Every investment firm has a thesis. The question is whether that thesis is genuinely differentiated or merely a restatement of consensus. At BeMoreeDriven Capital, we have spent years stress-testing our conviction — not against the market cycle, but against first principles. What we have arrived at is a focused, coherent framework for identifying and backing the companies that will define the next era of enterprise technology. This document is an attempt to articulate that framework with the precision it deserves.

We are a growth-stage technology investor. That label is often applied loosely, so let us be precise: we focus on companies with between $8M and $80M in annual recurring revenue, demonstrating the characteristics of category leadership in their initial markets, and positioned to compound their revenue base at high rates through a combination of new logo acquisition and expansion within their existing customer base. We write initial checks in the $15M–$40M range and maintain reserve capital for meaningful follow-on participation.

Why Growth Stage?

The venture capital landscape has bifurcated in interesting ways over the past decade. Early-stage investing has become simultaneously more commoditized and more competitive at the entry point — the proliferation of seed capital has made the seed-to-Series A transition far more complex and uncertain. Late-stage and growth equity investing, meanwhile, has been subject to the volatility of public market comparables and the dislocation that characterized 2021–2023. Growth stage — specifically the Series A through Series C window where companies have achieved product-market fit and are beginning to build scalable go-to-market engines — sits at an interesting point in that landscape.

At the growth stage, the key binary risks of early investing have largely resolved. The founders have demonstrated the capacity to ship a product that customers pay for. The market hypothesis has moved from conjecture to evidence. The team has proven it can recruit, execute, and retain talent through the genuinely difficult early years. What remains is the operating and capital allocation challenge: can this company build the systems, the culture, and the go-to-market infrastructure to become a market-defining business?

That is the question we are positioned to help answer. Our team brings operating experience across enterprise SaaS scaling, M&A, and institutional capital markets. When we invest at growth stage, we are not writing a check and waiting — we are engaging deeply with the management team on the GTM strategy, the hiring plan, the pricing architecture, and the capital structure that will take the company from $10M to $100M ARR and beyond.

The Four Pillars of Our Thesis

Our thesis is organized around four structural conviction areas. These are not simply sectors we have chosen to cover — they represent markets where we have developed genuine, differentiated insight that we believe the consensus has not fully priced.

Pillar One: Enterprise AI Infrastructure

The artificial intelligence revolution is real, but the investment opportunity is not uniformly distributed. Consumer AI applications are subject to winner-take-all dynamics and the risk of platform dependency. Foundation model training is capital-intensive to a degree that only a handful of firms can participate. What remains — and what we find most compelling — is the infrastructure layer: the platforms that enable large enterprises to deploy AI reliably, securely, and at scale within their existing operational environments.

This is a harder technical and commercial problem than it appears. Enterprise AI deployment requires integration with decades-old data architectures, compliance with data residency and privacy regulations, and the ability to maintain auditability over automated decisions in highly regulated industries. The companies that solve these integration and governance challenges — rather than simply providing another foundation model API — are building genuine moats. We are looking for companies with proprietary integration layers, enterprise data pipelines, and the trust relationships with Fortune 500 IT and procurement organizations that compound over time.

Our portfolio company NeuralFlow exemplifies this thesis. The platform's autonomous workflow orchestration capabilities are genuinely differentiated — but the real moat is the 140+ enterprise system integrations and the trust that comes from managing mission-critical workflows for 22 Fortune 500 companies. That trust took years to build and cannot be replicated by a better-funded competitor in six months.

Pillar Two: B2B SaaS Platform Consolidation

The SaaS market has generated an extraordinary proliferation of point solutions over the past decade. Enterprises have accumulated dozens, sometimes hundreds, of SaaS subscriptions, each addressing a narrow workflow. The inevitable next chapter of this story is consolidation: CFOs are pressuring procurement teams to reduce vendor count, and IT organizations are demanding platform solutions that integrate rather than fragment their data and workflow environments.

We are specifically interested in companies that are positioned to be consolidators rather than consolidatees. These are platforms with broad workflow coverage, deep data integration, and the architectural flexibility to add adjacent functionality without rebuilding from scratch. They typically exhibit expanding average contract values, strong net revenue retention (we look for NRR above 120% as a threshold for serious interest), and a product roadmap that is deliberately expanding the surface area of the platform rather than deepening a single point solution.

Strataxis, our strategic planning and performance management platform, captures this dynamic precisely. The company entered the market as a planning tool — but its architectural design allowed it to progressively incorporate budgeting, reporting, forecasting, and scenario analysis into a unified workspace. Each expansion increases the switching cost and the average contract value simultaneously. That is the pattern we look for.

Pillar Three: Fintech Infrastructure

Financial services technology is undergoing a structural transformation that will take decades to complete. Legacy core banking systems, built in the 1970s and 1980s, are being progressively replaced by cloud-native infrastructure. Capital markets data and analytics, long dominated by expensive, API-hostile incumbents, are being disrupted by developer-native platforms. Compliance and regulatory operations, historically managed by armies of contractors and consultants, are being automated by intelligent workflow platforms.

We focus specifically on the infrastructure layer of fintech — the picks-and-shovels businesses that power the fintech ecosystem rather than competing directly with banks and insurers as consumer-facing challengers. These businesses have structural advantages: they monetize the growth of the entire fintech market rather than competing within it, they are typically less subject to the credit cycle risks that affect consumer fintech directly, and they build network effects and data advantages that compound as their customer base grows.

