it’s evolving fast, creating even more demand for Paddle’s solution.
3. Traction: 5/5
✅ Strong ARR growth and high customer retention prove the business is scaling well.
✅ Over 2,000 software sellers in 245 countries and territories—clear evidence of global demand.
✅ Growth numbers exceeded expectations even during economic downturns, reinforcing resilience.
4. Business model: 4/5
✅ A SaaS and transaction-fee-based model that grows as customers process more payments.
✅ Scales well with customer success, creating a win-win for Paddle and its users.
❌ Could have provided more detail on pricing tiers and plans for future monetization.
5. Team: 4/5
✅ The founding team has been in place since 2012, showing long-term vision and execution ability.
✅ Investors could feel confident that this leadership team understands the space.
❌ Would have been stronger with details on key hires for scaling—finance, compliance, and sales leadership.
6. Competition: 3/5
✅ Acknowledges other billing and tax compliance solutions in the market.
✅ Positions Paddle as an all-in-one, fully integrated alternative.
❌ Could have gone deeper into how it stacks up against Stripe, FastSpring, and Chargebee.
7. Projections: 3/5
✅ Lays out ambitious expansion plans and a clear product roadmap.
✅ Gives investors a good sense of how Paddle plans to grow revenue alongside the SaaS market.
❌ Missing key financial details—profitability timeline, funding allocation, and long-term revenue strategy.
Final score: 4.1/5
Verdict:
Paddle’s pitch deck does a great job of showing why this business matters. The problem is urgent, the traction is solid, and the revenue model scales well.
Investors could easily see the potential. A stronger competitive analysis and clearer financial projections would have made an already strong pitch even better.
Full Square pitch deck teardown
1. Problem/Solution: 5/5
✅ Lays out the problem in simple terms—small businesses struggle to accept credit cards because of high fees and outdated payment systems.
✅ Square makes it easy—no clunky hardware, no confusing pricing, just a mobile-based payment solution that works.
✅ It’s obvious why this would appeal to merchants who’ve been stuck using cash or paying too much for traditional POS systems.
2. Market: 5/5
✅ Taps into a massive market—mobile payments and small business transactions are only growing.
✅ Makes a strong case that Square isn’t just filling a gap but creating a shift in how payments work.
✅ Shows that this isn’t a niche play—there’s real scale here, with opportunities beyond small businesses.
3. Traction: 5/5
✅ The growth numbers are hard to ignore—100K merchants signing up every month and over $1M in daily transactions.
✅ Businesses are sticking with it, using Square across industries.
✅ The deck makes it easy to see that Square is catching on fast and has momentum on its side.
4. Business model: 4/5
✅ A straightforward transaction-based model that scales as more businesses join.
✅ Hints at additional revenue opportunities beyond payment processing.
❌ Could have provided a clearer breakdown of long-term monetization—things like lending or business software.
5. Team: 5/5
✅ Having Jack Dorsey as a co-founder gave Square instant credibility.
✅ The leadership team had deep expertise in fintech, payments, and scaling tech businesses.
✅ Investors could trust that this was the right team to pull it off.
6. Competition: 3/5
✅ Acknowledges that Square isn’t the only player in the space.
✅ Highlights what makes it different—simple setup, transparent pricing, and a mobile-first approach.
❌ A deeper comparison with PayPal, Clover, and traditional POS systems would have made the case even stronger.
7. Projections: 3/5
✅ Paints a clear picture of where Square is headed—expanding tools for merchants and growing revenue.
✅ Gives investors confidence in the company’s ability to scale.
❌ Leaves out key financial details like profitability timelines and how long they can sustain growth.
Final score: 4.3/5
Verdict:
Square’s pitch deck did a great job showing why small businesses needed their product. The traction was strong, making it easy for investors to picture businesses quickly adopting Square. Plus, it clearly highlighted a big market opportunity.
But there were some missing pieces. The deck didn’t clearly explain how Square planned to beat the competition over the long haul, leaving some doubts about their competitive edge.
And while the potential for growth was clear, investors would've felt more confident if they'd seen a detailed plan for how Square intended to scale and keep revenue coming in steadily.
Full Shopify pitch deck teardown
1. Problem/Solution: 5/5
✅ Presents the problem—small and medium businesses struggle with eCommerce tools that are either too expensive or too complicated.
✅ Shopify provides an all-in-one platform that makes selling online simple and accessible.
✅ Shows why this solution is essential as more businesses move online.
