Skip to main content

Technical Due Diligence Template

October 15, 2025By CTO29 min read
...
templates

A comprehensive technical due diligence template for M&A, investments, and partnerships with architecture assessment and risk analysis.

Template Type:Strategic

Technical Due Diligence Template

Technical due diligence evaluates the technology, team, and technical risks of a company before acquisition, investment, or partnership. This template provides a comprehensive framework for assessment.

Why Technical Due Diligence?

Objectives:

  • Validate technology claims and capabilities
  • Identify technical risks and liabilities
  • Assess team strength and sustainability
  • Understand integration complexity
  • Inform valuation and deal terms

When to use:

  • M&A (acquiring a company)
  • Investment decisions (VC/PE)
  • Strategic partnerships
  • Major vendor evaluations
  • Internal technology audits

The Template

Due Diligence Report Structure

markdown
# Technical Due Diligence Report

**Target Company:** [Company Name]
**Engagement Type:** [Acquisition / Investment / Partnership]
**Assessment Period:** [Dates]
**Prepared By:** [Name/Firm]
**Report Date:** [Date]
**Confidentiality:** [Classification]

---

## Executive Summary

### Overall Assessment

**Technical Health Score:** [1-10] / 10

**Recommendation:** [Proceed / Proceed with Conditions / Do Not Proceed]

### Key Findings

**Strengths:**
1. [Strength 1]
2. [Strength 2]
3. [Strength 3]

**Concerns:**
1. [Concern 1 - severity level]
2. [Concern 2 - severity level]
3. [Concern 3 - severity level]

**Deal Breakers Identified:** [None / List any]

### Risk Summary

| Category | Risk Level | Key Issues |
|----------|------------|------------|
| Architecture | 🟢🟡🔴 | [Summary] |
| Code Quality | 🟢🟡🔴 | [Summary] |
| Security | 🟢🟡🔴 | [Summary] |
| Scalability | 🟢🟡🔴 | [Summary] |
| Team | 🟢🟡🔴 | [Summary] |
| Technical Debt | 🟢🟡🔴 | [Summary] |
| IP/Legal | 🟢🟡🔴 | [Summary] |

### Estimated Remediation Costs

| Item | Estimate | Timeline |
|------|----------|----------|
| [Item 1] | [$] | [Duration] |
| [Item 2] | [$] | [Duration] |
| **Total** | [$] | |

---

## Company Overview

### Product and Technology

**Product Description:**
[What the company builds and sells]

**Technology Stack:**
- Frontend: [Technologies]
- Backend: [Technologies]
- Database: [Technologies]
- Infrastructure: [Cloud/On-prem, providers]
- Key third-party services: [Services]

**Product Metrics:**
| Metric | Value | Notes |
|--------|-------|-------|
| Monthly Active Users | [#] | |
| Daily API calls | [#] | |
| Data volume | [Size] | |
| Uptime (last 12 months) | [%] | |

### Team Overview

| Role | Count | Notes |
|------|-------|-------|
| Engineering Total | [#] | |
| - Backend | [#] | |
| - Frontend | [#] | |
| - DevOps/SRE | [#] | |
| - QA | [#] | |
| Product | [#] | |
| Design | [#] | |
| **Total Tech Team** | [#] | |

---

## Architecture Assessment

### System Architecture

**Architecture Diagram:**
[Include or reference architecture diagram]

**Architecture Pattern:** [Monolith / Microservices / Serverless / Hybrid]

**Key Components:**
| Component | Technology | Purpose | Health |
|-----------|------------|---------|--------|
| [Component 1] | [Tech] | [Purpose] | 🟢🟡🔴 |
| [Component 2] | [Tech] | [Purpose] | 🟢🟡🔴 |
| [Component 3] | [Tech] | [Purpose] | 🟢🟡🔴 |

### Architecture Assessment

| Criterion | Score (1-5) | Notes |
|-----------|-------------|-------|
| Modularity | [Score] | [Notes] |
| Scalability | [Score] | [Notes] |
| Reliability | [Score] | [Notes] |
| Maintainability | [Score] | [Notes] |
| Observability | [Score] | [Notes] |
| Security design | [Score] | [Notes] |

**Architecture Strengths:**
- [Strength 1]
- [Strength 2]

**Architecture Concerns:**
- [Concern 1]
- [Concern 2]

**Recommendations:**
- [Recommendation 1]
- [Recommendation 2]

---

## Code Quality Assessment

### Repository Structure

| Repository | Language | Lines of Code | Last Commit | Status |
|------------|----------|---------------|-------------|--------|
| [Repo 1] | [Lang] | [LOC] | [Date] | Active/Stale |
| [Repo 2] | [Lang] | [LOC] | [Date] | Active/Stale |

