Cake Equity vs Ledgy

Agent access

1. ai-native userPoint an agent at llms.txt or agent-oriented docs

   weight 2 · round to Cake Equity
   Cake Equity✓fullprobed9/10

   A probe confirms a live, working llms.txt at help.cakeequity.com listing agent-oriented documentation structure, and Cake also provides dedicated MCP-related help articles describing how to connect AI agents to query cap table data in plain English. Missing for 10: no explicit first-party announcement/dedicated 'for AI agents' landing page beyond the llms.txt file itself.

   • [probe] “PROBE llms.txt: HTTP 200 at https://help.cakeequity.com/llms.txt # Cake Help Centre Get help and support on all things Cake. ## Getting St…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Connect Claude, Codex, Cursor or any MCP client and ask about your Cap Table in plain English.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Ask your AI assistant about shareholders, option pool headroom, vesting, share classes, SAFEs and notes - answered from your live Cap Table …”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Ledgy—none0/10

   A direct probe found no llms.txt (404) and no discoverable OpenAPI/agent-oriented docs at standard locations, and no evidence pack item mentions an agent-facing docs format.

   • [probe] “PROBE llms.txt: HTTP 404 at https://docs.ledgy.com/llms.txt”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://docs.ledgy.com/openapi.json, https://docs.ledgy.com/swagger.json, https://docs.ledgy.com/api…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

2. ai-native userRun the product headlessly / in CI for automation

   weight 2 · round to Ledgy
   Cake Equity—none0/10

   No evidence of a CLI, API, or headless/automation mode for Cake Equity; the openapi probe explicitly returned 404 across all candidate endpoints, and MCP support (docs-11/12) is scoped to conversational querying via chat clients, not CI-style automation.

   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://help.cakeequity.com/openapi.json, https://help.cakeequity.com/swagger.json, https://help.cak…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Connect Claude, Codex, Cursor or any MCP client and ask about your Cap Table in plain English.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Ask your AI assistant about shareholders, option pool headroom, vesting, share classes, SAFEs and notes - answered from your live Cap Table …”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Ledgy~partialprobed5/10

   Ledgy's API supports non-interactive, machine-to-machine authentication via OAuth 2.0 client_credentials with service accounts, which enables scripted/CI-style access without a human login (ledgy-docs-1, ledgy-docs-18, ledgy-docs-19). However, the documented API surface is very limited (only `auth` and `companyCaptable` operations), no CLI, SDK, or CI-specific tooling is evidenced, and llms.txt/openapi probes both 404, suggesting thin machine-readable API documentation. Missing for 10: a broader documented API/CLI for automating core workflows (grants, reports, compliance), explicit CI/automation examples, and discoverable OpenAPI spec.

   • [claimed-docs] “Requests are authenticated with an OAuth 2.0 access token belonging to a service account.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Exchange the credentials for an access token using the OAuth 2.0 `client_credentials` grant”
   • [claimed-docs] “you can discover it from the authorization server metadata at `https://app.ledgy.com/auth/oidc-idp/.well-known/oauth-authorization-server`”
   • [claimed-docs] “The auth operation is a basic interface designed for authentication purposes. The operation user can authenticate their credentials and obta…”
   • [claimed-docs] “The companyCaptable operation is a Ledgy interface for one specific company. The operation user can retrieve cap table data about the querie…”
   • [probe] “PROBE llms.txt: HTTP 404 at https://docs.ledgy.com/llms.txt”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://docs.ledgy.com/openapi.json, https://docs.ledgy.com/swagger.json, https://docs.ledgy.com/api…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

3. ai-native userConnect an agent via an official MCP server

   weight 3 · round to Cake Equity
   Cake Equity✓fullclaimed8/10

   Cake Equity documents an official MCP server ('Cake MCP') that lets Claude, Codex, Cursor, or any MCP client connect and query live cap table data (shareholders, vesting, SAFEs, option pool headroom). This is a first-party, explicit MCP server offering, not just client integration. Missing for 10: independent/hands-on corroboration beyond vendor docs, and technical details on server setup/auth scope.

   • [claimed-docs] “Connect Claude, Codex, Cursor or any MCP client and ask about your Cap Table in plain English.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Ask your AI assistant about shareholders, option pool headroom, vesting, share classes, SAFEs and notes - answered from your live Cap Table …”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Ledgy—none0/10

   Ledgy is a cap table/equity management platform; it exposes an OAuth-authenticated API with specific operations (auth, companyCaptable) but no evidence of an official MCP server for agent connectivity. Probes for llms.txt and OpenAPI specs both returned 404, and no MCP-related documentation appears anywhere in the evidence.

   • [probe] “PROBE llms.txt: HTTP 404 at https://docs.ledgy.com/llms.txt”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://docs.ledgy.com/openapi.json, https://docs.ledgy.com/swagger.json, https://docs.ledgy.com/api…”
   • [claimed-docs] “The auth operation is a basic interface designed for authentication purposes. The operation user can authenticate their credentials and obta…”
   • [claimed-docs] “The companyCaptable operation is a Ledgy interface for one specific company. The operation user can retrieve cap table data about the querie…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

4. ai-native userDrive the product through a documented public API

   weight 3 · round to Ledgy
   Cake Equity—none0/10

   Evidence shows an MCP server for AI assistants to query cap table data (docs-11, docs-12), but this is a narrow, purpose-built integration, not a documented general-purpose public API. Explicit probes for OpenAPI/Swagger documentation all returned 404, indicating no public API is documented. Missing for 10: any documented REST/GraphQL API, API reference docs, authentication/rate-limit details, or SDKs that would let an AI-native user drive the product generally.

   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://help.cakeequity.com/openapi.json, https://help.cakeequity.com/swagger.json, https://help.cak…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Connect Claude, Codex, Cursor or any MCP client and ask about your Cap Table in plain English.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Ask your AI assistant about shareholders, option pool headroom, vesting, share classes, SAFEs and notes - answered from your live Cap Table …”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Ledgy~partialprobed5/10

   Ledgy documents a public API with OAuth 2.0 client_credentials auth, service accounts, and specific operations (auth, companyCaptable) that can be driven programmatically, which supports AI-native automation. However, probes show no discoverable OpenAPI spec or llms.txt, and only two operations are evidenced, suggesting limited API surface documentation for broader agentic use. Missing for 10: a full API reference/OpenAPI spec, broader endpoint coverage beyond auth/captable, and independent corroboration of real-world API usage.

   • [claimed-docs] “Requests are authenticated with an OAuth 2.0 access token belonging to a service account.”
   • [claimed-docs] “The auth operation is a basic interface designed for authentication purposes. The operation user can authenticate their credentials and obta…”
   • [claimed-docs] “The companyCaptable operation is a Ledgy interface for one specific company. The operation user can retrieve cap table data about the querie…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Exchange the credentials for an access token using the OAuth 2.0 `client_credentials` grant”
   • [claimed-docs] “you can discover it from the authorization server metadata at `https://app.ledgy.com/auth/oidc-idp/.well-known/oauth-authorization-server`”
   • [probe] “PROBE llms.txt: HTTP 404 at https://docs.ledgy.com/llms.txt”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://docs.ledgy.com/openapi.json, https://docs.ledgy.com/swagger.json, https://docs.ledgy.com/api…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

5. ai-native userIssue scoped/least-privilege API credentials for an agent

   weight 2 · round to Ledgy
   Cake Equity—none0/10

   Cake Equity documents an MCP connector for AI assistants (Claude, Codex, Cursor) to query cap table data, but there is no evidence of scoped or least-privilege API credentials/tokens that can be issued specifically for an agent's use — no API key management, permission scoping, or OpenAPI surface (probe shows no OpenAPI endpoint found). Missing for 10: any documentation of credential scoping, token permissions, or per-agent API key issuance.

   • [claimed-docs] “Connect Claude, Codex, Cursor or any MCP client and ask about your Cap Table in plain English.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Ask your AI assistant about shareholders, option pool headroom, vesting, share classes, SAFEs and notes - answered from your live Cap Table …”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://help.cakeequity.com/openapi.json, https://help.cakeequity.com/swagger.json, https://help.cak…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Ledgy~partialclaimed6/10

   Ledgy supports OAuth 2.0 service accounts with credentials 'scoped per integration', short-lived tokens, immediate revocation, and a client_credentials grant flow, which are solid least-privilege primitives that could be used to provision an agent's credentials. However, there's no evidence of fine-grained scope/permission configuration (e.g., read-only vs write, specific data-domain scopes) or any agent-specific tooling/framing. Missing for 10: granular permission-scope controls beyond 'per integration', explicit agent-oriented credential issuance workflow, and independent corroboration of least-privilege enforcement.

