The metric bars an IC memo cites — by stage

Investors don't ask "do you have a model." They ask "is your NDR above 110 and your burn multiple below 2." Every stage has a set of numbers a partner benchmarks you against — and the memo they write about you cites those numbers verbatim. Below is the bar for each metric, at each stage, split into the level that clears the bar and the level that reads as strong. Toggle stage and model to see your set.

Two rules of thumb that surprise founders: the "$1M ARR = Series A" heuristic is dead (that's now the seed graduation mark; median Series A happens nearer ~$2.5M ARR), and AI-native companies are held to a different bar — higher growth, lower gross margin — not the classic-SaaS one.

Show the bar for:

Business model:

Metric (investor's term)	Clears	Strong

How to read these

Clears is the bar you have to be at to not lose the conversation on this metric. Strong is the level that actively helps your case. Below "clears" isn't automatically fatal — but you'll need a reason (repeat founder, frontier AI, a specific counter-narrative).
Bring methodology, not just the number. Stating how you compute CAC or gross margin beats a flattering number with no formula. An IC discounts numbers it can't reconstruct.
The efficiency metrics carry the 2023–26 story. Burn multiple and CAC payback are read alongside growth — fast growth with a burn multiple over 3× reads worse than moderate growth under 1.5×.
AI-native is judged on the AI bar. ~3–4× growth is table stakes, and ~52% gross margin is accepted if paired with that growth and a credible path up as inference costs fall.

These are ranges, not point estimates — on purpose. The 2025–26 dispersion, especially AI vs. non-AI, is the whole story. Ranges here are institutional consensus for US B2B SaaS, 2024–2026 (Bessemer State of the Cloud, ICONIQ Growth, OpenView/High Alpha, KeyBanc/Sapphire, Carta). Verify against the source reports before quoting a specific figure to an investor — see the methodology page for how these are assembled.

Score your own numbers against these

The RaiseReady report scores your actual metrics against exactly this table, marks each 🟢 strong / 🟡 clears / 🔴 below, and writes the IC-memo language around them. The free on-page check gets you to the rubric; the report benchmarks the numbers.

Get your metrics scored the way an IC scores them.

Enter your ARR, growth, NDR, burn and the rest in the order form and the $990 report grades each against the stage bar above, AI-native on the AI bar. Start free with the on-page readiness check.

Run the free readiness check →

FAQ

What ARR do I need for a Series A?

The old "$1M ARR" rule is outdated — in 2024–26, ~$1M is the seed graduation mark, and the median Series A happens nearer $2.5M ARR (roughly $1.5M clears, $3M is strong). Below the clear bar you can still raise, but you'll be defending why you're an exception.

Why is my AI startup's gross margin "fine" at 52% but a SaaS company's isn't?

Because AI-native economics carry real inference cost, and investors price that in — ~52% gross margin is accepted for AI-native if it's paired with 3–4× growth and a visible path up as model/inference costs fall. A classic SaaS company at 52% has no such excuse; software-grade is 77–81%.

What's a good burn multiple?

Net burn ÷ net-new ARR: under 1× is amazing, 1–1.5× great, 1.5–2× good, 2–3× suspect, over 3× bad. The 2026 Series A bar has tightened toward ≤1×. It's always read alongside your growth rate — see burn multiple & runway, worked.

Which metrics matter most at seed vs. Series A?

At seed it's ARR, growth and gross margin — the "is this real and does it have software economics" questions. At Series A the efficiency metrics enter: NDR, burn multiple, CAC payback, and cohort retention become the first things a partner opens. By Series B, Rule of 40 becomes a headline the memo cites verbatim.

Related guides