AI-Native Deal Team for M&A Advisory Firms

The AI-native deal team behind your deal team. We do the deal work and help your firm run on AI. For independent M&A and corporate finance firms in the UK and Canada. Straightforward jobs within 12 hours, most within 48.

Book a call

Food distribution_Target screen_v3.xlsx

M9fx=XLOOKUP(B9,CRM!A:A,CRM!D:D,"None")

	A	B	C	D	E	F	G	H	I	J	K	L	M	N	O
1		Target screen: Ontario food distribution, 38 fit, 6 shortlisted
2		(C$ in millions; database estimates, latest year available; as at 30-Oct-26)
3
4	Rank	Company	Region	Founded	Ownership	Age⁽¹⁾	Revenue	EBITDA	Margin	3Y CAGR	Sites	Successor	CRM history	Coverage	Tier
5		Shortlist (6)
6	1)	Company A	Central	1998)	Founder	67)	38.2)	3.4)	8.9%)	9.1%)	2)	None named	None	Partner	A
7	2)	Company B	Golden Horseshoe	2001)	Founder	64)	27.6)	2.9)	10.5%)	7.4%)	1)	None named	None	Partner	A
8	3)	Company C	Southwest	1994)	Family	69)	22.1)	1.9)	8.6%)	6.2%)	1)	Son, part-time	None	Director	A
9	4)	Company D	East	2006)	Founder	61)	19.4)	2.2)	11.3%)	11.3%)	2)	None named	2023 note	Partner	A
10	5)	Company E	East	1989)	Family	71)	16.0)	1.3)	8.1%)	4.8%)	1)	None named	No reply	Director	A
11	6)	Company F	Southwest	2003)	Founder	63)	14.7)	1.4)	9.5%)	8.0%)	1)	None named	None	Director	A
12		Shortlist total					138.0)	13.1)	9.5%)
13		Reserve (8)
14	7)	Company G	Southwest	1997)	Family	58)	13.9)	1.2)	8.6%)	5.5%)	1)	COO in post	Met 2024	Director	B
15	8)	Company H	Central	2008)	Founder	56)	12.6)	1.1)	8.7%)	12.6%)	1)	None named	None	Director	B
16	9)	Company I	Golden Horseshoe	2000)	Family	60)	12.1)	0.9)	7.4%)	3.9%)	1)	Daughter	None	Director	B
17	10)	Company J	North	1992)	Family	66)	11.4)	1.0)	8.8%)	4.4%)	1)	None named	No reply	Director	B
18	11)	Company K	Southwest	2011)	Founder	52)	10.8)	1.0)	9.3%)	14.2%)	1)	None named	None	Director	B
19	12)	Company L	Golden Horseshoe	2004)	Founder	59)	9.6)	0.8)	8.3%)	6.7%)	1)	COO in post	None	Director	B
20	13)	Company M	Central	1999)	Family	62)	8.9)	0.7)	7.9%)	5.1%)	1)	None named	None	Director	B
21	14)	Company N	North	2007)	Founder	57)	8.2)	0.8)	9.8%)	7.8%)	1)	None named	2022 note	Director	B
22		Reserve total					87.5)	7.5)	8.6%)
23
24		How the list was cut: 186 to 74 to 38 to 6. Revenue C$8m to C$40m, owner-led; no live process or adviser; partner review.
25		Source: PitchBook, company websites, firm CRM. Private companies with no public accounts: figures to confirm on first contact. (1) Principal owner.

ShortlistLong listExcludedSources

Project Oak_Teaser_v6.docx

Project Oak | Confidential investment summary, October 2026Preliminary draft | Strictly private and confidential

Profitable, founder-owned specialist food distributor

UK; chilled and ambient; own label; two sites; 120 trade customers

The opportunity

The Company supplies chilled and ambient food to independent retailers and caterers across the UK under its own and third-party labels. Revenue has grown every year since FY22A, at a 10.6% CAGR, and a second site opened in FY24A has added capacity for own-label lines. The shareholder is exploring a sale and will support a transition.

