Ledgy vs Vestd

Agent access

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

   weight 2 · round to Vestd
   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

   Vestd✓fullprobed7/10

   vestd-probe-1 confirms a live llms.txt file at the expected path returning HTTP 200 with structured agent-oriented content describing Vestd, directly satisfying the story. Missing for 10: broader agent-oriented docs (e.g. docs-md, openapi) return 404, so coverage is limited to the single llms.txt file rather than a fuller agent-native documentation surface.

   • [probe] “PROBE llms.txt: HTTP 200 at https://www.vestd.com/llms.txt # Vestd > Vestd Ltd is a UK-based sharetech platform that helps companies launch…”
   • [probe] “PROBE docs-md: HTTP 404 at https://www.vestd.com/help.md”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://www.vestd.com/openapi.json, https://www.vestd.com/swagger.json, https://www.vestd.com/api/op…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

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

   weight 3 · round drawn
   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

   Vestd—none0/10

   Vestd is an equity/cap-table management SaaS; no evidence of an official MCP server or agent connectivity exists—probes for API/openapi specs all return 404. Missing for 10: any MCP server documentation, API spec, or agent integration endpoint.

   • [probe] “PROBE docs-md: HTTP 404 at https://www.vestd.com/help.md”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://www.vestd.com/openapi.json, https://www.vestd.com/swagger.json, https://www.vestd.com/api/op…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

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

   weight 3 · round to Ledgy
   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

   Vestd—none0/10

   No evidence of a public API; OpenAPI/swagger probes all returned 404, and there's no documentation of REST/API endpoints for programmatic access—only an llms.txt marketing summary exists.

   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://www.vestd.com/openapi.json, https://www.vestd.com/swagger.json, https://www.vestd.com/api/op…”
   • [probe] “PROBE docs-md: HTTP 404 at https://www.vestd.com/help.md”
   • [probe] “PROBE llms.txt: HTTP 200 at https://www.vestd.com/llms.txt # Vestd > Vestd Ltd is a UK-based sharetech platform that helps companies launch…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

4. ai-native userBuild against official SDKs

   weight 2 · round drawn
   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

   Vestd—none0/10

   Vestd is an equity management platform with no evidence of an official SDK; probes for OpenAPI/API specs all returned 404, and only an llms.txt file exists.

   • [probe] “PROBE docs-md: HTTP 404 at https://www.vestd.com/help.md”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://www.vestd.com/openapi.json, https://www.vestd.com/swagger.json, https://www.vestd.com/api/op…”
   • [probe] “PROBE llms.txt: HTTP 200 at https://www.vestd.com/llms.txt # Vestd > Vestd Ltd is a UK-based sharetech platform that helps companies launch…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

5. ai-native userSubscribe to events via webhooks

   weight 2 · round drawn
   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

   Vestd—none0/10

   No evidence of any webhook subscription mechanism or event API; probes for OpenAPI/API specs all returned 404, and no docs mention webhooks or events.

   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://www.vestd.com/openapi.json, https://www.vestd.com/swagger.json, https://www.vestd.com/api/op…”
   • [probe] “PROBE docs-md: HTTP 404 at https://www.vestd.com/help.md”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Agentic features

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

   weight 2 · round drawn
   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

   Vestd—none0/10

   No evidence of any AI-generated insights, analytics, or suggestions feature within Vestd; the product is an equity/cap-table management platform with no mention of AI capabilities.

   ⚑ flag

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

   weight 2 · round drawn
   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

   Vestd—none0/10

   Vestd is an equity management platform with some automatic features (e.g., Companies House auto-updates, automated filing), but there is no evidence of user-configurable autonomous background automations akin to AI-native agentic workflows. No API/webhook/automation-builder evidence exists, and no OpenAPI or automation endpoints were found.

   ⚑ flag

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

   weight 2 · round drawn
   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

   Vestd—none0/10

   Vestd is an equity management platform with a standard web UI; nothing in the evidence pack indicates any natural-language command interface, chatbot, or AI-driven control surface. missing for 10: any documented natural-language/chat command feature, AI assistant, or evidence users can operate the platform via NL input.

