GP-side vs LP-side: one engine, both sides of the table
Private-capital deal analysis looks different depending on which side of the table you sit on: a manager (GP-side) reads an incoming deal to win it on the best terms, while an allocator (LP-side) reads a fund or commitment to decide whether to back it. The questions differ; the underlying work — read the document, model the economics, benchmark the terms — is the same.
TL;DR. GP-side analysis is about finding the leverage before a negotiation. LP-side analysis is about trusting the numbers before a commitment. Both start by turning a document’s terms into a model and comparing them to the market. DealAnalysis runs both from one engine, so a firm that does both — and many do — isn’t stitching two tools together.
GP-side: managers and their deal teams
On the GP-side, the job is to read an incoming deal in full, model the economics before you’re at the table, and see where the negotiating leverage is — what’s off-market in your favor, what you’re missing, what to ask for. The same model then carries through the portfolio, so the terms you negotiated remain visible as the deal runs.
LP-side: allocators, family offices, foundations and their advisors
On the LP-side, the job is to diligence a fund or a direct commitment on provable numbers rather than the GP’s summary, benchmark the terms against what your peers are getting, and monitor what you hold on a model that updates rather than a PDF that ages. The questions are about trust and comparability: is this market, and can I verify it?
The questions each side asks
| GP-side asks | LP-side asks |
|---|---|
| Where is my negotiating leverage? | Is this term market, or off-market? |
| What’s off-market in my favor? | What did my peers get that I didn’t? |
| What am I missing or should ask for? | Can I verify the GP’s claims independently? |
| How do these terms run through the portfolio? | How will this commitment behave over time? |
One engine, by design
Both sides are doing the same three things — reading the logic, modeling it, benchmarking it — against the same private-capital instrument set: direct deals, private credit, GP stakes and co-investments; structured products, secondaries and continuation vehicles; SMAs, primary funds, fund-of-funds and platform wrappers, with side letters modeled as base terms plus their overlay. That’s why one engine serves both, rather than two narrow tools that don’t share a spine.
FAQ
Can the same firm use it on both sides?
Yes — many private-capital firms act as both manager and allocator, and the single engine serves both without switching tools.
Does the LP-side really need to model the documents?
Yes. An allocator trusting a GP’s summary is trusting an unmodeled number; modeling it is what makes the figure verifiable.
What deal types are covered?
The full private-capital instrument set across three analytical tiers — see the scope section on the home page.