Investment highlights

22 years of continuous trading; no customer above 12% of revenue
Top five customers at 41% of revenue, on multi-year terms
Own label at 18.0% of FY25A revenue, up from 9.0% in FY22A
Second site gives headroom; management willing to remain

Key metrics

£18.4mFY25A revenue

£3.1mFY25A Adj. EBITDA

34.0%Gross margin

120Trade customers

10.6%Revenue CAGR, 3 years

18.0%Own label, FY25A

£ in millionsRevenueAdj. EBITDA

13.62.2FY22A

14.92.4FY23A

16.62.8FY24A

18.43.1FY25A

20.13.2FY26E

Financial summary (£ in millions, FYE December)

	FY22A)	FY23A)	FY24A)	FY25A)	LTM Sep-26)	FY26E)
Revenue	13.6)	14.9)	16.6)	18.4)	19.7)	20.1)
growth	NA)	9.6%)	11.4%)	10.8%)	NA)	9.2%)
Gross margin	32.1%)	32.8%)	33.4%)	34.0%)	NA)	34.2%)
Adj. EBITDA	2.2)	2.4)	2.8)	3.1)	3.1)	3.2)
margin	16.2%)	16.1%)	16.9%)	16.8%)	15.7%)	15.9%)
Capex	(0.4)	(0.5)	(1.4)	(0.6)	NA)	(0.6)

A limited number of further parties are being approached. NDA required before the information memorandum is released. Indicative offers by 13-Nov-26. All enquiries through the adviser only; do not contact the Company, its staff, customers or suppliers.

Checked by Verdalyze

Model says £2.9m, cell F31. Fix before this goes out.

Project Oak_Board materials_v5.pptx

Final round IOIs of £28.0m to £30.5m sit inside the precedent and DCF ranges, above LBO value

Preliminary draft, subject to review
Valuation summary

MethodologyMetric and rangeImplied enterprise value (£ in millions)EV / LTM EBITDA

Market based

Trading comparablesLTM EBITDA £3.1m
7.9x to 9.3x⁽¹⁾24.528.87.9x to 9.3x

Trading comparablesNTM EBITDA £3.4m
7.6x to 8.6x⁽¹⁾26.029.58.4x to 9.5x

Precedent transactionsLTM EBITDA £3.1m
8.7x to 10.5x⁽²⁾26.932.58.7x to 10.5x

Intrinsic

Discounted cash flowWACC 11.0% to 13.0%
Growth 2.0% to 3.0%⁽³⁾25.133.48.1x to 10.8x

Leveraged buyoutIRR 20.0% to 25.0%
3.5x debt, exit 9.0x⁽⁴⁾23.826.87.7x to 8.6x

For reference only

All IOIs (9 parties)Non-binding
Received 02-Oct-2622.630.57.3x to 9.8x

Final round (4 parties)Non-binding
Subject to diligence28.030.59.0x to 9.8x

Analysis at final round IOIs	Metric	Buyer C £28.0m	Sponsor D £29.2m	Median £29.5m	Buyer B £29.8m	Buyer A £30.5m
Equity value, 100%		24.8)	26.0)	26.3)	26.6)	27.3)
EV / LTM EBITDA	£3.1m	9.0x)	9.4x)	9.5x)	9.6x)	9.8x)
EV / FY27E EBITDA	£3.5m	8.0x)	8.3x)	8.4x)	8.5x)	8.7x)
Premium to precedent median	£29.1m	(3.8%)	0.3%)	1.4%)	2.4%)	4.8%)

Source: Management accounts, Capital IQ, Mergermarket, process letters as of 30-Oct-26. Net debt of £3.2m at 30-Sep-26.

Note: (1) 25th to 75th percentile of 12 peers, less 15% size and liquidity discount; (2) 25th to 75th percentile of 12 deals, from 28 reviewed; (3) Mid-year convention, valuation date 31-Dec-26, perpetuity growth; (4) Five year hold, lenders stopped at 3.5x LTM EBITDA