   ⚑ flag

Api quality

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

   weight 2 · round drawn
   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

   Vestd—none0/10

   No evidence of any API reference, interactive docs, or runnable examples; probes for OpenAPI/swagger endpoints all returned 404s, and Vestd's docs are entirely product/feature help content, not developer API docs.

   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://www.vestd.com/openapi.json, https://www.vestd.com/swagger.json, https://www.vestd.com/api/op…”
   • [probe] “PROBE docs-md: HTTP 404 at https://www.vestd.com/help.md”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

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

   weight 2 · round drawn
   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

   Vestd—none0/10

   The probe explicitly checked for OpenAPI/Swagger specs at all standard locations and found only 404s, and no docs mention a public API spec. No evidence Vestd offers a machine-readable API spec.

   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://www.vestd.com/openapi.json, https://www.vestd.com/swagger.json, https://www.vestd.com/api/op…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

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

   weight 1 · round drawn
   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

   Vestd—none0/10

   No evidence of any sandbox, test/staging environment, or non-production testing mode; the evidence pack covers cap table, share issuance, and comms features only, with no API/sandbox docs (openapi/docs probes returned 404). Missing for 10: sandbox environment docs, test data separation, API test mode, any mention of non-production testing.

   • [probe] “PROBE docs-md: HTTP 404 at https://www.vestd.com/help.md”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://www.vestd.com/openapi.json, https://www.vestd.com/swagger.json, https://www.vestd.com/api/op…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

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

   weight 2 · round drawn
   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

   Vestd—none0/10

   No evidence of any public API at all, let alone versioning or a deprecation policy; probes for OpenAPI/swagger specs all returned 404 and there's no mention of an API in docs.

   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://www.vestd.com/openapi.json, https://www.vestd.com/swagger.json, https://www.vestd.com/api/op…”
   • [probe] “PROBE docs-md: HTTP 404 at https://www.vestd.com/help.md”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

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

   weight 2 · round to Ledgy
   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

   Vestd~partialprobed3/10

   The only evidence of multi-item action is issuing/distributing shares to 'one or more recipients' at once (vestd-docs-8), which is a narrow bulk-ish operation in one feature area. There's no evidence of broader bulk operations (bulk import, bulk edit, batch API calls) and no API/OpenAPI surface exists (vestd-probe-3 shows 404s), undermining AI-native automation at scale. missing for 10: bulk CRUD across multiple entity types, CSV/batch import tooling, API or webhook support for programmatic bulk actions, independent confirmation of multi-recipient distribution working at scale.

   • [claimed-docs] “Authorise a share pool and choose a share class, then instantly distribute the equity to one or more recipients.”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://www.vestd.com/openapi.json, https://www.vestd.com/swagger.json, https://www.vestd.com/api/op…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

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

   weight 3 · round drawn
   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

   Vestd—none0/10

   Vestd is an equity/cap-table management platform with automated updates (e.g., Companies House filing, HRIS sync) but there is no evidence of user-defined conditional rules or event-trigger automation configurable by users; no API/webhook or rules-engine is documented (openapi/docs probes return 404).

   • [claimed-docs] “Companies House is automatically updated once shares have been distributed. You don't need to do a thing.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Automate filing with Vestd”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://www.vestd.com/openapi.json, https://www.vestd.com/swagger.json, https://www.vestd.com/api/op…”

   proof ↗⚑ 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 drawn
   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

   Vestd~partialclaimed5/10

   Vestd's site references "Share certificates" and digital share issuance that automatically updates Companies House and the cap table, plus "deed / witness signatures" for governance documents, implying electronic signing tied to shareholding records. However, there is no explicit description of the certificate e-signing workflow or how a certificate is permanently linked to the specific cap table entry it represents. Missing for 10: detailed docs on the e-signature/legal execution process for certificates, explicit description of the permanent link between certificate and cap table record, and independent/hands-on corroboration.