2. Market: 5/5
✅ Highlights the rapid growth of online shopping and the increasing demand for better eCommerce tools.
✅ Makes it clear that Shopify isn’t limited to small businesses—it’s expanding into enterprise and international markets.
✅ Positions Shopify as a major player in the future of online retail.
3. Traction: 5/5
✅ Demonstrates strong revenue growth and increasing merchant adoption.
✅ Gross merchandise volume (GMV) numbers confirm Shopify’s deep integration into businesses’ daily operations.
✅ Gives investors confidence that Shopify is built for long-term success.
4. Business model: 5/5
✅ Subscription-based model with different tiers for businesses of all sizes.
✅ Expands revenue through Shopify Payments, Shopify Capital, and an extensive app marketplace.
✅ Shows that Shopify has multiple revenue streams and a solid plan for continued growth.
5. Team: 4/5
✅ Strong leadership with Tobi Lütke and a team that understands eCommerce at a deep level.
✅ Highlights a leadership team capable of scaling Shopify into a global company.
❌ Could have included more details on key hires in finance, product development, and international growth.
6. Competition: 4/5
✅ Acknowledges major competitors like WooCommerce and Magento.
✅ Explains why Shopify’s ease of use and scalability make it the best option for SMBs.
❌ Could have provided a clearer comparison to Amazon, which was becoming a bigger competitive threat.
7. Projections: 4/5
✅ Lays out a roadmap for growth, including expansion into new markets and enterprise solutions.
✅ Provides a clear path for increasing revenue beyond subscriptions.
❌ Lacks detailed profitability projections or a timeline for scaling new revenue streams.
Final score: 4.6/5
Verdict:
Shopify’s pitch deck made a strong impression, clearly illustrating why the company had long-term staying power.
The growth numbers looked impressive, the business model was logical, and the market opportunity felt massive.
But it wasn’t perfect. The deck could’ve gone deeper on the competitive landscape—especially how Shopify would compete against giants like Amazon.
Also, investors might've appreciated more details on exactly how Shopify planned to maintain profitability while scaling rapidly.
Full Tesla pitch deck teardown
1. Problem/Solution: 5/5
✅ Gets straight to the point—gas-powered cars are outdated, inefficient, and bad for the planet.
✅ Tesla’s solution is clear: EVs that are better, faster, and cheaper to run.
✅ Makes a strong case that the auto industry is due for a shake-up, and Tesla is leading the charge.
2. Market: 5/5
✅ Shows demand for EVs is growing fast, helped by government incentives and shifting consumer preferences.
✅ Investors could see the long-term potential, especially as Tesla moved beyond luxury cars into the mass market.
✅ Highlights how Tesla’s tech isn’t just about cars—it could transform energy storage and the power grid too.
3. Traction: 4/5
✅ Proves Tesla isn’t just an idea—shows real success with the Roadster and hype for the Model S.
✅ Big-name partnerships with Toyota, Daimler, and Panasonic added serious credibility.
❌ Could have included more hard numbers on sales and reservations to show demand.
4. Business model: 4/5
✅ Includes a solid revenue model—direct car sales, battery tech, and future energy storage solutions.
✅ Stands apart from traditional automakers by cutting out dealerships and selling direct-to-consumer.
❌ Doesn’t dig deep enough into long-term profitability, which investors always want to see.
5. Team: 5/5
✅ Strong leadership, with Elon Musk leading a team of top-tier experts from the auto, energy, and tech industries.
✅ Investors could feel confident Tesla had the right people to pull this off.
✅ Smart hires from major car manufacturers and tech companies helped boost credibility.
6. Competition: 3/5
✅ Calls out traditional automakers but argues they’re too slow to keep up.
✅ Highlights Tesla’s edge in battery tech and vertical integration.
❌ Misses a chance to directly compare Tesla to emerging EV rivals like Nissan (Leaf) and Chevrolet (Volt).
7. Projections: 3/5
✅ Presents a big vision for mass-market EV adoption and long-term sustainability.
✅ Gives investors a look at the Gigafactory plan and how Tesla will scale production.
❌ Leaves out key financial projections—investors needed more clarity on how Tesla planned to make money at scale.
Final score: 4.3/5
Verdict:
Tesla’s pitch deck was bold, ambitious, and packed with vision. It made a strong case for why EVs were the future and why Tesla was the company to make it happen.
But with a deeper look at the competition and clearer financial projections, it could have been even stronger.
Stop losing opportunities to ineffective presentations.
Your new amazing deck is one click away!