Strictly private and confidential | 7

Project Oak_Model_v12.xlsx

J8fx=E8/G8

	A	B	C	D	E	F	G	H	I	J	K	L	M	N
1	Project Oak: selected trading comparables
2	(£ in millions, converted at spot on 30-Oct-26; calendarised to December; pre-IFRS 16)
3			Market data			Financials			Enterprise value to			Operating
4	Company	FYE	Mkt cap	Net debt	EV	LTM rev.	LTM EBITDA	NTM EBITDA	LTM rev.	LTM EBITDA	NTM EBITDA	NTM growth	Margin	ND / EBITDA
5	Project Oak at median	Dec	NA)	3.2)	29.5)	19.7)	3.1)	3.4)	1.50x)	9.5x)	8.6x)	9.2%)	15.7%)	1.0x)
6	UK and Ireland specialist distribution
7	Distributor A	Dec	1,284)	236)	1,520)	1,310)	142.0)	156.0)	1.16x)	10.7x)	9.7x)	6.1%)	10.8%)	1.7x)
8	Distributor B	Mar⁽²⁾	642)	118)	760)	980)	86.0)	94.0)	0.78x)	8.8x)	8.1x)	5.2%)	8.8%)	1.4x)
9	Distributor C	Sep⁽²⁾	418)	96)	514)	612)	61.0)	66.0)	0.84x)	8.4x)	7.8x)	4.4%)	10.0%)	1.6x)
10	Distributor D	Jun⁽²⁾	214)	88)	302)	430)	9.6)	NA)	0.70x)	NM)	NA)	(2.1%)	2.2%)	9.2x)
11	Continental European food distribution
12	Distributor E	Dec	2,960)	612)	3,572)	3,420)	318.0)	342.0)	1.04x)	11.2x)	10.4x)	5.0%)	9.3%)	1.9x)
13	Distributor F	Dec	1,120)	204)	1,324)	1,240)	124.0)	133.0)	1.07x)	10.7x)	10.0x)	4.8%)	10.0%)	1.6x)
14	Distributor G	Dec	488)	142)	630)	760)	69.0)	73.0)	0.83x)	9.1x)	8.6x)	3.6%)	9.1%)	2.1x)
15	Distributor H	Dec	356)	61)	417)	390)	44.0)	NA)	1.07x)	9.5x)	NA)	4.1%)	11.3%)	1.4x)
16	North American specialty distribution
17	Distributor I	Jun⁽²⁾	6,840)	1,320)	8,160)	6,210)	742.0)	806.0)	1.31x)	11.0x)	10.1x)	7.0%)	11.9%)	1.8x)
18	Distributor J	Dec	3,120)	734)	3,854)	3,480)	356.0)	392.0)	1.11x)	10.8x)	9.8x)	6.4%)	10.2%)	2.1x)
19	Distributor K	Dec	1,760)	268)	2,028)	1,590)	172.0)	190.0)	1.28x)	11.8x)	10.7x)	8.2%)	10.8%)	1.6x)
20	Distributor L	Dec	690)	176)	866)	1,020)	81.0)	88.0)	0.85x)	10.7x)	9.8x)	4.9%)	7.9%)	2.2x)
21	High								1.31x)	11.8x)	10.7x)	8.2%)	11.9%)	9.2x)
22	75th percentile								1.12x)	10.9x)	10.1x)	6.2%)	10.8%)	2.1x)
23	Median								1.06x)	10.7x)	9.8x)	5.0%)	10.0%)	1.7x)
24	25th percentile								0.84x)	9.3x)	8.9x)	4.3%)	9.0%)	1.6x)
25	Low								0.70x)	8.4x)	7.8x)	(2.1%)	2.2%)	1.4x)
26	Applied: 25th to 75th, less 15%⁽¹⁾									7.9x to 9.3x	7.6x to 8.6x
27	Source: Company filings, Capital IQ, consensus estimates as of 30-Oct-26. NM: above 25.0x or negative. NA: no broker coverage. Statistics exclude NM and NA.
28	(1) 25th to 75th percentile, less a 15% size and liquidity discount. (2) Calendarised by time-weighting the two fiscal years either side. Net debt excludes leases.