   • [claimed-docs] “Share certificates”
   • [claimed-docs] “Authorise and issue new shares digitally, and update Companies House in the click of a button. No paperwork involved!”
   • [claimed-docs] “Companies House is automatically updated once shares have been distributed. You don't need to do a thing.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Board-ready equity governance and reporting, with deed / witness signatures and custom document templates.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Digital cap table management No more messy spreadsheets scattered across your team. One source of truth, reconciled.”

   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 Vestd
   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

   Vestd~partialclaimed4/10

   Vestd markets a 'Migrate to Vestd' offering to digitise or move an existing scheme, and positions itself as replacing 'messy spreadsheets scattered across your team' with 'one source of truth, reconciled,' implying migration support. However there is no evidence of a guided import workflow, validation steps, or reconciliation against source documents — these are just marketing taglines, not documented process detail. Missing for 10: guided import UI/steps, data validation rules, reconciliation process against source spreadsheets/documents, any case study or hands-on account of a migration.

   • [claimed-docs] “Migrate to Vestd - Digitise or move your existing scheme”
   • [claimed-docs] “Migrate to Vestd Digitise or move your existing scheme”
   • [claimed-docs] “Migrate to Vestd | Upgrade today”
   • [claimed-docs] “Digital cap table management No more messy spreadsheets scattered across your team. One source of truth, reconciled.”

   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
   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

   Vestd✓fullclaimed8/10

   Vestd's docs strongly support a live cap table as single source of truth: digital cap table management with 'one source of truth, reconciled' (vestd-docs-7), share issuance with Companies House auto-updates (vestd-docs-2, vestd-docs-11), share certificates (vestd-docs-31), SAFEs/growth shares (vestd-docs-17, vestd-docs-32), EMI/CSOP/unapproved option grants (vestd-docs-6, vestd-docs-14, vestd-docs-33, vestd-docs-34), and data rooms for investors/auditors to access cap tables and documents (vestd-docs-21). Missing for 10: independent/third-party corroboration (e.g. reviews or case studies) confirming investors/auditors actually rely on it as source of truth, and no direct evidence of multi-user real-time sync guarantees.

   • [claimed-docs] “Digital cap table management No more messy spreadsheets scattered across your team. One source of truth, reconciled.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Companies House is automatically updated once shares have been distributed. You don't need to do a thing.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Authorise and issue new shares digitally, and update Companies House in the click of a button. No paperwork involved!”
   • [claimed-docs] “Share certificates”
   • [claimed-docs] “In this guide, we cover everything there is to know about growth shares, how to use them and who can have them.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Build growth share schemes with Vestd”
   • [claimed-docs] “you will need to create the actual EMI scheme so you can grant share options”
   • [claimed-docs] “How your SME can create a qualifying EMI options scheme”
   • [claimed-docs] “Build unapproved option schemes with Vestd”
   • [claimed-docs] “Company Share Option Plans (CSOPs) on Vestd”
   • [claimed-docs] “From agreements and financials to cap tables and shareholder documents, you decide what to include and **who gets access**.”

   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
   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

   Vestd—none0/10

   No evidence pack item mentions ASC 718, expense reporting, amortization schedules, or auditor-ready compliance reports; the closest items (409A valuations, share valuations, Companies House filings) address different compliance needs, not GAAP stock-based compensation expensing.

   ⚑ 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
   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

   Vestd—none0/10

   Vestd's evidence pack is UK-centric (Companies House filings, EMI/CSOP schemes, UK valuations) and only briefly touches US exposure via 409A valuations for UK companies issuing to US taxpayers; there is no mention of Rule 701 thresholds, Form 3921 filings, or 83(b) election tracking/generation anywhere in the docs or probes.