   • [claimed-docs] “If you still authenticate with an API key, migrate to a service account: the credentials are scoped per integration, the tokens are short-li…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Exchange the credentials for an access token using the OAuth 2.0 `client_credentials` grant”
   • [claimed-docs] “Revoke deletes the service account and invalidates its outstanding access tokens right away.”
   • [claimed-docs] “If credentials have been exposed, revoke rather than rotate — rotation leaves already-issued tokens usable for up to 24 hours.”
   • [claimed-docs] “To rotate without downtime, create a second service account, move the integration over to it, and revoke the first one once the switch is co…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

6. ai-native userBuild against official SDKs

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Cake Equity—none0/10

   No evidence of an official SDK (Python/JS/etc.) for developers to build against; the only AI-related integration found is an MCP connector for chat assistants (docs-11, docs-12), and probes show no OpenAPI/Swagger spec exists (probe-2 all 404s), indicating no developer SDK is published.

   • [claimed-docs] “Connect Claude, Codex, Cursor or any MCP client and ask about your Cap Table in plain English.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Ask your AI assistant about shareholders, option pool headroom, vesting, share classes, SAFEs and notes - answered from your live Cap Table …”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://help.cakeequity.com/openapi.json, https://help.cakeequity.com/swagger.json, https://help.cak…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Ledgy—none0/10

   Evidence only shows raw OAuth 2.0 API operations (auth, companyCaptable) with no mention of official SDKs/client libraries in any language, and probes confirm no discoverable OpenAPI spec or llms.txt that would support SDK generation. missing for 10: no official SDK packages, no language-specific client libraries, no SDK documentation or GitHub repos referenced anywhere in the pack.

   • [claimed-docs] “Requests are authenticated with an OAuth 2.0 access token belonging to a service account.”
   • [claimed-docs] “The auth operation is a basic interface designed for authentication purposes. The operation user can authenticate their credentials and obta…”
   • [claimed-docs] “The companyCaptable operation is a Ledgy interface for one specific company. The operation user can retrieve cap table data about the querie…”
   • [probe] “PROBE llms.txt: HTTP 404 at https://docs.ledgy.com/llms.txt”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://docs.ledgy.com/openapi.json, https://docs.ledgy.com/swagger.json, https://docs.ledgy.com/api…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

7. ai-native userSubscribe to events via webhooks

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Cake Equity—none0/10

   No evidence of any webhook subscription capability; Cake offers an MCP server for AI assistants to query cap table data, but nothing about outbound event notifications via webhooks, and OpenAPI probe returned 404s.

   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://help.cakeequity.com/openapi.json, https://help.cakeequity.com/swagger.json, https://help.cak…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Connect Claude, Codex, Cursor or any MCP client and ask about your Cap Table in plain English.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Ask your AI assistant about shareholders, option pool headroom, vesting, share classes, SAFEs and notes - answered from your live Cap Table …”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Ledgy—none0/10

   No evidence of webhook support anywhere in the docs; only OAuth-authenticated REST-style operations (auth, companyCaptable) are described, with no mention of event subscriptions or webhook callbacks.

   ⚑ flag

Agentic features

1. ai-native userGet AI-generated insights and suggestions from my data inside the product

   weight 2 · round to Cake Equity
   Cake Equity~partialclaimed6/10

   Cake exposes an MCP server so external AI assistants (Claude, Codex, Cursor) can query live cap table data (shareholders, option pool, vesting, SAFEs) in plain English, effectively delivering AI-generated insights from the user's data. However this relies on connecting an external AI client rather than a native in-product AI feature, and there's no evidence of proactive suggestions or recommendations, only Q&A-style answers. Missing for 10: native in-app AI assistant/insights UI, proactive suggestion generation, independent corroboration of MCP usage quality.

   • [claimed-docs] “Connect Claude, Codex, Cursor or any MCP client and ask about your Cap Table in plain English.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Ask your AI assistant about shareholders, option pool headroom, vesting, share classes, SAFEs and notes - answered from your live Cap Table …”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Ledgy—none0/10

   No evidence of any AI-generated insights, analytics, or suggestions feature within Ledgy; the evidence pack only covers cap table management, compliance, reporting, and API authentication mechanics. Missing for 10: any mention of AI/ML-driven analysis, natural-language insights, or suggestion features derived from user data.

   ⚑ flag

2. ai-native userSet up automations that run autonomously in the background

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Cake Equity—none0/10

   Cake Equity offers an MCP integration for read-only Q&A about the cap table (docs-11, docs-12) and built-in business-process automation (vesting schedules, board approvals), but there is no evidence of user-configurable autonomous background automations or agent workflows that run independently — missing for 10: any trigger/scheduler/agent-orchestration capability, evidence of autonomous multi-step tasks, or automation setup UI beyond static vesting rules.

   • [claimed-docs] “Connect Claude, Codex, Cursor or any MCP client and ask about your Cap Table in plain English.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Ask your AI assistant about shareholders, option pool headroom, vesting, share classes, SAFEs and notes - answered from your live Cap Table …”
   • [claimed-docs] “Flexible vesting engine Automate cliffs, schedules, milestones, and pauses without manual work.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Fast approvals Complete board sign-offs and e-signing in minutes with automated flows.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Ledgy—none0/10

   Evidence shows Ledgy offers workflow automation for cap table/equity management (bulk granting, HRIS integrations) and an API with OAuth service accounts, but nothing describes autonomous background automations that a user or AI agent can set up and let run independently (e.g., scheduled jobs, triggers, webhooks). No mention of automation-builder, scheduling, or agentic execution.

   • [claimed-docs] “Leverage the power of 70+ HRIS integrations to keep large volumes of data accurate.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Automate your granting, document and signature workflows in bulk to make expansion easy.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Automated error flags and crystal-clear visuals let you easily identify and resolve compliance risks.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

3. ai-native userDelegate tasks to a built-in AI assistant inside the product

   weight 3 · round to Cake Equity
   Cake Equity~partialclaimed4/10

   Cake exposes an MCP server so external AI clients (Claude, Codex, Cursor) can query the cap table in plain English, which enables AI-driven interaction with Cake data, but this is not a built-in assistant embedded in the Cake product itself — it requires a separate external AI client to connect. Missing for 10: a native, in-app AI assistant UI, evidence of task delegation (not just read-only Q&A), and any first-party assistant hosted directly inside Cake's interface.

   • [claimed-docs] “Connect Claude, Codex, Cursor or any MCP client and ask about your Cap Table in plain English.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Ask your AI assistant about shareholders, option pool headroom, vesting, share classes, SAFEs and notes - answered from your live Cap Table …”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Ledgy—none0/10

   No evidence of a built-in AI assistant within Ledgy for delegating tasks; all evidence relates to cap table management, API authentication, and integrations, not an AI assistant feature.

   ⚑ flag

4. ai-native userOperate the product with natural-language commands

   weight 2 · round to Cake Equity
   Cake Equity~partialclaimed6/10

   Cake documents an MCP integration letting users connect Claude, Codex, Cursor or other MCP clients to ask natural-language questions about their cap table (shareholders, vesting, option pool headroom, etc.), which directly enables natural-language operation of read/query functionality. However, this appears limited to querying/reporting rather than performing actions (e.g., issuing grants, modeling raises) via natural language. Missing for 10: evidence of write/action capabilities via natural language, independent hands-on validation of the MCP integration, and broader in-app conversational command support beyond the MCP query use case.

   • [claimed-docs] “Connect Claude, Codex, Cursor or any MCP client and ask about your Cap Table in plain English.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Ask your AI assistant about shareholders, option pool headroom, vesting, share classes, SAFEs and notes - answered from your live Cap Table …”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Ledgy—none0/10

   No evidence of any natural-language command interface, chatbot, or AI assistant in Ledgy; the product is described entirely as a cap-table/equity-management platform with REST-style API operations (auth, companyCaptable) and UI-based workflows. Probes for llms.txt and OpenAPI specs both failed, and no documentation mentions natural-language interaction.

   • [claimed-docs] “The auth operation is a basic interface designed for authentication purposes. The operation user can authenticate their credentials and obta…”
   • [claimed-docs] “The `companyCaptable` operation is a Ledgy interface for one specific company. The operation user can retrieve cap table data about the quer…”
   • [probe] “PROBE llms.txt: HTTP 404 at https://docs.ledgy.com/llms.txt”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://docs.ledgy.com/openapi.json, https://docs.ledgy.com/swagger.json, https://docs.ledgy.com/api…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Api quality

1. ai-native userExplore an interactive API reference with runnable examples

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Cake Equity—none0/10

   No evidence of an interactive API reference or runnable examples; the openapi probe returned 404s across all candidate paths, and the only developer-facing surface documented is an MCP connector for chat assistants, not an API reference.

   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://help.cakeequity.com/openapi.json, https://help.cakeequity.com/swagger.json, https://help.cak…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Connect Claude, Codex, Cursor or any MCP client and ask about your Cap Table in plain English.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Ask your AI assistant about shareholders, option pool headroom, vesting, share classes, SAFEs and notes - answered from your live Cap Table …”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Ledgy—none0/10

   Evidence shows only text descriptions of two API operations (auth, companyCaptable) with no interactive reference, no runnable examples/sandbox, and explicit probes show no OpenAPI spec or llms.txt available.