Project Oak data room: Q&A

Project OakIndexQ&AReportsUsersStage 2, 4 bidders

Data room index

1Corporate42

2Financial118

3Commercial96

4Legal74

5Property31

6People27

7Tax19

407 documents, last upload 30-Oct-26 17:42

Buyer questions31 questions: 22 posted, 6 drafted, 3 held for you

No.	Bidder	Category	Question	Answer from	Owner	Asked	Due	Status
Q31	Buyer C	Financial	Working capital by month, FY23A to FY25A	Doc 2.3.1	CFO	29-Oct	03-Nov	Drafted
Q30	Buyer A	Legal	Change of control clauses in top contracts	Doc 3.4.2	Counsel	28-Oct	02-Nov	Held for you
Q29	Sponsor D	Financial	FY25A capex, maintenance and growth split	Doc 2.6.1	CFO	28-Oct	02-Nov	Drafted
Q28	Buyer B	Property	Lease terms, second site	Doc 5.2.1	Counsel	27-Oct	30-Oct	Posted
Q27	Buyer A	Commercial	Top five customer contracts, renewal dates	Doc 3.4.1	CEO	27-Oct	30-Oct	Drafted
Q26	Buyer C	Financial	Adj. EBITDA bridge, FY25A add-backs	Doc 2.2.4	Adviser	26-Oct	29-Oct	Held for you
Q25	Sponsor D	People	Key employee terms and notice periods	Doc 6.1.2	Counsel	26-Oct	29-Oct	Held for you
Q24	Buyer B	Commercial	Own-label revenue by customer	Doc 3.2.3	CEO	23-Oct	28-Oct	Posted
Q23	Buyer A	Property	Second site fit-out capex	Doc 5.2.4	CFO	23-Oct	28-Oct	Posted
Q22	Sponsor D	Financial	Net debt at last month end	Doc 2.4.1	CFO	22-Oct	27-Oct	Posted
Q21	Buyer C	Legal	Supplier exclusivity terms	Doc 4.3.2	Counsel	22-Oct	27-Oct	Posted
Q20	Buyer B	Financial	Monthly management accounts, year to date	Doc 2.1.6	CFO	21-Oct	26-Oct	Posted

Showing Q20 to Q31 of 31. Dates 2026.Answers drafted from the documents. Nothing is posted to bidders without your sign-off.

Project Oak_Buyer tracker_v12.xlsx

N8fx=VLOOKUP(A8,Calls!A:F,6,0)

	A	B	C	D	E	F	G	H	I	J	K	L	M	N
1	Project Oak: buyer tracker, stage 2
2	(£ in millions; dates 2026; as at 30-Oct-26; multiples on LTM Adj. EBITDA of £3.1m)
3
4	Party	Type	Coverage	Contact	Teaser	NDA	CIM	IOI	IOI EV	EV / EBITDA	Mgmt. mtg	VDR	LOI	Status and next step
5	Final round (4)
6	Buyer A	Strategic	Partner	Head of M&A	07-Sep	09-Sep	11-Sep	02-Oct	30.5)	9.8x)	14-Oct	Open	Due 27-Nov	Site visit 06-Nov; LOI due 27-Nov
7	Buyer B	Strategic	Partner	CFO	07-Sep	10-Sep	11-Sep	02-Oct	29.8)	9.6x)	15-Oct	Open	Due 27-Nov	Q&A open, answers Friday
8	Sponsor D	Sponsor	Director	Partner	08-Sep	11-Sep	14-Sep	02-Oct	29.2)	9.4x)	21-Oct	Open	Due 27-Nov	Lender call 05-Nov; terms needed to hold offer
9	Buyer C	Strategic	Director	Corp. dev.	08-Sep	11-Sep	14-Sep	02-Oct	28.0)	9.0x)	22-Oct	Open	Due 27-Nov	Confirm investment committee date
10	IOI received, not progressed (5)
11	Buyer F	Strategic	Director	Corp. dev.	07-Sep	09-Sep	11-Sep	02-Oct	26.5)	8.5x)	-)	Closed	-)	Below range, stood down
12	Sponsor E	Sponsor	Director	Principal	08-Sep	11-Sep	14-Sep	02-Oct	25.0)	8.1x)	-)	Closed	-)	Below range, no uplift at IC
13	Buyer G	Strategic	Partner	CEO	10-Sep	15-Sep	16-Sep	02-Oct	24.4)	7.9x)	-)	Closed	-)	Stood down, part earn-out
14	Sponsor H	Sponsor	Director	Principal	08-Sep	11-Sep	14-Sep	02-Oct	23.1)	7.5x)	-)	Closed	-)	Below range, financing open
15	Buyer J	Strategic	Director	Head of M&A	14-Sep	16-Sep	18-Sep	02-Oct	22.6)	7.3x)	-)	Closed	-)	Withdrew after adviser call
16	NDA signed, no IOI (14)
17	Buyer L	Strategic	Director	Corp. dev.	08-Sep	14-Sep	16-Sep	-)	-)	-)	-)	-)	-)	Declined, sector focus
18	Sponsor M	Sponsor	Director	Partner	08-Sep	14-Sep	15-Sep	-)	-)	-)	-)	-)	-)	Declined, below fund size
19	Buyer N	Strategic	Director	CFO	08-Sep	15-Sep	18-Sep	-)	-)	-)	-)	-)	-)	Declined, integration load
20	Sponsor O	Sponsor	Director	Principal	08-Sep	15-Sep	17-Sep	-)	-)	-)	-)	-)	-)	Declined, fund cycle
21	Buyer P	Strategic	Director	Head of M&A	08-Sep	16-Sep	21-Sep	-)	-)	-)	-)	-)	-)	No response to CIM
22	Sponsor Q	Sponsor	Director	Principal	08-Sep	18-Sep	22-Sep	-)	-)	-)	-)	-)	-)	Declined, portfolio overlap
23	8 further parties							-)	-)	-)	-)	-)	-)	See Contact log
24	Funnel			64 approached		23)	23)	9)			4)	4)	0)	41 declined before NDA
25	Source: Contact log, data room activity, process letters. -: stage not reached. LOIs due 27-Nov-26; exclusivity targeted 04-Dec-26.