### Code Metrics

| Metric | Value | Benchmark | Assessment |
|--------|-------|-----------|------------|
| Test coverage | [%] | >80% good | 🟢🟡🔴 |
| Code duplication | [%] | <5% good | 🟢🟡🔴 |
| Cyclomatic complexity | [Avg] | <10 good | 🟢🟡🔴 |
| Documentation | [Score] | | 🟢🟡🔴 |
| Technical debt ratio | [%] | <5% good | 🟢🟡🔴 |

### Development Practices

| Practice | Status | Notes |
|----------|--------|-------|
| Version control | [Git/Other] | |
| Branching strategy | [Strategy] | |
| Code review | [Yes/No] | [Coverage] |
| CI/CD pipeline | [Yes/No] | [Maturity] |
| Automated testing | [Yes/No] | [Coverage] |
| Documentation | [Level] | |
| Coding standards | [Yes/No] | |

### Code Quality Findings

**Strengths:**
- [Strength 1]
- [Strength 2]

**Concerns:**
- [Concern 1]
- [Concern 2]

**Technical Debt Identified:**
| Item | Severity | Estimated Effort | Impact |
|------|----------|------------------|--------|
| [Debt 1] | H/M/L | [Effort] | [Impact] |
| [Debt 2] | H/M/L | [Effort] | [Impact] |

---

## Security Assessment

### Security Posture

| Area | Status | Notes |
|------|--------|-------|
| Authentication | [Implementation] | 🟢🟡🔴 |
| Authorization | [Implementation] | 🟢🟡🔴 |
| Data encryption (transit) | [Yes/No] | 🟢🟡🔴 |
| Data encryption (rest) | [Yes/No] | 🟢🟡🔴 |
| Secrets management | [Method] | 🟢🟡🔴 |
| Dependency scanning | [Yes/No] | 🟢🟡🔴 |
| Penetration testing | [Frequency] | 🟢🟡🔴 |
| Security monitoring | [Tools] | 🟢🟡🔴 |

### Compliance

| Certification/Standard | Status | Expiry |
|------------------------|--------|--------|
| SOC 2 Type II | [Yes/No/In Progress] | [Date] |
| ISO 27001 | [Yes/No/In Progress] | [Date] |
| GDPR | [Compliant/Partial/No] | |
| HIPAA | [Compliant/Partial/No/N/A] | |
| PCI DSS | [Compliant/Partial/No/N/A] | |

### Security Findings

**Critical Issues:**
- [Issue 1 - immediate remediation required]

**High-Priority Issues:**
- [Issue 1]
- [Issue 2]

**Medium-Priority Issues:**
- [Issue 1]

**Recommendations:**
- [Recommendation 1]
- [Recommendation 2]

---

## Scalability Assessment

### Current Scale

| Metric | Current | Peak | Capacity |
|--------|---------|------|----------|
| Requests/second | [#] | [#] | [#] |
| Concurrent users | [#] | [#] | [#] |
| Data storage | [Size] | [Growth/month] | [Limit] |
| Database size | [Size] | [Growth/month] | [Limit] |

### Scalability Analysis

| Component | Horizontal Scale | Vertical Scale | Bottleneck Risk |
|-----------|------------------|----------------|-----------------|
| Web tier | [Yes/No] | [Limit] | 🟢🟡🔴 |
| Application tier | [Yes/No] | [Limit] | 🟢🟡🔴 |
| Database | [Yes/No] | [Limit] | 🟢🟡🔴 |
| Cache | [Yes/No] | [Limit] | 🟢🟡🔴 |
| Message queue | [Yes/No] | [Limit] | 🟢🟡🔴 |

### Scalability Assessment

**Current headroom:** [X]x before architectural changes needed

**Scaling path:**
1. [First scaling step]
2. [Second scaling step]
3. [Major architectural change needed at Nx]

**Concerns:**
- [Concern 1]
- [Concern 2]

---

## Infrastructure Assessment

### Infrastructure Overview

**Hosting:** [Cloud provider(s) / On-premise / Hybrid]

**Regions/Availability:**
| Region | Services | DR Capability |
|--------|----------|---------------|
| [Region 1] | [Services] | [Yes/No] |
| [Region 2] | [Services] | [Yes/No] |

### Infrastructure Health

| Area | Status | Notes |
|------|--------|-------|
| Infrastructure as Code | [Yes/No/Partial] | [Tool] |
| Environment parity | [High/Med/Low] | |
| Deployment automation | [Yes/No/Partial] | |
| Monitoring coverage | [%] | [Tool] |
| Alerting | [Maturity] | |
| Backup strategy | [Description] | |
| Disaster recovery | [RTO/RPO] | |

### Cost Analysis

| Category | Monthly Cost | % of Total | Optimization Potential |
|----------|--------------|------------|------------------------|
| Compute | [$] | [%] | 🟢🟡🔴 |
| Database | [$] | [%] | 🟢🟡🔴 |
| Storage | [$] | [%] | 🟢🟡🔴 |
| Network | [$] | [%] | 🟢🟡🔴 |
| Other | [$] | [%] | 🟢🟡🔴 |
| **Total** | [$] | 100% | |

**Cost per user/transaction:** [$X per MAU / $Y per 1000 requests]

---

## Team Assessment

### Team Composition

| Role | Count | Avg Tenure | Key Person Risk |
|------|-------|------------|-----------------|
| [Role 1] | [#] | [Years] | 🟢🟡🔴 |
| [Role 2] | [#] | [Years] | 🟢🟡🔴 |
| [Role 3] | [#] | [Years] | 🟢🟡🔴 |

### Key Personnel

| Name | Role | Tenure | Criticality | Retention Risk |
|------|------|--------|-------------|----------------|
| [Name] | [Role] | [Years] | Critical/Important | 🟢🟡🔴 |
| [Name] | [Role] | [Years] | Critical/Important | 🟢🟡🔴 |

### Team Assessment

| Criterion | Score (1-5) | Notes |
|-----------|-------------|-------|
| Technical skills | [Score] | |
| Domain expertise | [Score] | |
| Process maturity | [Score] | |
| Documentation | [Score] | |
| Knowledge distribution | [Score] | |
| Retention likelihood | [Score] | |

### Team Risks

- [Risk 1]
- [Risk 2]

### Retention Recommendations

- [Recommendation 1]
- [Recommendation 2]

---

## Intellectual Property Assessment

### IP Inventory

| Asset | Type | Protection | Status |
|-------|------|------------|--------|
| [Core platform] | Software | Copyright/Trade secret | Owned |
| [Patent X] | Patent | Patent #[Number] | Filed/Granted |
| [Trademark] | Trademark | Reg #[Number] | Registered |
| [Domain] | Domain | Registration | Owned |

### Open Source Analysis

**Open source usage:**
| Category | Count | License Types |
|----------|-------|---------------|
| Dependencies | [#] | [MIT, Apache, GPL, etc.] |
| Copyleft licenses | [#] | [GPL, AGPL, etc.] |
| Commercial licenses | [#] | [List] |

**License compliance concerns:**
- [Concern 1 if any]
- [Concern 2 if any]

### IP Risks

| Risk | Severity | Notes |
|------|----------|-------|
| [IP risk 1] | H/M/L | |
| [IP risk 2] | H/M/L | |

---

## Data Assessment

### Data Inventory

| Data Type | Volume | Sensitivity | Location | Retention |
|-----------|--------|-------------|----------|-----------|
| User data | [Size] | [PII/Sensitive/Public] | [Location] | [Policy] |
| Transaction data | [Size] | [Level] | [Location] | [Policy] |
| Analytics | [Size] | [Level] | [Location] | [Policy] |

### Data Quality

| Criterion | Score (1-5) | Notes |
|-----------|-------------|-------|
| Completeness | [Score] | |
| Accuracy | [Score] | |
| Consistency | [Score] | |
| Timeliness | [Score] | |

### Data Governance

| Area | Status | Notes |
|------|--------|-------|
| Data catalog | [Yes/No] | |
| Data lineage | [Yes/No] | |
| Access controls | [Maturity] | |
| Backup/recovery | [Strategy] | |
| Data retention | [Policy] | |

---

## Integration Assessment

### Integration Complexity

**If acquiring:**

| Integration Area | Complexity | Effort Estimate | Priority |
|------------------|------------|-----------------|----------|
| User/account merge | [H/M/L] | [Weeks] | [P1/P2/P3] |
| Data migration | [H/M/L] | [Weeks] | [P1/P2/P3] |
| System integration | [H/M/L] | [Weeks] | [P1/P2/P3] |
| Process alignment | [H/M/L] | [Weeks] | [P1/P2/P3] |
| Team integration | [H/M/L] | [Weeks] | [P1/P2/P3] |

### Integration Risks

- [Risk 1]
- [Risk 2]

### Integration Recommendations

- [Recommendation 1]
- [Recommendation 2]

---

## Risk Summary

### Risk Matrix

| Risk | Likelihood | Impact | Severity | Mitigation |
|------|------------|--------|----------|------------|
| [Risk 1] | H/M/L | H/M/L | Critical/High/Med/Low | [Strategy] |
| [Risk 2] | H/M/L | H/M/L | Critical/High/Med/Low | [Strategy] |
| [Risk 3] | H/M/L | H/M/L | Critical/High/Med/Low | [Strategy] |

### Deal Implications

**Valuation considerations:**
- [Consideration 1]
- [Consideration 2]

**Deal terms recommendations:**
- [Term recommendation 1]
- [Term recommendation 2]

**Post-close requirements:**
- [Requirement 1]
- [Requirement 2]

---

## Recommendations

### Immediate Actions (Pre-Close)

1. [Action 1]
2. [Action 2]

### Short-Term Actions (0-90 Days Post-Close)

1. [Action 1]
2. [Action 2]

### Medium-Term Actions (90-365 Days Post-Close)

1. [Action 1]
2. [Action 2]

### Investment Required

| Category | Estimate | Timeline |
|----------|----------|----------|
| Security remediation | [$] | [Duration] |
| Technical debt | [$] | [Duration] |
| Infrastructure | [$] | [Duration] |
| Team/hiring | [$] | [Duration] |
| **Total** | [$] | |

---

## Appendix

### Documents Reviewed

- [Document 1]
- [Document 2]
- [Document 3]

### Interviews Conducted

| Name | Role | Date | Topics |
|------|------|------|--------|
| [Name] | [Role] | [Date] | [Topics] |

### Tools Used

- [Tool 1 - purpose]
- [Tool 2 - purpose]

### Limitations

- [Limitation 1]
- [Limitation 2]

Due Diligence Checklist

markdown
## Technical Due Diligence Checklist

### Documentation Request

- [ ] Architecture diagrams
- [ ] System documentation
- [ ] API documentation
- [ ] Deployment documentation
- [ ] Incident history (12 months)
- [ ] Security audit reports
- [ ] Compliance certifications
- [ ] Open source license inventory
- [ ] Vendor contracts
- [ ] Team org chart
- [ ] Technology roadmap

### Code Access

- [ ] Read access to repositories
- [ ] Ability to run code analysis tools
- [ ] Access to CI/CD pipelines
- [ ] Access to monitoring dashboards

### Interviews

- [ ] CTO/VP Engineering
- [ ] Engineering leads
- [ ] Key individual contributors
- [ ] DevOps/SRE team
- [ ] Security lead
- [ ] Product manager

### Assessments

- [ ] Static code analysis
- [ ] Dependency vulnerability scan
- [ ] Architecture review
- [ ] Security assessment
- [ ] Performance/load testing
- [ ] Infrastructure review
- [ ] Cost analysis

### Verification

- [ ] Demo of product capabilities
- [ ] Review of production metrics
- [ ] Validate claimed scale/usage
- [ ] Reference calls with customers

Assessment Scoring Guide

Health Score (1-10)

ScoreAssessment
9-10Excellent - Best-in-class technology and team
7-8Good - Solid foundation with minor improvements needed
5-6Adequate - Functional but significant investment needed
3-4Poor - Major issues requiring substantial remediation
1-2Critical - Fundamental problems, high risk

Red Flags to Watch For

Deal Breakers:

  • Critical security vulnerabilities with customer data exposure
  • Significant IP ownership disputes
  • Key person dependencies with no mitigation
  • Unsustainable technical architecture
  • Fraudulent metrics or claims

Serious Concerns:

  • No automated testing
  • No documentation
  • Single point of failure in architecture
  • Compliance gaps for target market
  • High technical debt with no plan

Yellow Flags:

  • Outdated technology stack
  • Below-average code quality
  • Limited monitoring/observability
  • Informal development processes
  • Team concentration in few individuals

Technical due diligence is about understanding what you're buying—the good, the bad, and the expensive. A thorough assessment protects against surprises and informs better decisions.

Want more insights like this?

Join thousands of CTOs and technical leaders getting weekly insights on leadership and system design.

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.