   • [claimed-docs] “The auth operation is a basic interface designed for authentication purposes. The operation user can authenticate their credentials and obta…”
   • [claimed-docs] “The companyCaptable operation is a Ledgy interface for one specific company. The operation user can retrieve cap table data about the querie…”
   • [probe] “PROBE llms.txt: HTTP 404 at https://docs.ledgy.com/llms.txt”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://docs.ledgy.com/openapi.json, https://docs.ledgy.com/swagger.json, https://docs.ledgy.com/api…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

2. ai-native userDownload a machine-readable API spec (OpenAPI or equivalent)

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Cake Equity—none0/10

   A direct probe for OpenAPI/Swagger spec files returned 404 on all candidate paths, and no evidence pack item mentions a downloadable machine-readable API spec; the only related capability is an MCP server for AI assistants, not a REST API spec.

   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://help.cakeequity.com/openapi.json, https://help.cakeequity.com/swagger.json, https://help.cak…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Ledgy—none0/10

   Probes for llms.txt and common OpenAPI/Swagger spec paths all returned 404, and no docs evidence links to a downloadable machine-readable API spec despite documenting individual operations like auth and companyCaptable.

   • [probe] “PROBE llms.txt: HTTP 404 at https://docs.ledgy.com/llms.txt”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://docs.ledgy.com/openapi.json, https://docs.ledgy.com/swagger.json, https://docs.ledgy.com/api…”
   • [claimed-docs] “The auth operation is a basic interface designed for authentication purposes. The operation user can authenticate their credentials and obta…”
   • [claimed-docs] “The companyCaptable operation is a Ledgy interface for one specific company. The operation user can retrieve cap table data about the querie…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

3. ai-native userTest against a sandbox environment without touching production data

   weight 1 · round drawn
   Cake Equity—none0/10

   No evidence of a sandbox or test environment separate from production data; the MCP integration explicitly connects to the 'live Cap Table' with no mention of a test mode, and OpenAPI/sandbox endpoints return 404.

   • [claimed-docs] “Ask your AI assistant about shareholders, option pool headroom, vesting, share classes, SAFEs and notes - answered from your live Cap Table …”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://help.cakeequity.com/openapi.json, https://help.cakeequity.com/swagger.json, https://help.cak…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Ledgy—none0/10

   No evidence of a sandbox, staging, or test environment offered by Ledgy's API or platform; documentation covers only production OAuth authentication and API operations. Missing for 10: any mention of sandbox/test environment, test credentials, or non-production data mode.

   ⚑ flag

4. ai-native userRely on versioned APIs with a documented deprecation policy

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Cake Equity—none0/10

   There is no evidence of a versioned public API or any documented deprecation policy; the only API-adjacent evidence is an MCP connector for chat assistants, and a probe explicitly found no OpenAPI/spec endpoints. Missing for 10: versioned API docs, API changelog/versioning scheme, deprecation policy documentation.

   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://help.cakeequity.com/openapi.json, https://help.cakeequity.com/swagger.json, https://help.cak…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Connect Claude, Codex, Cursor or any MCP client and ask about your Cap Table in plain English.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Ask your AI assistant about shareholders, option pool headroom, vesting, share classes, SAFEs and notes - answered from your live Cap Table …”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Ledgy—none0/10

   No evidence of API versioning scheme or a documented deprecation policy; docs cover auth, rotation, and specific operations but nothing about version numbers, changelogs, or deprecation timelines. OpenAPI/spec probes also failed (404s), reinforcing absence of formal versioned API documentation.

   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://docs.ledgy.com/openapi.json, https://docs.ledgy.com/swagger.json, https://docs.ledgy.com/api…”
   • [probe] “PROBE llms.txt: HTTP 404 at https://docs.ledgy.com/llms.txt”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

1. ai-native userPerform bulk operations across many items at once

   weight 2 · round to Ledgy
   Cake Equity~partialprobed3/10

   The only evidence of bulk handling is a spreadsheet/Carta migration bulk-upload tool for initial cap table setup, not a general bulk-operations capability across ongoing items like grants, certificates, or approvals. Missing for 10: bulk editing/updating of existing stakeholders or grants, bulk e-signature or certificate issuance, bulk API operations (no OpenAPI/API found), and any AI-native bulk automation beyond one-time import.

   • [claimed-docs] “Cake's bulk upload tools can import your data directly. Most spreadsheet-managed cap tables can be migrated in under two hours.”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://help.cakeequity.com/openapi.json, https://help.cakeequity.com/swagger.json, https://help.cak…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Ledgy~partialprobed5/10

   Ledgy documents bulk operations for humans in-app (bulk granting, document/signature workflows, HRIS-driven bulk data accuracy), but there's no evidence of an API/automation surface allowing an AI-native user to programmatically perform bulk operations across many items — the API docs only show narrow operations like 'auth' and 'companyCaptable', and no bulk/batch endpoints or OpenAPI spec are found. missing for 10: API-level bulk/batch endpoints, evidence of programmatic multi-item operations, OpenAPI/spec confirmation of bulk actions.

   • [claimed-docs] “Leverage the power of 70+ HRIS integrations to keep large volumes of data accurate.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Automate your granting, document and signature workflows in bulk to make expansion easy.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Grant share awards one by one, or in bulk, creating, signing and sharing contracts in just a few clicks.”
   • [claimed-docs] “The companyCaptable operation is a Ledgy interface for one specific company. The operation user can retrieve cap table data about the querie…”
   • [claimed-docs] “The auth operation is a basic interface designed for authentication purposes. The operation user can authenticate their credentials and obta…”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://docs.ledgy.com/openapi.json, https://docs.ledgy.com/swagger.json, https://docs.ledgy.com/api…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

2. ai-native userDefine rules that trigger actions automatically on events

   weight 3 · round drawn
   Cake Equity—none0/10

   Cake ships several fixed, built-in automations (vesting cliffs/schedules, e-signing approval flows, registered-agent notifications on share events) but there is no evidence of a user-configurable rules/trigger engine where an AI-native user can define arbitrary conditions and actions. Missing for 10: evidence of a rules/workflow builder, webhooks, or event-trigger API that users can customize themselves.

   • [claimed-docs] “Flexible vesting engine Automate cliffs, schedules, milestones, and pauses without manual work.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Fast approvals Complete board sign-offs and e-signing in minutes with automated flows.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Cake can automatically notify your registered agent whenever you make share issuances, transfers, or conversions.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Ledgy—none0/10

   No evidence of any rule engine, event triggers, or automated actions based on conditions/events; the 'automation' mentioned relates to bulk workflows (granting, reporting) not event-driven rule triggers.

   ⚑ flag

Certificates

1. founderIssue electronic share certificates that are legally signed in-platform and permanently linked to the cap table entry they represent

   weight 2 · round to Cake Equity
   Cake Equity~partialclaimed6/10

   Cake explicitly supports 'Issue and manage share certificates digitally' and certificates carry company branding, and the platform separately advertises e-signing/board sign-off automation for equity events, implying signed certificates tied to the cap table. However, no evidence explicitly confirms certificates are 'legally signed in-platform' (e.g., binding e-signature workflow specifically for certificates) or describes the permanent technical linkage between a certificate and its cap table entry. missing for 10: explicit description of legal e-signature process for certificates, explicit statement of permanent record-linking between certificate and cap table entry, independent/hands-on corroboration.

   • [claimed-docs] “Certificate management - Issue and manage share certificates digitally”
   • [claimed-docs] “Company logo: appears on share certificates and documents”
   • [claimed-docs] “Fast approvals Complete board sign-offs and e-signing in minutes with automated flows.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Ledgy~partialclaimed5/10

   Ledgy's docs mention granting share awards and 'creating, signing and sharing contracts in just a few clicks' (ledgy-docs-12) and automating 'document and signature workflows' (ledgy-docs-10), indicating in-platform signing tied to grants/cap table entries. However, there is no explicit mention of legally binding e-signature certification or the certificates being permanently and immutably linked to the cap table record. missing for 10: explicit legal e-signature compliance details, proof of permanent/immutable linkage between certificate and cap table entry, independent verification of signature legality.

   • [claimed-docs] “Grant share awards one by one, or in bulk, creating, signing and sharing contracts in just a few clicks.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Automate your granting, document and signature workflows in bulk to make expansion easy.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Bring historical transaction data into your cap table, with documents attached for maximum visibility and accuracy.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Migration

1. ops userMigrate an existing cap table — from a spreadsheet or another platform — with guided import, validation, and reconciliation against source documents

   weight 2 · round to Cake Equity
   Cake Equity~partialclaimed7/10

   Cake documents concrete migration paths from Carta, Pulley, and spreadsheets, including bulk upload tools, human data-matching review, and a 'see your cap table before you pay' verification step before go-live (docs-1,2,15,16,17). This covers guided import and validation, but the process appears largely concierge-driven (Cake staff build the table from exported data) rather than a self-serve ops workflow with explicit reconciliation against source legal documents. Missing for 10: explicit reconciliation/audit workflow comparing imported data against source cap docs, and self-service validation tooling for ops users rather than vendor-run migration.

