Evidence-based PMF review vs consultant: what's the difference?

We're not replacing a great advisor. We're giving you a read so you don't pay for a read.

What a consultant PMF review usually is

A deck. Opinions. Benchmarks. They talk to you, maybe look at your site and metrics, and give recommendations. Valuable when you need strategy, negotiation, or someone in the room. Also expensive and often the first step is "we need to understand where you stand."

What we mean by evidence-based

We only say what we observed or inferred. We label it. Every claim in the report is tagged Verified, Likely, or Unknown. Verified: we saw it on your site or in a source we name. Likely: we inferred it from evidence and say why. Unknown: we don't have evidence; we say what would resolve it. So you can argue with the report. You can see which parts are solid and which are not.

Why the labels matter

When we're guessing, we say we're guessing. That way you don't over-index on a verdict that rests on thin evidence. And when you do bring in a consultant, you already have a shared read. You can spend the session on "here's what we found, here's where we're uncertain—what would you do?" instead of "tell us where we stand."

When to use a tool first, when to hire

Get the read first. Then decide if you need a human. If the report answers your question, you might not need a consultant yet. If it surfaces gaps (e.g. "we don't know who your customer is") or you need help executing, then hire. First PMF diagnosis before you hire a consultant and how we label claims go deeper.