27 ms·

They are almost always inaccurate. What they always are is expensive

• kkielhofner 4y ago
  As CTO I generally tracked software and applicable use license(s) across the entire codebase. My internal sheet more or less lined up with their results - with the notable exception being my project I referenced. FWIR it was something like 400 entries and I’d put it at roughly 95% accurate on this anecdotal rough estimate.
  • sgc 4y ago
    That is surprisingly bad. I would expect it to be some sigma level of accuracy for the money they charge. Perhaps I misunderstand the problem.
    • kkielhofner 4y ago
      This was over 10 years ago. Not only is my memory fuzzy I would imagine (hope) it's gotten significantly better since then. Per usual for these kinds of things what you're really paying for is the name and "trust" associated with it. In the grand scheme of things when you're raising tens of millions - billions of dollars the cost of these tools in terms of total services across due diligence is nothing. Additionally, tools like this are selected by the investor and you don't really have much say in the matter. Basically, you use "expensive" $SOLUTION the investor prefers, check the box, and move on to the hundreds/thousands of other due diligence items in the transaction. Where it gets really interesting (to me) are cases with super aggressive investors like Tiger Global and anything in bubble (crypto) where close times are days and almost no due diligence is performed. As one example I doubt anyone used these kinds of tools at FTX...
• tomcam 4y ago
  Anecdotally I have observed the same but I don't understand the problem. Why is that? It seems like one could fairly easily search for code in the older project, find it in the new project, and link to it in the report. What am I missing?