   • [claimed-docs] “Same powerful cap table features. Better, transparent pricing. Free and full migration in 48 hours.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Upload your cap table. Accurate data matching. A human reviews it. Optional free call. See your cap table in Cake. Before you pay.”
   • [claimed-docs] “You export your data from Carta, send it to us, and we build your cap table in Cake within 48 hours.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Cake credits the months you've already paid Pulley off your first annual payment, on top of the 20% Pulley migration discount”
   • [claimed-docs] “Cake's bulk upload tools can import your data directly. Most spreadsheet-managed cap tables can be migrated in under two hours.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Ledgy~partialclaimed3/10

   Ledgy mentions bringing in historical transaction data with attached documents, implying some import capability, but there is no evidence of a guided import wizard, data validation, or reconciliation process against source documents. Missing for 10: guided import/migration workflow, validation checks, reconciliation reporting, and evidence of spreadsheet/platform migration support.

   • [claimed-docs] “Bring historical transaction data into your cap table, with documents attached for maximum visibility and accuracy.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Source of truth

1. founderMaintain my full cap table — share classes, certificates, SAFEs, and option grants — as a live single source of truth that investors and auditors rely on

   weight 3 · round drawn
   Cake Equity✓fullclaimed8/10

   Cake explicitly covers cap table core elements: share classes, SAFEs, option grants, certificates, and vesting, positioned as a live single source of truth investors/auditors can use (migration tools, 409A valuations, certificate issuance, contract editor for SAFEs/Convertibles/Options/RSUs). Multiple docs corroborate breadth across share classes, options, SAFEs, and certificate management as an integrated live system rather than disparate tools. Missing for 10: independent/third-party validation (e.g., investor or auditor testimonials) confirming reliance on Cake as source of truth, and no evidence of audit-log/versioning features that concretely prove 'live single source of truth' guarantees.

   • [claimed-docs] “Full contract editor (SAFEs, Convertibles, Options, RSUs & RSAs - customise with your attorney)”
   • [claimed-docs] “Model your raise and see how it affects dilution. Raise SAFEs and Convertible Notes on a seamless workflow, manage digital signing, and comm…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Time saver for complex cap tables 100 Stakeholders included 409A Valuation ESS reporting”
   • [claimed-docs] “Cake's free plan covers up to five stakeholders, and for those five you get the whole product: share classes, SAFEs, option grants, stakehol…”
   • [claimed-docs] “409A included in your cap table plan, done by expert startup appraisers, delivered within 3 business days.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Certificate management - Issue and manage share certificates digitally”
   • [claimed-docs] “Flexible vesting engine Automate cliffs, schedules, milestones, and pauses without manual work.”
   • [claimed-docs] “NSO & ISO support Manage both option types with the right rules and workflows for each.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Ledgy✓fullclaimed8/10

   Ledgy's docs describe core cap-table functionality: bringing in historical transactions with attached documents, share classes/grants, reporting, and API access to cap table data (companyCaptable operation), positioning it as a live system of record used by companies and relied on for compliance/audit reporting. missing for 10: independent/third-party corroboration (e.g., investor or auditor testimonials) that Ledgy is trusted as the authoritative source of truth, and explicit documentation of SAFE instrument support.

   • [claimed-docs] “The companyCaptable operation is a Ledgy interface for one specific company. The operation user can retrieve cap table data about the querie…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Bring historical transaction data into your cap table, with documents attached for maximum visibility and accuracy.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Build reports based on your needs: play with columns and views and aggregate grouping to see your data, your way.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Generate a broad suite of financial reports instantly to account for equity under IFRS 2, UK GAAP or US GAAP, with tranche-level details in …”
   • [claimed-docs] “Automated error flags and crystal-clear visuals let you easily identify and resolve compliance risks.”
   • [claimed-docs] “The `companyCaptable` operation is a Ledgy interface for one specific company. The operation user can retrieve cap table data about the quer…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Stock comp

1. ops userProduce ASC 718 stock-based compensation expense reports my accountants can hand to auditors

   weight 2 · round to Ledgy
   Cake Equity—none0/10

   The evidence pack covers cap table management, vesting engines, 409A valuations, and capital raises, but nowhere mentions ASC 718 expense reporting or auditor-ready stock-based compensation expense outputs. This is a plausible axis for an equity management platform, but no evidence shows Cake delivers it.

   ⚑ flag

   Ledgy~partialclaimed6/10

   Ledgy explicitly advertises financial reports for equity compensation under US GAAP (which ASC 718 is part of) with tranche-level detail generated in one click, directly relevant to SBC expense reporting for auditors. However, the evidence never names ASC 718 specifically or describes audit-ready formatting/export conventions accountants expect. Missing for 10: explicit ASC 718 terminology, sample report/audit trail evidence, and confirmation of accountant-facing export formats.

   • [claimed-docs] “Generate a broad suite of financial reports instantly to account for equity under IFRS 2, UK GAAP or US GAAP, with tranche-level details in …”
   • [claimed-docs] “One-click equity compliance reports, custom views and exports, make meeting compliance deadlines a breeze.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Us filings

1. ops userUS equity compliance — Rule 701 disclosure thresholds, Form 3921 filings, 83(b) elections — is tracked and generated from the cap table automatically

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Cake Equity—none0/10

   No evidence of Rule 701 threshold tracking, Form 3921 filing generation, or 83(b) election tracking anywhere in the docs; the pack covers 409A, cap table management, migrations, and MCP integration but no US equity compliance filing automation.

   ⚑ flag

   Ledgy—none0/10

   Evidence shows generic equity-compliance features (error flags, global mobility reporting, one-click compliance reports) but no mention of Rule 701 disclosure thresholds, Form 3921 filings, or 83(b) election tracking/generation — the specific US regulatory triggers named in the story are absent from the evidence pack.

   • [claimed-docs] “Automated error flags and crystal-clear visuals let you easily identify and resolve compliance risks.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Global mobility reporting helps you stay on top of equity and tax as your workforce moves across borders.”
   • [claimed-docs] “One-click equity compliance reports, custom views and exports, make meeting compliance deadlines a breeze.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Agent access

1. ai-native userAn agent can draft securities (e.g. option grants) via the platform's programmatic surface and leave them queued for human board approval

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Cake Equity—none0/10

   Cake's MCP/AI integration is explicitly read-only—querying cap table data (shareholders, vesting, option pool headroom) in plain English—with no evidence of drafting securities, creating option grants programmatically, or queuing them for board approval via an agent. The OpenAPI/API probe also returned 404s, and board approval features (docs-10) are described as human-driven UI flows, not agent-initiated.

   • [claimed-docs] “Connect Claude, Codex, Cursor or any MCP client and ask about your Cap Table in plain English.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Ask your AI assistant about shareholders, option pool headroom, vesting, share classes, SAFEs and notes - answered from your live Cap Table …”
   • [claimed-docs] “Fast approvals Complete board sign-offs and e-signing in minutes with automated flows.”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://help.cakeequity.com/openapi.json, https://help.cakeequity.com/swagger.json, https://help.cak…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Ledgy—none0/10

   The API surface documented is read-only (auth, companyCaptable) with no evidence of any write/create operations for securities like option grants, let alone a queued-for-approval workflow; granting is only described as a manual UI feature (bulk grant/sign in the app), not a programmatic agent-drafting capability. missing for 10: any documented API endpoint to create/draft a grant, any concept of an approval queue or draft state reachable via API, and evidence of an agent-facing programmatic interface for equity issuance.

   • [claimed-docs] “The auth operation is a basic interface designed for authentication purposes. The operation user can authenticate their credentials and obta…”
   • [claimed-docs] “The companyCaptable operation is a Ledgy interface for one specific company. The operation user can retrieve cap table data about the querie…”
   • [claimed-docs] “The `companyCaptable` operation is a Ledgy interface for one specific company. The operation user can retrieve cap table data about the quer…”
   • [claimed-docs] “The `auth` operation is a basic interface designed for authentication purposes. The operation user can authenticate their credentials and ob…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Grant share awards one by one, or in bulk, creating, signing and sharing contracts in just a few clicks.”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://docs.ledgy.com/openapi.json, https://docs.ledgy.com/swagger.json, https://docs.ledgy.com/api…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

2. ai-native userHave an agent pull my current cap table programmatically and reconcile it against my data room before a financing

   weight 3 · round drawn
   Cake Equity~partialprobed5/10

   Cake offers an MCP server allowing AI assistants like Claude/Cursor/Codex to query live cap table data (shareholders, option pools, vesting, SAFEs) in plain English, which supports programmatic cap table pulls. However, there's no evidence of reconciliation against an external data room, no documented API/OpenAPI spec for structured programmatic access (openapi probe returned 404s), and no mention of data-room integration or comparison workflows. missing for 10: documented API/OpenAPI for structured data pulls, data room integration or reconciliation feature, evidence of comparing cap table against external documents.

