My Process and Perspective to Reviewing Accelerator Applications

Knowing what goes on in a reviewer’s mind could help you craft an application that stands out, communicates your vision, and addresses the details that matter most to evaluators.

In the past eight years of reviewing accelerator applications, I’ve used this process that helps me quickly identify which startups have the clarity, commitment, and potential to succeed. While other reviewers may have different approaches, many of the steps, observations, and concerns I’m sharing here will likely resonate with any diligent evaluator.

This article is for you, the founder. My goal is to shed light on what I look for so you can craft applications that showcase your strengths and align with the nuances that experienced reviewers notice.

The First Screen: How I Read Applications

When I open an application, my first step is simple: read the responses to those “describe your…” questions. These are often the best and only place where founders communicate their startup's story, the problems they're solving, and the solutions they've crafted. But like most people, my attention is limited—especially when reviewing dozens of applications. I read the first two lines carefully. If they capture my curiosity or spark interest, I keep reading. If not, that application goes into my “revisit” pile for later.

Imagine reading this in an application:

“We’re revolutionizing the way people communicate, leveraging the power of AI to make conversations smarter.”

Or this:

“We solve the most common communication pain points for large teams by automating scheduling, note-taking, and follow-ups.”

The second one? It gets a closer look. It’s clear, specific, and doesn’t rely on vague buzzwords. That specificity is what I look for early on.

Digging Deeper with the Website

If an application’s responses have caught my attention, I move on to their website. This helps me get a feel for their professionalism and their grasp of presenting their business to the world.

Homepage: This is their first impression, where I sense their level of commitment. A well-organized, user-friendly homepage signals seriousness. A haphazard one, on the other hand, can raise questions about how invested the founders are.

Product Pages: If they have product pages, I browse through them to get a deeper understanding of their offerings. How well do they explain the product? Do they communicate its benefits effectively?

Pricing Page: Pricing is a subtle but powerful indicator of their positioning and how they view their competitive landscape. Are they aiming for premium customers? Budget-conscious users? This helps me understand where they think they fit in the market.

Footer: It may seem trivial, but the footer can tell me a lot. It reveals their attention to detail, a quality that often matters when scaling a business.

Now, I want to be clear: I know not every founder is a designer, and not everyone has the resources for a polished, glossy website. This isn’t about design or creativity. It’s about gauging their baseline—how much they’ve managed with what they have, how they prioritize their business’s digital presence, and how seriously they take this first impression.

Evaluating the Product Demo

Next, I turn to the demo. This could be a video walkthrough or a live demo link, and here’s where I try to sense their product strategy and user-centric design. An intuitive, well-thought-out product says a lot about their grasp on their market’s needs and their problem-solving approach. If the demo lacks clarity or feels clunky, it’s a sign that they may need substantial product support. While I don’t always consider this a deal-breaker, a severely underwhelming demo can be an indicator that their product may not be ready for prime time.

Checking for Consistency

After gathering a snapshot from the descriptions, website, and demo, I re-read the descriptions. It’s a way to cross-check if their responses align with what I’ve seen. Sometimes, I find inconsistencies—websites not updated to reflect shifts in the business or strategies that have changed since they submitted their application. These discrepancies are understandable in the dynamic world of startups, but I like to see an effort to keep the story coherent across different platforms.

What Matters in the Pitch Deck and What Doesn’t

The pitch deck is where I get to know the business on a deeper level. But let me be upfront—my process is pretty strict here.

Slide Length: If the deck exceeds 15 slides, I mentally prepare to review just the first 5 slides. Overly long decks rarely convey a succinct narrative, and I want to understand the business quickly.

Key Slides: The slides I prioritize are Problem, Solution, Product, Traction (if any), and Team. These slides should give a clear, quick understanding of the venture. The Market Potential slide? I usually skip it. More often than not, these figures are overly optimistic, generic, or, let’s face it, “wishful thinking.”

Advisors and Affiliations: This might be surprising, but I don’t focus much on advisor or mentor slides. If the startup has cycled through multiple incubators or accelerators, it raises a red flag. Are the founders constantly looking for hand-holding, or do they rely on the ecosystem primarily for free grants? Too much reliance on these programs can indicate a lack of independence or progress.

The real test is in the first 5 slides. If I still don’t fully understand the business by then, the startup gets placed in my “revisit” bucket. The more complex and convoluted a deck is, the less confidence I have in the founders’ ability to communicate their value clearly.

Social Media and Founders’ Profiles

If a startup has held my interest through the pitch deck, I take a look at their social media. Why? Because it shows me how they interact with their audience, if they’re actively building a brand, and if they’re engaging potential users.

The next step is evaluating the founders themselves. I check each founder’s LinkedIn profile, noting how well they present themselves professionally. A thoughtfully built LinkedIn profile tells me that the founders understand the importance of personality in business and are willing to showcase it. A poorly maintained profile, however, can raise concerns about their awareness of professional networking and self-presentation.

Taking a Fresh Look at the Revisit and Reject Piles

By now, I have a stack of startups to revisit and a reject pile. I return to the “revisit” group after a day, giving each application a fresh look (and with a lot more patience) to make sure I didn’t overlook something in my initial review. Similarly, I review the rejected pile to catch any that I might have dismissed too hastily out of fatigue or frustration.

Here are a few additional factors that subtly influence my opinion and, in some cases, serve as tie-breakers:

Company Name: A startup named after its founder doesn’t typically resonate with me. It often suggests a narrow vision, self-obsession, or lack of creativity.

Email Address: A generic email address (like Gmail or Outlook) for a startup older than three months raises questions about their commitment. If they provide a personal email even when a company domain is active, I view it as a lack of professionalism.

“CEO@” or “Founder@” Emails: Founders who use titles in their emails may come across as self-important, hinting that they don’t value team roles or delegation.

Logo Quality: Although not a primary decision factor, a generic or amateur logo can dampen my enthusiasm for their potential growth. A logo isn’t just an image; it’s a part of their brand’s commitment to detail.

Pitch Deck Navigation: I appreciate simple, accessible decks. Fancy presentation platforms can be distracting and even irritating if they compromise ease of navigation.

Artifacts Accessibility: I skip any application that requires signing up or logging in to view materials. If they aren’t confident enough to make their information readily accessible, it sends a signal that they might not understand the importance of convenience for potential stakeholders.

Minimizing Bias: I intentionally ignore founders’ names, locations, and even names in email addresses to keep my evaluation as neutral as possible.

Choosing startups for accelerator programs is about peeling back the layers to see beyond the polish—or the lack of it. It’s about finding those founders who show genuine commitment, resilience, and clarity, and whose businesses have both promise and purpose. I’m not looking for perfection but for signs that the founders understand their challenges and have the tenacity to keep pushing forward.