   • [claimed-docs] “If you're a UK company issuing options to US taxpayers, you need 409A valuations. Get your 409A valuation from Vestd for a small fee.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Automate filing with Vestd”
   • [claimed-docs] “Share valuation | Vestd”

   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
   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

   Vestd—none0/10

   No evidence of any programmatic/API surface for drafting option grants or other securities—OpenAPI/swagger probes all return 404, and all cited docs describe human UI workflows (admin authorizes share pools, recipients submit exercise requests via the platform) rather than an agent-accessible API queue. missing for 10: any API/SDK endpoint for creating draft grants, evidence of an approval-queue object model, developer documentation referencing programmatic access.

   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://www.vestd.com/openapi.json, https://www.vestd.com/swagger.json, https://www.vestd.com/api/op…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Authorise a share pool and choose a share class, then instantly distribute the equity to one or more recipients.”
   • [claimed-docs] “When a recipient is ready to exercise their options, they submit a request through Vestd. The company's admin user then revi”
   • [probe] “PROBE llms.txt: HTTP 200 at https://www.vestd.com/llms.txt # Vestd > Vestd Ltd is a UK-based sharetech platform that helps companies launch…”

   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 to Ledgy
   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

   Vestd—none0/10

   No evidence of any API, export, or programmatic access to cap table data — the openapi probe returned 404s on all candidate paths and there's no mention of an API for agents to pull cap table data. Data rooms and cap table features are UI-based document storage, not programmatic reconciliation tools.

   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://www.vestd.com/openapi.json, https://www.vestd.com/swagger.json, https://www.vestd.com/api/op…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Digital cap table management No more messy spreadsheets scattered across your team. One source of truth, reconciled.”
   • [claimed-docs] “From agreements and financials to cap tables and shareholder documents, you decide what to include and **who gets access**.”

   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
   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

   Vestd—none0/10

   There is no evidence of any documented API for pulling cap table data — probes for OpenAPI/Swagger specs all returned 404, and no docs mention an API at all; the HRIS integration mention is inbound data sync, not an outbound programmatic cap table export. Evidence only covers UI-based features like issuing shares, data rooms, and shareholder comms.

   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://www.vestd.com/openapi.json, https://www.vestd.com/swagger.json, https://www.vestd.com/api/op…”
   • [probe] “PROBE docs-md: HTTP 404 at https://www.vestd.com/help.md”
   • [claimed-docs] “Connect your HR platform to Vestd and end the manual data shuffle.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Digital cap table management No more messy spreadsheets scattered across your team. One source of truth, reconciled.”

   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
   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

   Vestd~partialprobed4/10

   Vestd's data rooms let admins choose 'who gets access' to specific documents/cap table data, and HRIS integrations exist, which suggest some scoped sharing is possible, but there's no evidence of a distinct third-party/advisor role with limited permissions (vs. full admin) or an API/portal built for law firms or wealth managers. No OpenAPI/API surface was found (probe-3 404), so scoped programmatic access can't be confirmed. Missing for 10: explicit third-party role-based permissions, documented advisor/accountant access tier, API or portal scoped for external professionals.

   • [claimed-docs] “From agreements and financials to cap tables and shareholder documents, you decide what to include and **who gets access**.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Connect your HR platform to Vestd and end the manual data shuffle.”
   • [claimed-docs] “HRIS Integration | Vestd”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://www.vestd.com/openapi.json, https://www.vestd.com/swagger.json, https://www.vestd.com/api/op…”

   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
   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

   Vestd~partialclaimed4/10

   Vestd's issue-shares flow lets an admin 'distribute equity to one or more recipients' in one action (vestd-docs-8), and its migration/HRIS-integration pages talk about digitising or moving an 'existing scheme' and connecting HR systems to avoid manual data entry (vestd-docs-1, vestd-docs-9, vestd-docs-10, vestd-docs-22, vestd-docs-35), implying some batch/historical-data ingestion. However, there is no explicit documentation of a bulk CSV upload, spreadsheet import, or dedicated batch-grant tool, and no independent/hands-on confirmation of how many recipients or historical transactions can be processed at once. Missing for 10: explicit bulk upload/import tool documentation, evidence of batch historical-transaction entry, and independent corroboration of scale.