   • [claimed-docs] “Connect Claude, Codex, Cursor or any MCP client and ask about your Cap Table in plain English.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Ask your AI assistant about shareholders, option pool headroom, vesting, share classes, SAFEs and notes - answered from your live Cap Table …”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://help.cakeequity.com/openapi.json, https://help.cakeequity.com/swagger.json, https://help.cak…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Ledgy~partialprobed5/10

   Ledgy exposes an OAuth2-authenticated API with a companyCaptable operation that lets an agent programmatically pull cap table data, which is the core enabler for this story. However, there is no evidence of a documented reconciliation/data-room comparison capability, no data-room API, no openapi/llms.txt discoverability (both probes 404), and no example of an agent workflow tying cap table pulls to data-room reconciliation. Missing for 10: data-room integration/API, reconciliation logic or workflow support, machine-readable API spec (openapi.json/llms.txt) for agent discovery, independent/hands-on evidence of this workflow.

   • [claimed-docs] “The companyCaptable operation is a Ledgy interface for one specific company. The operation user can retrieve cap table data about the querie…”
   • [claimed-docs] “The `companyCaptable` operation is a Ledgy interface for one specific company. The operation user can retrieve cap table data about the quer…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Exchange the credentials for an access token using the OAuth 2.0 `client_credentials` grant”
   • [claimed-docs] “Requests are authenticated with an OAuth 2.0 access token belonging to a service account.”
   • [probe] “PROBE llms.txt: HTTP 404 at https://docs.ledgy.com/llms.txt”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://docs.ledgy.com/openapi.json, https://docs.ledgy.com/swagger.json, https://docs.ledgy.com/api…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Api access

1. developerPull the full capitalization table — stakeholders, share classes, securities, and vesting states — through a documented programmatic API

   weight 3 · round to Ledgy
   Cake Equity~partialprobed4/10

   Cake documents an MCP server that lets AI assistants query shareholders, share classes, SAFEs, notes and vesting from the live cap table (docs-11, docs-12), which is a documented, programmatic interface to the same data domains the story asks about. However, this is a conversational/agent-oriented interface rather than a structured REST/GraphQL API for bulk data pulls, and an explicit probe found no OpenAPI/swagger documentation (cake-equity-probe-2), so a traditional developer-facing API is unconfirmed. Missing for 10: a documented REST/GraphQL API spec, evidence of bulk/structured export via API, and confirmation the MCP server returns full raw cap table records rather than natural-language answers.

   • [claimed-docs] “Connect Claude, Codex, Cursor or any MCP client and ask about your Cap Table in plain English.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Ask your AI assistant about shareholders, option pool headroom, vesting, share classes, SAFEs and notes - answered from your live Cap Table …”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://help.cakeequity.com/openapi.json, https://help.cakeequity.com/swagger.json, https://help.cak…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Ledgy~partialprobed6/10

   Ledgy docs describe a documented, OAuth2-authenticated API with a `companyCaptable` operation that retrieves 'cap table data' for a company, which is the correct programmatic-access mechanism a developer would need. However, the evidence never enumerates the specific fields (stakeholders, share classes, securities, vesting states) returned by that operation, and probes for a public OpenAPI/swagger spec all 404, so the schema depth and completeness cannot be confirmed. Missing for 10: field-level schema documentation confirming stakeholders/share classes/securities/vesting data, and an accessible OpenAPI/reference spec.

   • [claimed-docs] “The companyCaptable operation is a Ledgy interface for one specific company. The operation user can retrieve cap table data about the querie…”
   • [claimed-docs] “The `companyCaptable` operation is a Ledgy interface for one specific company. The operation user can retrieve cap table data about the quer…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Exchange the credentials for an access token using the OAuth 2.0 `client_credentials` grant”
   • [claimed-docs] “Requests are authenticated with an OAuth 2.0 access token belonging to a service account.”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://docs.ledgy.com/openapi.json, https://docs.ledgy.com/swagger.json, https://docs.ledgy.com/api…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Partner access

1. developerThird parties my company authorizes — law firms, HRIS vendors, wealth managers — can access scoped slices of equity data on our behalf without full admin credentials

   weight 2 · round to Ledgy
   Cake Equity~partialclaimed4/10

   Cake documents a general permissions feature where 'admin controls exactly what they can see' outside the full cap table (docs-14), suggesting some scoped-access capability exists, but there is no evidence of dedicated third-party professional access (law firm, HRIS vendor, wealth manager) roles, API keys, or scoped credential systems built for this specific use case. Missing for 10: named integrations or role types for external professionals, API/token-based scoped access, and documentation of granular permission levels beyond the generic stakeholder portal distinction.

   • [claimed-docs] “As an admin, you control exactly what they can see, they do not have access to your full cap table.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Cake lets you manage multiple companies under a single login.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Ledgy~partialclaimed6/10

   Ledgy's docs show OAuth 2.0 service accounts that are credential-scoped per integration, short-lived, and revocable, which supports the general concept of granting a third-party integration access without sharing admin credentials, and the 70+ HRIS integrations point to real external vendor connectivity. However, there's no explicit documentation of granular data-slice scoping (e.g., read-only cap-table subsets) or of onboarding named third-party personas like law firms or wealth managers specifically, only generic 'auth' and 'companyCaptable' API operations. Missing for 10: explicit fine-grained permission/data-scope controls per third party, documented support for law-firm/wealth-manager use cases, and any admin UI showing how a developer restricts a partner's access scope.

   • [claimed-docs] “Requests are authenticated with an OAuth 2.0 access token belonging to a service account.”
   • [claimed-docs] “If you still authenticate with an API key, migrate to a service account: the credentials are scoped per integration, the tokens are short-li…”
   • [claimed-docs] “The companyCaptable operation is a Ledgy interface for one specific company. The operation user can retrieve cap table data about the querie…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Leverage the power of 70+ HRIS integrations to keep large volumes of data accurate.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Exchange the credentials for an access token using the OAuth 2.0 `client_credentials` grant”
   • [claimed-docs] “The `auth` operation is a basic interface designed for authentication purposes. The operation user can authenticate their credentials and ob…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Bulk issuance

1. ops userUpload or issue securities in bulk — a batch of grants or historical transactions — instead of entering them one at a time

   weight 2 · round to Ledgy
   Cake Equity~partialclaimed6/10

   Cake explicitly advertises 'bulk upload tools' that import cap table data directly, with most spreadsheet-managed cap tables migrated in under two hours, and a human-assisted upload/reconciliation flow for Carta migrations — covering the core ask of loading historical transactions/grants in bulk rather than one at a time. However, the evidence frames this mainly as a one-time migration/onboarding feature rather than an ongoing bulk-issuance workflow for new grants, with no detail on file formats, validation, or in-app bulk-grant creation tools. Missing for 10: documentation of a repeatable bulk grant-issuance workflow (not just migration), supported file formats/templates, and independent/hands-on confirmation of the process.

   • [claimed-docs] “Cake's bulk upload tools can import your data directly. Most spreadsheet-managed cap tables can be migrated in under two hours.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Upload your cap table. Accurate data matching. A human reviews it. Optional free call. See your cap table in Cake. Before you pay.”
   • [claimed-docs] “You export your data from Carta, send it to us, and we build your cap table in Cake within 48 hours.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Ledgy✓fullclaimed7/10

   Docs explicitly support bulk historical transaction import ('Bring historical transaction data into your cap table') and bulk grant issuance ('Grant share awards one by one, or in bulk, creating, signing and sharing contracts in just a few clicks'), plus bulk automation of granting/document/signature workflows. missing for 10: no independent/hands-on corroboration of bulk upload UX, no detail on file format (CSV/template) or size limits, no evidence of error handling during bulk upload.

   • [claimed-docs] “Bring historical transaction data into your cap table, with documents attached for maximum visibility and accuracy.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Automate your granting, document and signature workflows in bulk to make expansion easy.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Grant share awards one by one, or in bulk, creating, signing and sharing contracts in just a few clicks.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Option grants

1. founderIssue options to a new hire with a board approval flow and a 409A-compliant strike price in one end-to-end workflow

   weight 3 · round to Cake Equity
   Cake Equity~partialclaimed6/10

   Cake documents board approvals/e-signing ('Fast approvals... board sign-offs and e-signing in minutes'), NSO/ISO option issuance, vesting automation, and integrated 409A valuations within the cap table plan, which together cover the major pieces of the story. However, no evidence explicitly ties the 409A valuation as the compliance-checked strike price input within the same automated grant-issuance workflow, nor shows an end-to-end single flow from new-hire grant creation through board approval to 409A-priced options. missing for 10: explicit end-to-end workflow showing 409A strike price auto-populating into the option grant before board approval, and independent/hands-on confirmation of this integrated flow.