TrackerContact logProcess letterBids

UK food distribution_Owner screen_v4.xlsx

H4fx=G4/F4

	A	B	C	D	E	F	G	H	I
1	412 UK food distributors cut to 6 owner-led targets; first notes drafted, none sent
2	(£ in millions; latest filed accounts; as at 30-Oct-26)
3	Rank	Company	Region	Ownership	Accounts	Revenue	EBITDA⁽¹⁾	Margin	CAGR⁽²⁾
4	1	Company A	West Midlands	Founder	Dec-25	31.4)	2.9)	9.2%)	9.1%)
5	2	Company B	Yorkshire	Founder	Mar-26	27.8)	2.6)	9.4%)	7.4%)
6	3	Company C	North West	Family	Dec-25	24.2)	1.9)	7.9%)	6.2%)
7	4	Company D	East Anglia	Founder	Sep-25	19.6)	2.0)	10.2%)	11.3%)
8	5	Company E	South West	Family	Dec-25	15.3)	1.2)	7.8%)	4.8%)
9	6	Company F	Scotland	Founder	Mar-26	12.9)	1.1)	8.5%)	8.6%)
10		Shortlist total				131.2)	11.7)	8.9%)
11	Step	Source	Test					Left	Removed
12	1	PitchBook	UK food and drink distribution, revenue £8m to £40m					412)
13	2	Companies House	Owner-led, accounts filed on time, no insolvency marker					96)	(316)
14	3	HubSpot	No live conversation or adviser recorded in your CRM					41)	(55)
15	4	SharePoint	No conflict with your past mandates					22)	(19)
16	5	Excel	Shortlisted on margin, growth and succession					6)	(16)
17	6	Outlook	First notes drafted, none sent					6)	0)
18	Source: PitchBook, Companies House, firm CRM and past mandates.
19	(1) Operating profit plus D&A as filed, unadjusted. (2) Revenue, three years to the latest filed accounts.

ShortlistLong listRemovedSources

Verdalyze: Shortlisted and drafted, nothing sent

Find who will sell

We find owners, sellers and buyers, then run outreach and follow-up inside your CRM. You take the calls.

Firm memory_Healthcare services buyers.docx

Three buyers reached the final round twice: Buyer A lost on price, Buyer B on customer concentration

Preliminary draft, subject to review
Healthcare services, 4 mandates

Request: which buyers came closest on our healthcare services mandates, and why did they drop out?

Furthest stage reached and final EV / LTM EBITDA, by mandate

Buyer	Type	Poplar	Juniper	Laurel	Hawthorn	Finals	Why they dropped
Buyer A	Strategic	Final 9.4x	Final 9.1x	IOI	NA	2	Price, both times⁽¹⁾⁽²⁾
Buyer B	Strategic	Final 9.8x	NA	Final 9.2x	IOI	2	Customer concentration⁽³⁾
Sponsor D	Sponsor	IOI	Final 8.8x	NA	Final 8.6x	2	Lenders stopped at 3.5x⁽⁴⁾
Buyer C	Strategic	IOI	IOI	Final 9.0x	NA	1	Integration load
Sponsor E	Sponsor	NA	IOI	IOI	Final 8.9x	1	Fund cycle
Winning bid		10.2x	9.6x	9.9x	9.3x

Source: 4 process letters, 11 call notes and 2 partner emails, in your tenant. NA: not approached.

(1) Word Project Poplar process letter, final round, 13-Mar-26

(2) Outlook Partner email, 12-Mar-26

(3) Teams Buyer B call note, 06-Feb-26

(4) Excel Project Juniper bid tracker, tab Final bids

Strictly private and confidential | 1

Verdalyze: From 4 letters, every source linked

Ask your past deals

We organise every mandate, buyer response and fee in your own tenant, and answer with the source one click away.