   • [claimed-docs] “Authorise a share pool and choose a share class, then instantly distribute the equity to one or more recipients.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Migrate to Vestd - Digitise or move your existing scheme”
   • [claimed-docs] “Migrate to Vestd Digitise or move your existing scheme”
   • [claimed-docs] “Connect your HR platform to Vestd and end the manual data shuffle.”
   • [claimed-docs] “HRIS Integration | Vestd”
   • [claimed-docs] “Migrate to Vestd | Upgrade today”

   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 Vestd
   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

   Vestd~partialclaimed6/10

   Vestd provides EMI option scheme setup and granting (vestd-docs-6, vestd-docs-15, vestd-docs-25), board-ready governance/reporting with signatures (vestd-docs-18), and a dedicated 409A valuation service for issuing to US taxpayers (vestd-docs-16, vestd-docs-28), which together cover the major pieces of the story. However, no evidence shows these steps are chained into one single end-to-end workflow (board approval → 409A strike price lookup → grant issuance) triggered from a new-hire event; the docs describe separate features/pages rather than an integrated flow. Missing for 10: a documented single workflow linking board approval, 409A valuation retrieval, and option grant issuance in one pass, and independent/hands-on confirmation that this sequence works seamlessly end-to-end.

   • [claimed-docs] “you will need to create the actual EMI scheme so you can grant share options”
   • [claimed-docs] “How to grant EMI share options”
   • [claimed-docs] “Board-ready equity governance and reporting, with deed / witness signatures and custom document templates.”
   • [claimed-docs] “If you're a UK company issuing options to US taxpayers, you need 409A valuations. Get your 409A valuation from Vestd for a small fee.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Share valuation | Vestd”
   • [claimed-docs] “Granting EMI Share Options Scheme | Vestd”

   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 Ledgy
   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

   Vestd—none0/10

   The evidence pack covers share issuance, EMI/growth/unapproved scheme setup, exercising options, cap tables, and communications, but nowhere describes defining custom vesting schedules with cliffs, milestones, or exit-acceleration, nor automatic vested/unvested tracking. Missing for 10: any documentation of vesting schedule configuration, cliff/milestone logic, acceleration-on-exit handling, or automated vested-vs-unvested calculation.

   • [claimed-docs] “you will need to create the actual EMI scheme so you can grant share options”
   • [claimed-docs] “How your SME can create a qualifying EMI options scheme”
   • [claimed-docs] “How to grant EMI share options”
   • [claimed-docs] “In this guide, we cover everything there is to know about growth shares, how to use them and who can have them.”
   • [claimed-docs] “When a recipient is ready to exercise their options, they submit a request through Vestd. The company's admin user then revi”

   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 Vestd
   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

   Vestd~partialclaimed7/10

   Vestd offers shareholder dashboards (vestd-docs-37, vestd-probe via shareholder-dashboards page) and dedicated shareholder communication tools including targeted updates and mailing lists (vestd-docs-3, vestd-docs-13, vestd-docs-24), which directly supports investors having self-service visibility and structured updates rather than emailing the founder. However, evidence is all first-party marketing copy with no independent/hands-on confirmation of the investor-side experience or what 'structured updates' concretely look like (e.g. automated reports vs manual email blasts). Missing for 10: independent/hands-on validation of the investor portal UX, detail on automated/structured update formats, and confirmation that portal access is self-serve without founder intervention.

   • [claimed-docs] “Invite your team.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Keep your shareholders in the loop with regular updates, directly from the Vestd platform.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Create bespoke mailing lists to segment stakeholders, to send targeted updates to specific groups.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Shareholder Communication Solutions | Vestd”
   • [claimed-docs] “Digital cap table management No more messy spreadsheets scattered across your team. One source of truth, reconciled.”

   proof ↗⚑ 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 drawn
   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

   Vestd—none0/10

   Vestd's evidence covers cap table management, share issuance, EMI/CSOP/growth share schemes, valuations, and Companies House filing, but nothing mentions SAFEs, convertible notes, e-signing of fundraising instruments, or conversion-term modeling. This appears to be an equity/options management platform, not a SAFE/convertible-note fundraising tool.