   • [claimed-docs] “Fast approvals Complete board sign-offs and e-signing in minutes with automated flows.”
   • [claimed-docs] “NSO & ISO support Manage both option types with the right rules and workflows for each.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Flexible vesting engine Automate cliffs, schedules, milestones, and pauses without manual work.”
   • [claimed-docs] “409A included in your cap table plan, done by expert startup appraisers, delivered within 3 business days.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Time saver for complex cap tables 100 Stakeholders included 409A Valuation ESS reporting”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Ledgy~partialclaimed3/10

   Ledgy's docs show granting workflows (bulk grants, contract signing, custom vesting) but there is no evidence of a board approval step or 409A-compliant strike price calculation anywhere in the pack. missing for 10: board approval workflow, 409A strike price compliance, end-to-end integration of these into a single grant flow.

   • [claimed-docs] “Automate your granting, document and signature workflows in bulk to make expansion easy.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Switch up vesting schedules for different groups, or create custom vesting to reflect your needs.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Grant share awards one by one, or in bulk, creating, signing and sharing contracts in just a few clicks.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Vesting

1. ops userDefine custom vesting schedules — cliffs, milestones, acceleration on exit — and the platform tracks vested vs unvested automatically

   weight 2 · round to Cake Equity
   Cake Equity~partialclaimed6/10

   Cake's docs describe a 'flexible vesting engine' that automates cliffs, schedules, milestones, and pauses, plus a vesting event counter on the home dashboard indicating automatic tracking of upcoming vesting events. However, there is no explicit mention of acceleration-on-exit provisions or clear confirmation of automatic vested-vs-unvested breakdown reporting. Missing for 10: explicit acceleration-on-exit handling, detailed vested/unvested reporting UI, and independent/hands-on verification beyond vendor claims.

   • [claimed-docs] “Flexible vesting engine Automate cliffs, schedules, milestones, and pauses without manual work.”
   • [claimed-docs] “A count at the top tells you how many vesting events fall within the next 7 days.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Actions lists what's waiting on you, with the stakeholder each item relates to.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Ledgy~partialclaimed5/10

   Ledgy's own equity-plan-automation page confirms custom vesting schedules ('Switch up vesting schedules for different groups, or create custom vesting') and bulk granting workflows, which supports the core ask, but there is no explicit evidence of cliff/milestone/acceleration-on-exit configuration or of automatic vested-vs-unvested tracking mechanics. Missing for 10: explicit cliff/milestone/acceleration-on-exit setup details, documentation of automatic vested/unvested calculation logic, and independent corroboration beyond marketing copy.

   • [claimed-docs] “Switch up vesting schedules for different groups, or create custom vesting to reflect your needs.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Automate your granting, document and signature workflows in bulk to make expansion easy.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Grant share awards one by one, or in bulk, creating, signing and sharing contracts in just a few clicks.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Investor relations

1. founderMy investors get their own portal view of their holdings and can receive structured updates without emailing me for the cap table

   weight 1 · round to Cake Equity
   Cake Equity~partialclaimed6/10

   Cake documents a distinct 'My Cake' investor portal where admins control exactly what stakeholders can see, separate from the full cap table (cake-equity-docs-14), and the free plan explicitly includes 'stakeholder portals' (cake-equity-docs-18). Capital-raise features also mention the ability to 'communicate with your investors' within the platform (cake-equity-docs-7). However, there is no concrete evidence of a structured, scheduled investor-update/reporting feature (e.g. automated periodic updates, update templates) that would fully eliminate ad hoc emailing. Missing for 10: dedicated investor-update/reporting tool documentation, evidence of scheduled or templated update distribution, and independent confirmation investors actually use the portal instead of emailing founders.

   • [claimed-docs] “As an admin, you control exactly what they can see, they do not have access to your full cap table.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Cake's free plan covers up to five stakeholders, and for those five you get the whole product: share classes, SAFEs, option grants, stakehol…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Model your raise and see how it affects dilution. Raise SAFEs and Convertible Notes on a seamless workflow, manage digital signing, and comm…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Ledgy—none0/10

   The evidence pack covers API authentication, cap table data, equity plan automation, compliance, and trading/settlement features, but contains no mention of an investor portal, investor login access, or structured update/reporting features aimed at external investors. missing for 10: investor portal login, investor-facing update/reporting workflow, evidence of reducing founder-investor email traffic.

   ⚑ flag

Safes

1. founderCreate, send, and e-sign SAFEs or convertible notes in-platform, and they land on the cap table with their conversion terms modeled

   weight 3 · round to Cake Equity
   Cake Equity✓fullclaimed8/10

   Cake explicitly supports modeling and raising SAFEs and Convertible Notes with digital signing and investor communication in one workflow (docs-7, docs-19), plus a full contract editor for SAFEs and Convertibles (docs-6) and dilution/round modeling tied to the cap table. Missing for 10: independent/hands-on confirmation that conversion terms auto-populate cap table conversion modeling post-signing, and no third-party review corroborating the e-sign-to-cap-table flow.

   • [claimed-docs] “Full contract editor (SAFEs, Convertibles, Options, RSUs & RSAs - customise with your attorney)”
   • [claimed-docs] “Model your raise and see how it affects dilution. Raise SAFEs and Convertible Notes on a seamless workflow, manage digital signing, and comm…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Model your raise and see how it affects dilution.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Cake's free plan covers up to five stakeholders, and for those five you get the whole product: share classes, SAFEs, option grants, stakehol…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Ledgy—none0/10

   Evidence covers cap table reporting, equity plan automation, share grants, compliance, and API auth, but there is no mention of creating/sending/e-signing SAFEs or convertible notes, nor of automatic conversion-term modeling on the cap table. missing for 10: SAFE/convertible note creation workflow, e-signature for investment instruments, conversion term modeling on cap table.

   • [claimed-docs] “Bring historical transaction data into your cap table, with documents attached for maximum visibility and accuracy.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Grant share awards one by one, or in bulk, creating, signing and sharing contracts in just a few clicks.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Build reports based on your needs: play with columns and views and aggregate grouping to see your data, your way.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Scenario modeling

1. ops userRun exit waterfall analyses showing proceeds per share class and stakeholder under different exit values, honoring preferences and participation

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Cake Equity—none0/10

   Cake Equity's evidence covers cap table management, dilution/raise modeling, vesting, and 409A valuations, but there is no mention of exit waterfall analysis, proceeds-per-share-class modeling under different exit values, or handling of liquidation preferences and participation rights. This is a fair capability to expect from a cap table platform, so it applies, but no evidence supports it.

   • [claimed-docs] “Model your raise and see how it affects dilution. Raise SAFEs and Convertible Notes on a seamless workflow, manage digital signing, and comm…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Model your raise and see how it affects dilution.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Ledgy—none0/10

   The evidence pack covers API authentication, cap table reporting, equity plan automation, compliance, and trading/settlement, but contains no mention of exit waterfall analysis, liquidation preferences, participation rights, or proceeds-per-share modeling under different exit scenarios. Missing for 10: any documentation of exit waterfall/scenario modeling, preference stack handling, participation calculations, or proceeds distribution by exit value.

   ⚑ flag

2. founderModel a priced round — dilution, option pool top-up, SAFE conversion, pro-forma ownership — and share the scenario with counsel and investors

   weight 3 · round to Cake Equity
   Cake Equity~partialclaimed6/10

   Cake explicitly supports raise modeling, dilution visualization, SAFE/Convertible workflows, digital signing, and investor communication (docs-7, docs-19), plus attorney-customizable contract templates (docs-6). However, there is no explicit evidence of option-pool top-up modeling or pro-forma ownership tables, and no dedicated 'share scenario with counsel' feature beyond general document/contract editing. Missing for 10: explicit option pool top-up simulation, pro-forma ownership output, and a named scenario-sharing workflow with counsel/investors.

   • [claimed-docs] “Model your raise and see how it affects dilution. Raise SAFEs and Convertible Notes on a seamless workflow, manage digital signing, and comm…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Model your raise and see how it affects dilution.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Full contract editor (SAFEs, Convertibles, Options, RSUs & RSAs - customise with your attorney)”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Ledgy—none0/10

   The evidence pack covers API authentication, cap table management, equity plan automation, compliance, and trading/settlement, but contains no mention of fundraising round modeling, dilution scenarios, option pool top-ups, SAFE conversion modeling, pro-forma ownership tables, or sharing scenarios with counsel/investors. Nothing in the pack addresses this specific fundraising-modeling capability.

   ⚑ flag

Board approvals

1. founderBoard consents and stockholder approvals are drafted, routed for e-signature, and archived against the transactions they authorize

   weight 2 · round to Cake Equity
   Cake Equity~partialclaimed5/10

   Cake shows 'fast board sign-offs and e-signing in minutes with automated flows' for stock option approvals, implying board consent routing via e-signature, but there's no evidence of drafting stockholder approval documents beyond options, no mention of archiving signed consents against specific transactions, and no dedicated board-consent/governance module documented. missing for 10: evidence of stockholder approval drafting (not just board sign-off for options), archival/linking of executed consents to the specific transaction record, template library for consent types, and independent/hands-on confirmation of the e-sign workflow.

