A program comparison often begins with logos, funding headlines and the number of mentors. Those details can be relevant, but they can also hide the conditions that determine whether the program is usable for your company.
The Accelerator Decision Worksheet is an original Foundshore template for comparing specific offers. It separates hard requirements, delivery evidence, economics and unresolved questions before asking which option you prefer.
It does not calculate an acceptance probability, predict fundraising outcomes or certify investment terms. Use qualified advisers to review the actual legal and financial documents. The worksheet organizes the decision; it does not make it for you.
Compare an offer, not an organization in the abstract
Record the program name, cohort or entry route, location, source and review date. Different offerings under one organization can involve different starting stages, commitments and resources.
The distinction is not cosmetic. A membership, exploratory residency and funded company program may be separate decisions. Use the exact offer in front of you rather than copy a headline from a general homepage.
When a detail is unavailable, write the question and the person or source needed to resolve it. Do not translate “not found” into “no requirement” or “included.”
State the bottleneck before rating the program
Write the next milestone your company needs to achieve and the main obstacle. It might be finding a founding partner, validating a customer workflow, completing technical work or preparing for a financing process.
Then describe the help that could change that obstacle. A weekly mentor conversation, a specific facility, a focused working cohort and a customer introduction are different forms of support.
Without this brief, every program can look appealing for a different reason. The worksheet should help you compare options against the same need rather than repeatedly change the objective to match the brochure.
Check gates before preferences
Gate | What to confirm |
|---|---|
Applicant fit | Whether the specific individual, team or company can apply |
Participation | Whether the required time, location and team commitment are feasible |
Necessary resources | Whether the essential expertise or facilities are actually accessible |
Commercial and legal terms | Whether relevant documents are available and appropriately reviewed |
Timing | Whether the start and decision process fit the company’s needs |
A confirmed blocker should remain a blocker even if the program is attractive elsewhere. An unresolved prerequisite should remain unresolved until evidence changes it.
The supplied tool deliberately avoids a weighted overall fit score. A flattering average could conceal the fact that you cannot participate or have not reviewed the offer. It reports documentation status, not a recommendation to accept.
Examine the delivery mechanism
For each option, write who provides help, how it is scheduled, what preparation is required and what happens when the planned support is unavailable. Ask for a concrete example related to your milestone.
A mentor list is evidence that people are associated with the program, not necessarily that your company can book the person you need. A partner network may facilitate conversations without guaranteeing a pilot. A facility page may describe equipment without confirming your project’s authorized access.
These are general diligence questions, not claims that a particular provider fails to deliver. Record the actual answer and source for each offer.
Keep economics legible
Separate cash funding, fees, equity or other rights, reimbursable costs, required travel and the company’s own delivery expenses. Do not combine unlike items into a single headline value.
Record when resources become available and what conditions apply. A possible future investment is not equivalent to cash committed at entry. A service can be useful without being spendable operating cash.
The worksheet does not calculate dilution or interpret a financing instrument. Attach reviewed documents or professional notes where appropriate, and describe remaining questions. Financial clarity means knowing what must be evaluated, not inventing precision from incomplete terms.
Ask references about comparable work
Seek participants who entered with a similar stage and problem. Ask what support they used, what they had to organize themselves, where the program helped and what did not fit.
Preserve context and permission. A private reference conversation should not automatically become a public testimonial. A successful company is not proof that the program caused all its success, and a mixed outcome is not a complete verdict on the program.
Record concrete examples separately from your interpretation. The worksheet’s evidence field can hold a source or the date and scope of a permitted reference discussion without exposing unnecessary personal information.
A fictional comparison
Imagine an early hardware team choosing among three fictional options. Program A offers useful technical access but has an unresolved participation requirement. Program B is feasible to attend but cannot yet confirm the required test capability. Program C fits the schedule and offers relevant guidance, but its documents still need review.
The correct result is not to average them into a winner. Each has a different next question. The team can resolve those questions, change its own timing or decide that an independently assembled resource plan is more appropriate.
The sample included with the tool is explicitly fictional. It demonstrates how unknowns and blockers remain visible; it does not represent real programs, investment offers or recommended commercial terms.
Include the alternative to joining
Write what you would do without a program: hire a specialist, use a suitable facility, organize a research sprint, seek a targeted mentor session or continue independently. Estimate the coordination work and costs without pretending that informal access is guaranteed.
A program may be valuable because it assembles relevant support and creates focus. The alternative may be better when your need is narrow or the participation conditions conflict with current obligations.
The worksheet should permit “none of these options.” A comparison that always selects a program is not helping the founder evaluate whether joining is appropriate.
Review the decision when evidence changes
Set a next review date and a concrete action for every unresolved option. If terms, cohort details or company priorities change, update the record and preserve the earlier version.
At the final decision, explain the choice in plain language. Name the bottleneck, the support you expect to use, the commitments you accept and the questions that remain. Have the relevant decision-makers review that explanation rather than merely approve a spreadsheet total.
After participation, compare the original expectations with what actually happened. That record can improve your next decision and, with permission and careful attribution, inform a useful founder case study.
Use the template safely
The HTML tool runs in the browser, supports up to three offers in the supplied layout, and includes JSON import, export and printing. It does not upload entries or automatically save them. Export your work before closing or refreshing, and keep sensitive documents in an appropriate system rather than pasting them into shared notes.
The template’s “ready for review” label means the required fields and prerequisite statuses have been addressed. It does not mean the program is a good investment or that professional review is unnecessary.
Compare the actual commitments against the work your company needs. The right outcome is a decision you can explain and revisit—not a prestigious logo at the top of an otherwise unresolved plan.
Method note
This is an original Foundshore editorial framework. Scenarios and completed samples are illustrative rather than reported customer outcomes. The suggested process is not a validated performance benchmark.