   ⚑ 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
   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

   Vestd—none0/10

   Vestd's evidence covers cap table management, share issuance, EMI schemes, valuations, and shareholder comms, but nowhere mentions exit waterfall modeling, liquidation preferences, participation rights, or proceeds distribution scenarios under different exit values.

   ⚑ 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 drawn
   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

   Vestd—none0/10

   Vestd's evidence covers cap table management, share issuance, EMI/CSOP option schemes, valuations, and data rooms, but nothing describes scenario modeling for a priced funding round — no mention of dilution modeling, option pool top-up simulation, SAFE conversion, or pro-forma ownership scenarios shareable with counsel/investors.

   ⚑ 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 Vestd
   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

   Vestd~partialclaimed4/10

   Vestd advertises 'board-ready equity governance and reporting, with deed/witness signatures and custom document templates' and data rooms that store agreements and shareholder documents tied to transactions, suggesting some document generation, e-signature, and archiving capability. However there is no explicit evidence of board consent or stockholder approval drafting/routing as a distinct governance workflow (e.g., resolution templates, approval routing tied to specific transactions like grants or share issuances). Missing for 10: explicit board consent/resolution drafting workflow, dedicated e-signature routing for approvals, and evidence that approvals are archived and linked to the specific transactions they authorize.

   • [claimed-docs] “Board-ready equity governance and reporting, with deed / witness signatures and custom document templates.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Document templates for startups | Vestd”
   • [claimed-docs] “our Data rooms let you store and share important files in one secure, central place”
   • [claimed-docs] “From agreements and financials to cap tables and shareholder documents, you decide what to include and **who gets access**.”

   proof ↗⚑ 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
   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

   Vestd—none0/10

   Evidence shows data rooms with configurable access ([vestd-docs-21]) and generic 'invite your team' ([vestd-docs-37]), but nothing indicates a dedicated law-firm/counsel role, permissions tier, or workflow for external counsel to prepare documents or update records directly. Missing for 10: evidence of a counsel-specific role/permission set, document-drafting workflow for external lawyers, or any mention of law firm collaboration.

   • [claimed-docs] “From agreements and financials to cap tables and shareholder documents, you decide what to include and **who gets access**.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Invite your team.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Board-ready equity governance and reporting, with deed / witness signatures and custom document templates.”

   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 Vestd
   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

   Vestd✓fullclaimed7/10

   Vestd's Data Rooms feature explicitly lets ops users store cap tables and documents (agreements, financials, shareholder docs) in one secure place and control "who gets access," directly matching the permissioned diligence-ready sharing story, supplemented by board-ready governance/reporting docs. Missing for 10: independent/hands-on corroboration of the permissioning granularity (e.g., counsel vs investor role-based access), and no evidence of audit logs or expiry controls typical of enterprise data rooms.

   • [claimed-docs] “our Data rooms let you store and share important files in one secure, central place”
   • [claimed-docs] “our Data rooms let you store and share important files in one secure, central place.”
   • [claimed-docs] “our **Data rooms** let you store and share important files in one secure, central place.”
   • [claimed-docs] “From agreements and financials to cap tables and shareholder documents, you decide what to include and **who gets access**.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Board-ready equity governance and reporting, with deed / witness signatures and custom document templates.”

   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 drawn
   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

   Vestd~partialclaimed5/10

   Vestd has a dedicated HRIS integration page claiming to 'connect your HR platform to Vestd and end the manual data shuffle,' indicating some sync capability exists, but there's no detail on which HRIS systems (Gusto, Rippling, etc.) are supported, what data syncs (new hires/terminations specifically), or how automated equity record updates are. Missing for 10: named integration partners, specifics on new-hire/termination triggers flowing into equity records, technical/API documentation, and independent or hands-on confirmation the sync works as described.