   • [claimed-docs] “Fast approvals Complete board sign-offs and e-signing in minutes with automated flows.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Actions lists what's waiting on you, with the stakeholder each item relates to.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Ledgy—none0/10

   Evidence covers cap table management, equity compliance reporting, HRIS integrations, and API authentication, plus e-signature use for grant contracts, but there is no mention of board consents or stockholder approval workflows being drafted, routed for signature, and archived against specific authorizing transactions.

   ⚑ flag

Counsel access

1. ops userMy outside counsel can work directly in the platform with law-firm roles — preparing documents and updating records without emailing spreadsheets

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Cake Equity—none0/10

   Evidence shows a general contract editor that can be 'customised with your attorney' and admin-controlled stakeholder portal views, but there is no evidence of a dedicated law-firm/outside-counsel role, permissions tier, or workflow letting counsel directly prepare documents and update records in-platform.

   • [claimed-docs] “Full contract editor (SAFEs, Convertibles, Options, RSUs & RSAs - customise with your attorney)”
   • [claimed-docs] “As an admin, you control exactly what they can see, they do not have access to your full cap table.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Ledgy—none0/10

   No evidence of a law-firm/counsel-specific role or external-counsel collaboration workflow; docs mention only generic 'segment permissions for team members' and API/service-account access, nothing about outside counsel drafting documents or updating records in-platform.

   • [claimed-docs] “Segment permissions for team members, ad”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Data room

1. ops userShare a permissioned, diligence-ready data room — cap table views plus underlying documents — with counsel and investors

   weight 2 · round to Cake Equity
   Cake Equity~partialclaimed4/10

   Cake documents permissioned stakeholder portals where admins control exactly what external parties (investors) can see (doc-14) and supports underlying documents like contracts and share certificates (docs-6, docs-22, docs-23), which are building blocks for a diligence packet. However, there's no evidence of a purpose-built 'data room' feature that bundles cap table views with documents for counsel/investor diligence sharing specifically. Missing for 10: explicit data-room/document-repository feature, counsel-specific access role, and any diligence workflow evidence beyond generic stakeholder portal permissions.

   • [claimed-docs] “As an admin, you control exactly what they can see, they do not have access to your full cap table.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Full contract editor (SAFEs, Convertibles, Options, RSUs & RSAs - customise with your attorney)”
   • [claimed-docs] “Certificate management - Issue and manage share certificates digitally”
   • [claimed-docs] “Company logo: appears on share certificates and documents”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Ledgy~partialclaimed3/10

   Evidence shows Ledgy attaches documents to cap table records (ledgy-docs-7) and offers permission segmentation for team members (ledgy-docs-23), which are building blocks for a shared, permissioned repository, but there is no explicit mention of a dedicated 'data room' feature, external counsel/investor access controls, or diligence-specific sharing workflow. Missing for 10: explicit data-room/document-sharing feature description, external party (counsel/investor) access permissioning, and any hands-on or documented workflow for diligence sharing.

   • [claimed-docs] “Bring historical transaction data into your cap table, with documents attached for maximum visibility and accuracy.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Segment permissions for team members, ad”
   • [claimed-docs] “Build reports based on your needs: play with columns and views and aggregate grouping to see your data, your way.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Hris sync

1. ops userStakeholders sync from my HRIS/payroll system (e.g. Gusto, Rippling) so new hires and terminations flow into equity records automatically

   weight 2 · round to Ledgy
   Cake Equity—none0/10

   No evidence of any HRIS/payroll integration (e.g., Gusto, Rippling) or automated syncing of new hires/terminations into equity records; the evidence only covers cap table management, migrations, MCP/AI assistant, and stock option features.

   ⚑ flag

   Ledgy~partialclaimed5/10

   Ledgy claims '70+ HRIS integrations to keep large volumes of data accurate' for equity plan automation, implying HRIS/payroll sync is supported, but there is no detail on which systems (e.g., Gusto, Rippling), how new hire/termination events flow into equity records, or sync mechanics/frequency. Missing for 10: named HRIS/payroll connectors, description of automated new-hire/termination event handling, setup/configuration docs, and independent or hands-on confirmation of the sync working.

   • [claimed-docs] “Leverage the power of 70+ HRIS integrations to keep large volumes of data accurate.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

1. ai-native userDo everything through the API that I can do in the UI

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Cake Equity—none0/10

   Evidence shows only a read-only MCP integration for querying cap table data in plain English (docs-11, docs-12), not a full API enabling all UI actions (writes, approvals, e-signing, migrations, etc.). A direct probe for an OpenAPI/API spec returned 404 on all candidate paths, indicating no public API exists for parity with UI functionality.

   • [claimed-docs] “Connect Claude, Codex, Cursor or any MCP client and ask about your Cap Table in plain English.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Ask your AI assistant about shareholders, option pool headroom, vesting, share classes, SAFEs and notes - answered from your live Cap Table …”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://help.cakeequity.com/openapi.json, https://help.cakeequity.com/swagger.json, https://help.cak…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Ledgy—none0/10

   The API surface documented is limited to authentication and a single read-only companyCaptable query — nothing evidencing parity with the extensive UI functionality (bulk grants, vesting schedules, compliance reports, trading/settlement, HRIS integrations, financial reporting). No OpenAPI spec or broader endpoint catalog was found (probes 404), so there's no evidence the API covers most UI capabilities let alone all of them.

   • [claimed-docs] “The auth operation is a basic interface designed for authentication purposes. The operation user can authenticate their credentials and obta…”
   • [claimed-docs] “The companyCaptable operation is a Ledgy interface for one specific company. The operation user can retrieve cap table data about the querie…”
   • [claimed-docs] “The `companyCaptable` operation is a Ledgy interface for one specific company. The operation user can retrieve cap table data about the quer…”
   • [claimed-docs] “The `auth` operation is a basic interface designed for authentication purposes. The operation user can authenticate their credentials and ob…”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://docs.ledgy.com/openapi.json, https://docs.ledgy.com/swagger.json, https://docs.ledgy.com/api…”
   • [probe] “PROBE llms.txt: HTTP 404 at https://docs.ledgy.com/llms.txt”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

2. ai-native userExport all of my data in open formats and leave

   weight 3 · round drawn
   Cake Equity—none0/10

   Evidence covers importing/migrating data INTO Cake (from Carta, Pulley, spreadsheets) but there is no mention of exporting a user's own data out of Cake in open formats, nor any data-portability/export policy for leaving the platform. missing for 10: any documented export feature, open-format data dump, or account closure/data-portability policy.

   • [claimed-docs] “You export your data from Carta, send it to us, and we build your cap table in Cake within 48 hours.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Cake credits the months you've already paid Pulley off your first annual payment, on top of the 20% Pulley migration discount”
   • [claimed-docs] “Cake's bulk upload tools can import your data directly. Most spreadsheet-managed cap tables can be migrated in under two hours.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Ledgy—none0/10

   Evidence shows API access via cap table/company queries and report exports (custom views/exports), but there is no mention of a full open-format data export/portability feature enabling a user to take all their data and leave the platform; no llms.txt or OpenAPI spec found either.

   • [claimed-docs] “One-click equity compliance reports, custom views and exports, make meeting compliance deadlines a breeze.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Build reports based on your needs: play with columns and views and aggregate grouping to see your data, your way.”
   • [probe] “PROBE llms.txt: HTTP 404 at https://docs.ledgy.com/llms.txt”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://docs.ledgy.com/openapi.json, https://docs.ledgy.com/swagger.json, https://docs.ledgy.com/api…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

1. ai-native userChoose where my data is stored (region/residency)

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Cake Equity—none0/10

   No evidence in the pack mentions data residency, regional storage options, or any control over where data is stored; the security page only references 2FA. Missing for 10: any mention of data region selection, residency guarantees, or hosting location options.

   ⚑ flag

   Ledgy—none0/10

   No evidence in the pack addresses data residency, regional storage options, or where customer data is hosted; the docs cover only authentication, cap table, equity, and reporting features.

   ⚑ flag

2. ai-native userPrevent my data from being used to train AI models

   weight 3 · round drawn
   Cake Equity—none0/10

   No evidence pack item mentions AI-training data opt-out, data usage policies for model training, or any privacy controls specific to preventing AI training use; the only AI-related evidence concerns MCP connectivity for querying cap table data, not data-training opt-outs.

   ⚑ flag

   Ledgy—none0/10

   Ledgy's evidence pack covers API authentication, cap table, equity plan, compliance, and trading features, but contains no mention of AI training data usage, opt-out controls, or data-use policies for AI models. This is a fair question for a SaaS platform handling sensitive company data, so absence of evidence yields 'none' rather than 'na'. Missing for 10: any policy statement, opt-out mechanism, or documentation addressing whether customer data is used for AI/ML model training.

