Technical Due Diligence Template
A comprehensive technical due diligence template for M&A, investments, and partnerships with architecture assessment and risk analysis.
Table of Contents
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
# 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
## 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 customersAssessment Scoring Guide
Health Score (1-10)
| Score | Assessment |
|---|---|
| 9-10 | Excellent - Best-in-class technology and team |
| 7-8 | Good - Solid foundation with minor improvements needed |
| 5-6 | Adequate - Functional but significant investment needed |
| 3-4 | Poor - Major issues requiring substantial remediation |
| 1-2 | Critical - 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.