   • [claimed-docs] “Connect your HR platform to Vestd and end the manual data shuffle.”
   • [claimed-docs] “HRIS Integration | Vestd”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

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

   weight 2 · round drawn
   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

   Vestd—none0/10

   No evidence of any public API at all (openapi/swagger probes all 404), so there is no basis to claim API-UI parity; all evidence is marketing/UI feature docs.

   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://www.vestd.com/openapi.json, https://www.vestd.com/swagger.json, https://www.vestd.com/api/op…”
   • [probe] “PROBE docs-md: HTTP 404 at https://www.vestd.com/help.md”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

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

   weight 3 · round drawn
   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

   Vestd—none0/10

   No evidence of any data export feature, open-format export (CSV/JSON/API), or data-portability tooling; the only migration references are for importing existing schemes INTO Vestd, and API probes for OpenAPI/docs endpoints all returned 404. missing for 10: any export functionality, open-format data dumps, or API/CSV export documentation.

   • [claimed-docs] “Migrate to Vestd - Digitise or move your existing scheme”
   • [claimed-docs] “Migrate to Vestd Digitise or move your existing scheme”
   • [claimed-docs] “Migrate to Vestd | Upgrade today”
   • [probe] “PROBE docs-md: HTTP 404 at https://www.vestd.com/help.md”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://www.vestd.com/openapi.json, https://www.vestd.com/swagger.json, https://www.vestd.com/api/op…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

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

   weight 2 · round drawn
   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

   Vestd—none0/10

   No evidence anywhere in the pack discusses data residency, region selection, or data storage location controls; Vestd is described only as a UK-based platform with no mention of configurable data hosting regions.

   ⚑ flag

2. ai-native userControl data retention and deletion

   weight 2 · round drawn
   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

   Vestd—none0/10

   No evidence in the pack addresses data retention policies, export, or deletion controls for users; Vestd's docs focus on cap tables, share issuance, and data rooms but never mention retention/deletion controls.

   ⚑ 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
   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

   Vestd—none0/10

   Evidence shows cap table management, data rooms, Companies House filing automation, and board-ready governance/reporting, but nowhere describes an audit log recording who changed what, when, and under what authorization. No mention of change history, versioning, or audit trail features.

   ⚑ 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
   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

   Vestd—none0/10

   No evidence pack items mention exporting cap table or transaction history to Excel/CSV, or any data export/portability capability; docs focus on digital cap table management, data rooms, and Companies House filing but never describe self-service export. No API/openapi found either (probes 404), reinforcing lack of open-format export evidence.

   ⚑ flag

Education

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

   weight 1 · round to Vestd
   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

   Vestd~partialclaimed5/10

   Vestd's help docs cover topics like exercising options (mentioning valuation/tax considerations), growth shares explained, and EMI scheme guides, suggesting some educational content exists around equity concepts. However, there's no direct evidence of an employee-facing dashboard or interface that translates an individual's own equity numbers into plain-language tax treatment, exercise window countdowns, or dilution explanations personalized to them — the cited pages are general marketing/help articles, not demonstrated employee UI features. Missing for 10: employee-specific dashboard screenshots/copy showing personalized tax/exercise/dilution explanations, evidence of plain-language framing tailored to non-expert employees, and independent user corroboration.

   • [claimed-docs] “The company's admin user then reviews and processes it, confirming the company valuation and any relevant tax or legal considerations.”
   • [claimed-docs] “In this guide, we cover everything there is to know about growth shares, how to use them and who can have them.”
   • [claimed-docs] “When a recipient is ready to exercise their options, they submit a request through Vestd. The company's admin user then revi”
   • [claimed-docs] “Invite your team.”
   • [claimed-docs] “If you're a UK company issuing options to US taxpayers, you need 409A valuations. Get your 409A valuation from Vestd for a small fee.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Exercising

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

   weight 2 · round to Vestd
   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

   Vestd~partialclaimed6/10

   Vestd documents an online exercise workflow: the recipient submits an exercise request through the platform, and the admin reviews/processes it, confirming valuation and tax considerations, after which shares can be issued digitally with Companies House auto-updated (no paperwork for issuance). However, the evidence never explicitly describes an online payment mechanism as part of the exercise flow, and the process still requires manual admin review rather than a fully automated end-to-end flow. Missing for 10: explicit description of in-platform payment collection during exercise, and confirmation that share issuance is automatic/instant post-payment rather than admin-mediated.