   ⚑ flag

3. ai-native userControl data retention and deletion

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Cake Equity—none0/10

   Evidence covers cap table management, MCP AI assistant connectivity, and general security (2FA), but there is no mention of data retention policies, deletion controls, or data lifecycle management that an AI-native user could configure.

   ⚑ flag

   Ledgy—none0/10

   Evidence covers credential/access-token revocation and rotation, but there is nothing about data retention policies, data deletion of user/company data, or export/erasure controls for AI-native use. missing for 10: data retention policy documentation, data deletion/erasure workflow, export controls tied to AI agent usage.

   ⚑ flag

Audit trail

1. ops userEvery change to the cap table is captured in an audit log — who changed what, when, and under what authorization

   weight 1 · round drawn
   Cake Equity—none0/10

   No evidence in the pack describes an audit log or change-tracking feature capturing who changed what, when, and under what authorization; the closest items are approval workflows (board sign-offs) and admin permissions, but no audit trail/history feature is documented. missing for 10: dedicated audit log documentation, change history records, user/timestamp/authorization tracking, exportable audit reports.

   • [claimed-docs] “Fast approvals Complete board sign-offs and e-signing in minutes with automated flows.”
   • [claimed-docs] “As an admin, you control exactly what they can see, they do not have access to your full cap table.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Ledgy—none0/10

   No evidence of a change/audit log tracking who changed what, when, or under what authorization for the cap table; evidence covers authentication, API scoping, and reporting features but nothing about audit trails or change history. Missing for 10: any mention of audit log, change history, user attribution for edits, or authorization trail.

   ⚑ flag

Exports

1. ops userExport my complete cap table and full transaction history to open formats (Excel/CSV) at any time — my ownership data is never held hostage

   weight 2 · round to Ledgy
   Cake Equity—none0/10

   The evidence pack covers migration, pricing, features, MCP assistant access, and security, but contains no mention of exporting the cap table or transaction history to Excel/CSV formats, nor any data-portability guarantee. No documentation confirms export capability exists.

   ⚑ flag

   Ledgy~partialclaimed5/10

   Ledgy's docs mention building custom reports/views and 'custom views and exports' for compliance reporting, plus an API (companyCaptable operation) for pulling cap table data, which implies some export capability. However, there is no explicit confirmation of Excel/CSV format exports, no documentation of a full transaction-history export, and no statement guaranteeing unrestricted, anytime data portability without vendor lock-in. missing for 10: explicit CSV/Excel export format documentation, full transaction-history export scope, explicit anti-lock-in / data-portability guarantee.

   • [claimed-docs] “The companyCaptable operation is a Ledgy interface for one specific company. The operation user can retrieve cap table data about the querie…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Build reports based on your needs: play with columns and views and aggregate grouping to see your data, your way.”
   • [claimed-docs] “One-click equity compliance reports, custom views and exports, make meeting compliance deadlines a breeze.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Bring historical transaction data into your cap table, with documents attached for maximum visibility and accuracy.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Education

1. employeeThe platform explains my equity in plain language — tax treatment, exercise windows, dilution — not just numbers

   weight 1 · round drawn
   Cake Equity—none0/10

   Evidence shows Cake has a stakeholder portal, NSO/ISO support, vesting engine, and dilution modeling for raises, plus an AI/MCP assistant for querying cap table data, but nothing indicates these are packaged as plain-language, employee-facing explanations of tax treatment, exercise windows, or personal dilution impact. missing for 10: employee-facing tax treatment explanations, exercise window guidance, personalized dilution narratives, any UI/doc evidence of 'plain language' equity education for stakeholders (not just admins).

   • [claimed-docs] “NSO & ISO support Manage both option types with the right rules and workflows for each.”
   • [claimed-docs] “As an admin, you control exactly what they can see, they do not have access to your full cap table.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Model your raise and see how it affects dilution.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Connect Claude, Codex, Cursor or any MCP client and ask about your Cap Table in plain English.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Ledgy—none0/10

   Evidence covers API auth, cap table admin features, compliance reporting, and trading/settlement, but nothing addresses employee-facing plain-language explanations of tax treatment, exercise windows, or dilution impact. Missing for 10: employee education content, tax explainer tools, exercise window guidance, dilution simulators aimed at employees.

   ⚑ flag

Exercising

1. employeeExercise my vested options online — including payment and the resulting share issuance — without paper forms

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Cake Equity—none0/10

   Evidence covers cap table management, vesting automation, e-signing for board approvals, and digital certificate issuance, but nothing describes an employee-facing option exercise workflow that includes payment processing and resulting share issuance. No mention of exercise price payment, exercise request flow, or completing exercise digitally end-to-end for employees.

   ⚑ flag

   Ledgy—none0/10

   Evidence covers cap-table management, grant automation, financial reporting, and a trading/settlement/payout system (nominee, broker, paying agent, Airwallex payouts) for share transactions, but nothing describes an employee-facing online option-exercise workflow that includes paying the strike price and triggering share issuance without paper forms. missing for 10: documentation of an exercise request flow, payment collection for exercise price, and automated share issuance upon exercise.

   • [claimed-docs] “Ledgy connects nominee, broker, and paying agent, all in one place to streamline global employee trading.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Enable global employee payouts thanks to a direct integration with international paying agent, Airwallex. Employees can receive payments in …”
   • [claimed-docs] “Employees can receive payments in 170 countries, and over 60 currencies, at competitive FX rates.”
   • [claimed-docs] “One trading and settlement platform that enables participants and admins to keep track of past and current market orders from the moment the…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Portal

1. employeeI get my own portal showing my grants, vesting progress, strike price, and what my equity could be worth under different outcomes

   weight 3 · round to Cake Equity
   Cake Equity~partialclaimed5/10

   Cake confirms a distinct 'My Cake Portal' for stakeholders separate from the admin cap-table view, and free-plan docs list 'stakeholder portals' as included, implying employees see their own equity info. However, there is no explicit evidence describing what the portal shows (grant details, vesting progress bars, strike price) or any 'what-if' scenario/outcome value modeling for individual stakeholders. missing for 10: documentation of vesting progress visualization, strike price display, and equity outcome/scenario modeling shown to employees.

   • [claimed-docs] “As an admin, you control exactly what they can see, they do not have access to your full cap table.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Cake's free plan covers up to five stakeholders, and for those five you get the whole product: share classes, SAFEs, option grants, stakehol…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Ledgy—none0/10

   The evidence pack focuses on API authentication, cap table administration, compliance reporting, and trading/settlement features, but contains no mention of an employee-facing portal showing grants, vesting progress, strike price, or scenario-based equity valuation. missing for 10: any documentation of an employee equity portal, vesting progress visualization, strike price display, or outcome/scenario modeling tools.

   ⚑ flag

International

1. ops userNon-US valuations and schemes — UK HMRC/EMI valuations, country-specific option plans — are supported for my international entities

   weight 1 · round to Ledgy
   Cake Equity—none0/10

   Evidence only shows US-style 409A valuations and general cap table/option management features; there is no mention of UK HMRC/EMI valuations or country-specific option plans for international entities.

   • [claimed-docs] “409A included in your cap table plan, done by expert startup appraisers, delivered within 3 business days.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Time saver for complex cap tables 100 Stakeholders included 409A Valuation ESS reporting”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Ledgy~partialclaimed4/10

   Ledgy's docs show international financial reporting (IFRS 2, UK GAAP, US GAAP) and 'global mobility reporting' for cross-border equity and tax, implying some non-US support, but there is no explicit mention of UK HMRC/EMI valuation schemes or country-specific option plan types. Missing for 10: explicit HMRC/EMI valuation support, documentation of country-specific option plan templates, and independent confirmation of non-US scheme compliance.

   • [claimed-docs] “Generate a broad suite of financial reports instantly to account for equity under IFRS 2, UK GAAP or US GAAP, with tranche-level details in …”
   • [claimed-docs] “Global mobility reporting helps you stay on top of equity and tax as your workforce moves across borders.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Us 409a

1. founderOrder an audit-ready 409A valuation in-platform, generated from my live cap table data, and get refreshed valuations on schedule

   weight 3 · round to Cake Equity
   Cake Equity~partialclaimed6/10

   Cake documents 409A valuations as a built-in feature, done by expert appraisers and delivered within 3 business days, bundled into the cap table plan (cake-equity-docs-20, cake-equity-docs-8), implying it draws on the live cap table data already in the platform. However, there is no explicit mention of 'audit-ready' certification or a defined refresh/renewal schedule for keeping valuations current. Missing for 10: explicit audit-ready/compliance language, and evidence of scheduled/automatic re-valuation cadence tied to cap table changes.

   • [claimed-docs] “409A included in your cap table plan, done by expert startup appraisers, delivered within 3 business days.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Time saver for complex cap tables 100 Stakeholders included 409A Valuation ESS reporting”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Ledgy—none0/10

   The evidence pack covers API auth, cap table management, equity plans, compliance reporting, and trading/settlement, but contains no mention of 409A valuations, audit-ready valuation reports, or scheduled valuation refreshes.

   ⚑ flag