Project Oak_Tie-out_v6.xlsx

D7fx='[Project Oak_Model_v12.xlsx]P&L'!$F$31

	A	B	C	D	E	F	G
1	Project Oak: 139 of 142 figures tie to source; 3 flagged in the teaser before it goes out
2	(£ in millions unless stated; FYE December; LTM to Sep-26; as at 30-Oct-26)
3	Ref	Figure	Stated	Per source	Diff.	Status	Agreed to
4	Teaser, Project Oak_Teaser_v6.docx42 read, 39 tied, 3 flagged
5	T1	Revenue, FY25A	18.4)	18.4)	0.0)	Tied	Model, P&L!F12
6	T2	Gross margin, FY25A	34.0%)	34.0%)	0.0%)	Tied	Model, P&L!F19
7	T3	Adj. EBITDA, FY25A	3.1)	2.9)	0.2)	Flagged	Model, P&L!F31
8	T4	Capex, FY24A	(1.4)	(1.2)	(0.2)	Flagged	Model, DCF!B13
9	T5	Trade customers (number)	120)	NA)	NA)	Flagged	No source found
10	Comps and precedents, Project Oak_Model_v12.xlsx72 read, 72 tied
11	C1	Precedents, 25th percentile	8.7x)	8.7x)	0.0x)	Tied	Precedents!K20
12	C2	Implied EV at the 25th percentile	26.9)	26.9)	0.0)	Tied	8.7x on £3.1m
13	Board materials, Project Oak_Board materials_v5.pptx28 read, 28 tied
14	S1	Final round parties (number)	4)	4)	0)	Tied	Buyer tracker, A5
15	S2	Final round median EV	29.5)	29.5)	0.0)	Tied	Buyer tracker, I6:I9
16	S3	EV / LTM EBITDA at the median	9.5x)	9.5x)	0.0x)	Tied	29.5 over 3.1
17		Total: 142 read, 139 tied				3 flagged
18	Source: Project Oak_Model_v12.xlsx, Buyer tracker, market data. T3 moves FY25A margin from 16.8% to 15.8%. NA: no source.

Tie-outTeaserCompsBoard deck

Verdalyze: 3.1 stated, 2.9 in the model

Every figure checked

Work your partners can trust. We tie each number to its source and flag what does not agree before it reaches you.

Weekly review_Week 44.pptx

Week 44: 9 pieces of work delivered, 291 of 296 figures tied, 5 flagged for your decision

Preliminary draft, subject to review
Weekly review, w/e 30-Oct-26

Delivered (number)

Target lists2

Comps1

Teaser checks3

Status decks3

Excel Figures checked⁽¹⁾

Mandate	Read	Tied	Flagged	% tied
Project Oak	142	139	3	97.9%
Project Spruce	96	94	2	97.9%
Project Sycamore	58	58	0	100.0%
Total	296	291	5	98.3%

HubSpot Owner replies

Notes sent: 24
Replies: 7
Reply rate: 29.2%
Calls booked: 2

For your decision

Project Oak: Adj. EBITDA in the teaser does not tie to the model, held for your sign-off
Project Spruce: two customer figures wait on the latest management accounts
Next week: buyer tracker refresh and the Q&A log for stage 2

Source: Delivery log, firm CRM, Project Oak_Model_v12.xlsx. Reviewed with your team, every Tuesday.

(1) Flagged figures are held for your decision. Project Oak's 142 agrees to the tie-out schedule.

Strictly private and confidential | 3

Verdalyze: Ready for your decision on Tuesday

Reviewed with you, every week or two

We go through what we delivered with your team every week or two and keep it right as your deals change.

Your team has the seats. But the drafts still need checking, your best knowledge sits in old folders, and partners spend their time reviewing output instead of winning mandates. Meanwhile, the largest advisers are investing in AI at a scale an independent firm cannot match on its own.

What goes in, what we do, and what lands on your desk.

OriginationWithin 12 hours

Founder call brief

Companies House

DealCloud

Mergermarket

Filed accounts and ownership read
Past contact and call notes pulled
Recent sector deals listed

One page: the business, your history with them, what to ask.

ValuationWithin 24 hours

Comps and precedents

S&P Capital IQ

Mergermarket Excel

Excel

12 trading comps set to LTM
28 precedents, EBITDA on one basis
Every multiple tied to its source

Comps table and football field in your format, ready for the deck.

Sell-sideWithin 48 hours

Buyer universe

PitchBook

Companies House

DealCloud

412 strategics and sponsors screened
37 already approached, taken out
Tiered A, B, C against the mandate

64 buyers tiered, each with rationale, contact and source.