   • [claimed-docs] “When a recipient is ready to exercise their options, they submit a request through Vestd. The company's admin user then revi”
   • [claimed-docs] “The company's admin user then reviews and processes it, confirming the company valuation and any relevant tax or legal considerations.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Authorise and issue new shares digitally, and update Companies House in the click of a button. No paperwork involved!”
   • [claimed-docs] “Companies House is automatically updated once shares have been distributed. You don't need to do a thing.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Authorise a share pool and choose a share class, then instantly distribute the equity to one or more recipients.”

   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 Vestd
   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

   Vestd~partialclaimed4/10

   Vestd advertises a shareholder/employee dashboard ('Invite your team' via shareholder-dashboards page) and an options-exercise workflow where recipients submit requests, implying some self-service portal exists, but there is no evidence describing vesting-progress visualization, strike price display, or scenario/what-if valuation modeling for employees. missing for 10: explicit portal screenshots or docs showing vesting progress bars, strike price display, and outcome/scenario modeling for equity value.

   • [claimed-docs] “Invite your team.”
   • [claimed-docs] “When a recipient is ready to exercise their options, they submit a request through Vestd. The company's admin user then revi”
   • [claimed-docs] “The company's admin user then reviews and processes it, confirming the company valuation and any relevant tax or legal considerations.”
   • [claimed-docs] “In this guide, we cover everything there is to know about growth shares, how to use them and who can have them.”

   proof ↗⚑ 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 Vestd
   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

   Vestd~partialclaimed5/10

   Vestd is UK-based and clearly supports UK-specific schemes like EMI (scheme setup and granting), CSOPs, growth shares, unapproved options, and SEIS/EIS advance assurance, which are the core 'non-US' UK HMRC-approved plan types. However, evidence is UK-centric only — there's no mention of other countries' option plans or valuations for international entities beyond the UK/US (409A) pairing, and no detail on how HMRC valuations are actually calculated/certified vs just scheme setup. missing for 10: evidence of valuation methodology/certification for HMRC-approved schemes, support for non-UK/non-US jurisdictions' option plans, and any documentation of multi-country entity handling.

   • [claimed-docs] “How your SME can create a qualifying EMI options scheme”
   • [claimed-docs] “How to grant EMI share options”
   • [claimed-docs] “How your SME can create a qualifying EMI options scheme | Vestd”
   • [claimed-docs] “Build growth share schemes with Vestd”
   • [claimed-docs] “Build unapproved option schemes with Vestd”
   • [claimed-docs] “Company Share Option Plans (CSOPs) on Vestd”
   • [claimed-docs] “SEIS/EIS Advance Assurance Application | Vestd”
   • [claimed-docs] “Share valuation | Vestd”

   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 Vestd
   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

   Vestd~partialclaimed5/10

   Vestd offers a 409A valuation product tied to its cap table platform (vestd-docs-16, vestd-docs-28), but evidence does not confirm it's auto-generated from live cap table data, audit-ready certification, or scheduled/refreshed on a recurring basis. missing for 10: evidence of automated generation from live cap table data, audit-ready/compliance certification details, and scheduled refresh cadence.

   • [claimed-docs] “If you're a UK company issuing options to US taxpayers, you need 409A valuations. Get your 409A valuation from Vestd for a small fee.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Share valuation | Vestd”
   • [claimed-docs] “Digital cap table management No more messy spreadsheets scattered across your team. One source of truth, reconciled.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag