Why Big 4 Tech Diligence Is Too Slow for Modern Deal Cycles

My co-founder Andy spent thirty years as a CTO and CIO. For the last decade of that, he kept getting pulled into pre-acquisition tech diligence as the expert advisor.

Same pattern every time.

He'd show up. Spend the first three weeks doing basic discovery work. What's the tech stack? How does it connect? Where are the obvious gaps?

Only after all that grunt work could he start the actual analysis. Is this architecture sound? Where are the real risks? What will it cost to fix?

It drove him crazy. Not because the work wasn't necessary. But because he was billing Big 4 rates to do work that shouldn't require Big 4 expertise.

The Problem Isn't the Big 4

Let me be clear: the Big 4 and technical consulting firms aren't bad at what they do. The problem is what they're optimised for.

Most of their time gets spent on basic discovery. Understanding the tech stack. Mapping out architecture. Identifying what systems exist and how they connect.

It's necessary work. But it's also $500-per-hour work billed over several weeks. By the time they get to the high-value analysis (the part that actually requires expert judgment), you've already burned through weeks and tens of thousands of dollars.

And here's the thing: deals don't wait.

You're either moving at market pace or you're losing competitive opportunities. Spending six weeks and $150k to get a technical report means you're often making investment decisions before the diligence is complete.

Or the seller has moved on to a faster buyer.

The Pattern I Keep Seeing

I've been speaking with PE and VC investors recently, and several described the same experience.

They commission the Big 4 work because that's just "how things have been done". It takes longer than expected. And by the time the report arrives, they've already made most of the key decisions based on instinct and surface-level conversations with the CTO.

The expensive report becomes a box-ticking exercise. Which defeats the entire purpose. But here's what's changed: they can't skip it anymore.

Tech risk is enterprise risk now. LPs want to see what you actually found. Boards want evidence that systems are secure and scalable, not just management's assurance.

In Australia, where we're headquartered, regulators have made it clear that "I rely on management" isn't a safe defence anymore. Board members are being held personally accountable for technology oversight.

So you're stuck. You need to move fast on deals. But you also need technical clarity that goes beyond talking to the CTO.

What Some Investors Are Doing Differently

The investors who seem to be solving this aren't skipping the deep technical work.

They're just separating the discovery phase from the expert analysis.

Get the baseline clarity fast and cheap. Then bring in expensive advisors only for the high-value judgment calls that actually require their expertise.

It's the same insight Andy had when he was doing diligence work. Most of discovery can be structured and systematised. It's the analysis that requires human judgment.

So he built something for himself. A structured way to assess a technology function that could handle the discovery phase quickly, surfacing risks and creating a defensible baseline without the manual grunt work.

It worked. He could walk into a diligence process with clarity on day one instead of week three. The investors he worked with could make faster decisions. And when they did bring in advisors, those advisors could focus on high-value analysis from day one instead of spending weeks on basic mapping.

When AI emerged, Andy realised this approach could scale. That's how StackUp was born.

What This Looks Like in Practice

Here's the new playbook:

Early in the deal process, you run a structured assessment of the target's technology function. Takes under an hour. Covers the entire stack, surfaces risks, identifies gaps, benchmarks against similar companies.

You get a defensible baseline. Not a slide deck from management. An independent, objective assessment that serves as your single source of truth.

You can move faster on investment decisions because you have technical clarity early. When you do bring in the Big 4 or technical consultants, they're starting from a baseline instead of from scratch.

And you have something for governance. When your LPs ask what tech diligence you did, or your board asks about technology risk, you have structured evidence to point to. Not just "we asked questions" but documented findings.

The Shift Is the Same

This is the same shift I wrote about in the Jensen Huang piece. The definition of what creates value is changing.

Technical depth still matters. But speed and clarity matter more.

The old model was: hire the most expensive experts and wait for them to tell you everything. The new model is: get structured visibility fast, then use experts strategically.

Not because experts aren't valuable. But because you can't afford to have them doing work that doesn't require their judgment.

The investors using this approach describe it as both offence and defence.

Offence because it helps them move faster and invest smarter.

Defence because it covers the governance and accountability requirements that aren't going away.

The Pace Isn't Slowing Down

Tech expectations are rising. Deal cycles are staying compressed. Governance pressure is increasing.

The old approach (wait six weeks for a Big 4 report) worked when technology was a cost centre you could discount for.

But technology isn't a cost centre anymore. It's often the primary asset you're buying. Or the primary risk you're inheriting.

Which means you need a new approach. One that gives you clarity fast without sacrificing rigour.

That's what we built StackUp to do. Not to replace expert advisors. But to make them more effective by giving them a baseline to work from instead of starting from scratch.

If you're an investor trying to balance speed and rigour in tech diligence, or a technology leader trying to prepare for diligence without spending six months on it, this is the world we're operating in now.

The question isn't whether you need technical clarity. It's how fast you can get it.