Twelve measures of how GTM is run across your portfolio — standardization, comparability, and value-creation readiness. You will answer about 8 questions, not all twelve: the flow adapts to what your earlier answers reveal. Answer for most of your portfolio. About three minutes. You'll get your reading, your binding constraint, and what ten points of readiness is worth — on screen, with no signup.
What it produces — an example
A composite mid-market portfolio — $1B, 8 holdings — built from published benchmarks rather than a client. Every figure it rests on is linked below.
Binding constraint
Comparability
Holdings are not measured the same way, so they cannot be ranked. Everything downstream — where operating time goes, what the playbook fixes, what an LP is shown — is being decided without a comparable base.
Something the answers didn't state
As the example portfolio's operator would read it:
You rate your exit and attribution story higher than the comparability underneath it. Those move together in practice: a revenue narrative that is not underwritten by comparable data tends to hold up until the first buyer runs their own cut of it.
What ten points is worth
$150M–$300M
Baseline 52/100 · 48 points of headroom
Our model, not a market benchmark: we assume a 10-point GTM execution gap at a $1B mid-market fund with 8 holdings maps to $150M–$300M of exit value. Scaled by fund size only. A ceiling, not a forecast — and an assumption to test, not a published finding.