CapexIQ, our capital markets data and analytics platform, is a direct expression of this thesis. The company is not competing with Bloomberg — it is providing institutional asset managers, hedge funds, and investment banks with a developer-native, API-first alternative to legacy data infrastructure at 40% of the cost. The addressable market is the annual $40B spent on market data globally, and CapexIQ's technical architecture is genuinely superior to anything the incumbents can build on their existing infrastructure. FormFactor, our compliance automation platform, captures the same dynamic in the regulatory workflow space.

Pillar Four: Health Technology with Clinical Validation

Healthcare is the largest sector of the US economy and among the most underdigitized relative to its scale and complexity. We focus specifically on health technology companies that have achieved clinical validation — where the product has demonstrated, through peer-reviewed research or rigorous real-world evidence studies, that it improves clinical outcomes rather than merely digitizing existing workflows. This validation is what allows health technology companies to cross the procurement and reimbursement barriers that have slowed so many technically capable but clinically unvalidated competitors.

Veridia Health represents our health technology conviction. The platform's NLP-driven clinical decision support has been validated in three academic medical center deployments with peer-reviewed outcome data. That validation is not merely a sales tool — it is the basis of hospital system procurement decisions, reimbursement contracts, and regulatory clearances that create durable revenue and high barriers to competitive displacement.

What We Look For Across All Four Pillars

Beyond sector focus, our investment decisions are shaped by a consistent set of company-level criteria that we apply across all four thesis areas.

Net Revenue Retention above 120%. NRR is our single most important growth-stage metric. An NRR above 120% means the existing customer base is expanding faster than any reasonable churn rate can erode — the business is growing even if it adds zero new customers. This is the mathematical foundation of durable, capital-efficient growth. We will not seriously consider a company that cannot demonstrate NRR above 120% over at least four consecutive quarters.

Gross margins above 70%. High gross margins are the prerequisite for efficient growth investment. Companies with sub-70% gross margins face a structural disadvantage in their ability to invest in sales, marketing, product, and customer success relative to high-margin peers. In enterprise software, gross margins below 70% typically reflect either technical architecture problems (excessive infrastructure costs), services dependency (revenue that requires human labor to deliver), or pricing power issues. All three are meaningful concerns at growth stage.

Demonstrated CAC efficiency. We evaluate CAC payback period and the efficiency of new logo acquisition carefully. Companies with CAC payback periods above 24 months are essentially pre-financing their customers' decisions with venture capital — a structurally fragile model that breaks when capital markets tighten. We look for CAC payback under 18 months with a trajectory toward 12 months as the go-to-market motion matures.

Expanding average contract value. In enterprise B2B, ACV expansion is a leading indicator of platform adoption. Companies where ACV is expanding — due to upsell, cross-sell, or usage-based pricing growth — have built products that customers are choosing to embed more deeply in their operations over time. This is qualitatively different from companies where ACV is flat or contracting, which typically signals that the product has hit a natural ceiling in a customer's workflow.

Our Capital Structure Philosophy

BeMoreeDriven Capital manages institutional capital on behalf of a concentrated LP base — primarily endowments, family offices, and sovereign wealth funds with long investment horizons. This capital structure has meaningful implications for how we invest. We are not subject to the return pressure that forces some growth equity investors to prioritize near-term liquidity events over long-term value creation. We can be patient partners through market cycles, operational difficulties, and strategic inflection points that shorter-duration funds cannot navigate with equanimity.

This patience is not passivity. We are active board members and thought partners. But it allows us to support companies through the extended periods of investment and capability-building that transformative businesses typically require before their value is fully legible to the public markets. We believe the vintage years that have historically generated the best returns for growth investors are precisely the ones that required the most patience — and we are structured to provide it.

What We Are Not

It is worth being as clear about what we do not invest in as what we do. We do not invest in consumer technology — the unit economics of consumer acquisition are typically inconsistent with our return thresholds, and consumer businesses are subject to platform dependency and taste volatility that we find structurally unattractive at growth stage. We do not invest in deep tech or hardware — the capital requirements and development timelines are inconsistent with our fund structure and return profile. We do not invest in marketplaces — with rare exceptions, marketplace businesses have achieved growth stage characteristics before we can participate at attractive valuations.

We also do not invest in companies that rely on regulatory arbitrage for their business model. Many fintech and health tech companies are built on the assumption that current regulatory frameworks will remain static — a bet that has historically been a poor one. We look for companies whose business model is strengthened, not threatened, by regulatory evolution.

Conclusion: The Optimal Vintage

We believe the current period — following the valuation correction of 2022-2023 and the operational maturation it forced on growth-stage companies — represents one of the most attractive entry points for institutional growth investing in the past 15 years. Companies that survived the correction did so because their unit economics were genuinely sound, their customer relationships were durable, and their teams were capable of executing through adversity. The cohort of growth-stage companies that meets our criteria today is, in our assessment, the highest-quality cohort we have seen in our operating history.

We are deploying capital with conviction and with a long-term perspective on the structural transformations underway in enterprise technology. If you are building a company that fits the profile described in this thesis — and particularly if you believe you have NRR above 120%, gross margins above 70%, and a product that is genuinely expanding its customers' worlds rather than merely digitizing an existing workflow — we would welcome the conversation.