Marketing materialsAbout 5 working days

Teaser and CIM

Word

PowerPoint Excel

Excel

No-name teaser drafted
CIM built in your template
42 figures read against the model

39 tie. 3 flagged for you, with the cell.

Round oneWithin 24 hours

IOI comparison

Outlook

Excel

Word

9 IOIs read
Value, structure and financing lined up
Round two process letter drafted

One page for the shortlist call, with the process letter ready.

Round twoEvery weekday

Data room Q&A log

Datasite

SharePoint Excel

Excel

31 buyer questions logged
Answers drafted from the documents
Sensitive ones held for you

Log updated, each answer linked to its page. Nothing posted without you.

Live processEvery Monday

Buyer status tracker

Outlook

Datasite

Excel

Buyer replies and calls logged
Data room activity matched by bidder
Chasers and next steps listed

Where every buyer stands, ready for your Monday client update.

A line or two by email. The finished work comes back to your inbox, with every source one click away.

Each one stands on its own and each has its own price. Almost every firm starts with the origination engine.

Origination engine

We find the owners, sellers and buyers worth approaching and run the approach inside your CRM.

Owners, sellers and buyers that fit your criteria, each with its reason and source
First approaches in your firm's voice, sent once a person at your firm approves them
Replies and next steps logged in your CRM

See the full scope

Deal work done

Send us the deal work and get it back finished and checked, with every figure tied to its source.

Teasers, CIMs, comps and buyer universes in your own template
Every figure tied to its source, and anything that does not tie held and flagged
Firm memory, under this service

See the full scope

AI for your team

Set up once, then run and taught every month. The AI for M&A course is the way in.

Your AI set-up built around your templates and your process
A session a month on your real deal tasks
A written policy on what can go in and what must never

See the full scope

Shaped by firms like

Bankers and advisers: 22
Firms: 5
Countries: 3

Each client's data, and anything tuned to it, stays with that client. Yours is scoped from your own needs.

Searchfunds

Project Aspen

Every established UK company, read and ranked for a search fund

Livedeals

Project Linden

A register of everything owed on a mandate, each line tied to its email

Valuation

Project Cedar

A comps finder for an investment bank in Belgium

Buy-side

Project Willow

A buy-side target engine for an investment bank in Canada

Buy-side

Project Hazel

A buy-side target engine for an investment bank in the UK

Teamtraining

Project Pine

An AI for M&A course we ran for an M&A advisory firm in Canada

We work inside your mail, your CRM, your data room and the market data your firm licenses, so nothing about your day changes. Your firm holds its own subscriptions, in its own name. We build around them and teach your team to work in them.

Mail and documents

Outlook
Word
Excel
PowerPoint
Gmail
Adobe Acrobat
DocuSign

Deal CRM

DealCloud
Salesforce
HubSpot
Affinity
Pipedrive
Zoho

Data rooms

Datasite
Intralinks
Firmex
Ansarada

Market data

PitchBook
S&P Capital IQ
FactSet
Preqin
Mergermarket
Companies House
SEDAR+
LinkedIn

Files and teamwork

SharePoint
OneDrive
Google Drive
Dropbox
Box
Teams
Zoom
Google Meet

Finance and reporting

QuickBooks
Xero
Sage
Power BI

And whichever AI you use

Claude
ChatGPT
Microsoft Copilot
Gemini

And anything else your firm runs on. If it has data, we can work with it. Product names and logos belong to their owners.

Tools shown are examples. We work under your firm's own licences, and no partnership is implied.

Deal work is confidential by definition, so we start there.

UK GDPRWe work under it
EU GDPRWe work under it
PIPEDAWe work under it
Quebec Law 25We work under it
SOC 2 Type IIHeld by our providers
ISO 27001Held by our providers

Only where you agree

Your firm's memory lives in your own tenant. AI runs in your environment where your size allows, otherwise only with providers that do not train on your data, with names masked if you want.

Agreed access

We agree what the work can see and who can see it before we start. Access is yours to revoke.

Never used for another client

Your data is used only for your firm and is never used to train AI models.

How we protect your data

From the founders

We started Verdalyze because good independent firms were losing ground to houses that could simply spend more on support. When you work with us, you talk to the people doing your work. We learn how you run a process, we check what we hand back, and we sit down with you every week or two.

Shihab & Ilyas

Meet the founders

Plain notes for partners at independent firms on where AI helps, where it fails and what to do next.

All insights

What is Verdalyze?

Verdalyze is the AI-native deal team behind the deal teams of M&A and corporate finance firms in Canada and the UK. Firms send the deal work and get it back finished: built on their own deals and way of working, and checked. We also help the firm run on AI. It is run by its founders, Shihab and Ilyas Berel, through VERDALYZE LTD in the UK and Technologies Verdalyze inc. in Canada.

We already have ChatGPT. Why would we need you?

Good, keep it, in your firm's name. Send us the deal work and it comes back finished and checked. Separately, we can build your firm's AI set-up around those seats and teach your team to work in it.

Should we license something rather than build?

Often, yes. If licensing is the right answer we will say so, then build your set-up around what you license and teach your team to use it. The subscription stays in your firm's name.

We are already looking at a specialist vendor.

That is fine. We can work alongside it.

Is it safe to use AI on our confidential deal data?

Your data is used only for your firm and never to train AI. For larger firms, the work can run inside the firm's own environment. Otherwise, the text a task needs is sent only to AI providers that do not train on customer data under their commercial terms, and the result comes back. Before anything reaches a model, a redaction and pseudonymisation step can mask names, figures and other identifying details, then restore them in the finished work. Our Security page sets out what is processed, by whom and on what terms.

How fast do we see finished work?

Straightforward jobs come back within 12 hours, most work within 48 hours, and a long piece such as a 120-page CIM in about five working days. It depends on length, and the brief says when you will have it. The work gets sharper with every deal we do for you.

How do fees work?

We charge on your firm rather than on your outcomes: what you pay follows the number of fee-earning professionals you have and the mandates you have live. We set it out on a call and write it into your engagement letter. There is no discount, no percentage of a deal and no free sample work.

Which firms do you work with?

Independent advisers with a real flow of mandates: M&A boutiques, business brokers, mid-market investment banks, corporate finance advisers, and valuation and transaction advisers.

Does our team have to change how it works?

No. We design around your existing process. If a habit works, we work from it instead of replacing it.

Book a call

Find who will sell

Ask your past deals

Every figure checked

Reviewed with you, every week or two

Founder call brief

Comps and precedents

Buyer universe

Teaser and CIM

IOI comparison

Data room Q&A log

Buyer status tracker

Origination engine

Deal work done

AI for your team

Every established UK company, read and ranked for a search fund

A register of everything owed on a mandate, each line tied to its email

A comps finder for an investment bank in Belgium

A buy-side target engine for an investment bank in Canada

A buy-side target engine for an investment bank in the UK

An AI for M&A course we ran for an M&A advisory firm in Canada

Only where you agree

Agreed access

Never used for another client

Where should human review sit in an AI workflow?

A deal timeline should record decisions, not just email

An M&A brief is only useful if you can check its sources

What is Verdalyze?

We already have ChatGPT. Why would we need you?

Should we license something rather than build?

We are already looking at a specialist vendor.

Is it safe to use AI on our confidential deal data?

How fast do we see finished work?

How do fees work?

Which firms do you work with?

Does our team have to change how it works?

Deal work,done and checked.

Find who will sell

Ask your past deals

Every figure checked

Reviewed with you, every week or two

Most deal teams use AI now. Few can rely on it.

What comes back.

Founder call brief

Comps and precedents

Buyer universe

Teaser and CIM

IOI comparison

Data room Q&A log

Buyer status tracker

Brief us the way you would brief a colleague.

Three services, and origination comes first.

Origination engine

Deal work done

AI for your team

Built for deal firms in Belgium, the UK and Canada.

How firms work with Verdalyze.

Every established UK company, read and ranked for a search fund

A register of everything owed on a mandate, each line tied to its email

A comps finder for an investment bank in Belgium

A buy-side target engine for an investment bank in Canada

A buy-side target engine for an investment bank in the UK

An AI for M&A course we ran for an M&A advisory firm in Canada

We work with everything you already use.

Your deals stay your deals.

Only where you agree

Agreed access

Never used for another client

What is changing in deal work.

Where should human review sit in an AI workflow?

A deal timeline should record decisions, not just email

An M&A brief is only useful if you can check its sources

What partners ask first.

What is Verdalyze?

We already have ChatGPT. Why would we need you?

Should we license something rather than build?

We are already looking at a specialist vendor.

Is it safe to use AI on our confidential deal data?

How fast do we see finished work?

How do fees work?

Which firms do you work with?

Does our team have to change how it works?

What is slowing your team down?