Every asset we evaluate gets two outputs: an AI Asset Score (0–100 across 5 fixed dimensions) and a Deal Memo (10-section structured write-up covering Thesis, Traction, Risks, Model Dependency, and Handoff SOP). No seller overrides. Same rubric on every asset.
Every asset that clears the initial filter gets two deliverables. Not one, not three. Two.
Five fixed dimensions, fixed weights. A number a buyer can compare across assets and a seller can defend. Version-stamped: every score carries the methodology version used. This is the summary.
A structured evaluation memo — Thesis, Market, Traction, Team, Moat, Risks & Mitigations, Model Dependency, Deal Terms, Handoff SOP, Post-Deal Monitoring. This is the story behind the number.
The number alone hides too much. The memo alone doesn't scale. We ship both, always paired, timestamped together.
Five fixed dimensions, fixed weights. Total = 0–100. Every score is version-stamped so buyers know exactly which rubric was applied. Nothing subjective — every point is tied to concrete, verifiable evidence.
Evidence of real demand and user adoption — not the creator's opinion. Active users, organic traffic, retention curves, payment history.
Quality and durability of current revenue. Recurring beats one-time. Verified screenshots (Stripe, Gumroad, LemonSqueezy) beat self-reported numbers.
Can a new owner run this without the creator on call? SOPs, credentials vault, no personal account lock-in, documented edge cases. This is where most AI assets fail.
Level of operating leverage. How much does the asset run without active human input? Higher automation = lower ongoing cost for the acquirer.
Deductive — we score what could impair or kill this asset within 12–24 months. Lower risk = higher score. Platform lock-in, model API dependency, single-customer concentration, legal grey zones.
Total score maps to a public band. This is what buyers see next to the listing.
Toy / Demo (below 50): Not sellable as-is. We tell you exactly what would need to change. Potential Asset (50–69): Fixable. Usually a documentation / proof gap. Asset Candidate (70–84): Ready to list with minor packaging. Approved (85+): Featured in the next Weekly Drop.
Every accepted asset gets a 1-page memo built the way venture firms write theirs. Buyers get to read the same document the IC voted on.
Two sentences: why this asset is worth someone's time and money. If we can't write it in two, we reject.
Realistic addressable audience — not TAM slides. Where the buyers actually are and how they're reachable today.
What was built, in one paragraph and one screenshot. Stack, dependencies, hosted-vs-owned components.
Verified revenue (Stripe / Gumroad screenshots), verified usage (analytics), retention shape. Nothing self-reported without proof.
Who built it, why they're selling, and whether the buyer needs any of them post-sale. Founder-dependent assets get flagged.
What stops a competitor cloning this in a weekend. Foundation-model exposure gets its own subsection — see below.
Three to five candid failure modes with likelihood and mitigation. The section VC memos always have and marketplace listings never do.
Two valuations (operator / strategic), the delta explained, and what price would move the deal from Pass to Buy.
Concrete transfer checklist: domains, credentials, analytics, payments, API keys, docs. Empire-Flippers-style migration plan promised as a deliverable.
Optional 90-day check-ins on the same metrics that drove the grade. Because "sold and gone" is how brokerages lose the next customer.
The one section that separates an AI-asset memo from a generic SaaS memo. Every listing gets scored on four sub-factors inside Risk.
| Sub-factor | Best case | Worst case |
|---|---|---|
| Provider concentration | Model-agnostic — swappable between 3+ providers with a config change | Hard-coded to one API, prompt-tuned to that model's quirks |
| Switch cost | < 1 day of engineering + re-benchmark | Weeks of prompt re-engineering + regression on user-facing quality |
| Policy exposure | Use case allowed under all major providers' TOS | Grey-area use case (scraping, PII, generation of restricted content) at risk of overnight ban |
| Feature absorption risk | Value is in distribution / data / workflow — not the model call | Value is a thin wrapper around a capability the foundation model could ship natively next quarter |
A worst-case profile across all four caps operator value at the low end of the 1–2× band regardless of current revenue. Two absorptions of adjacent wrapper categories have already happened in the last 18 months — we price that in.
No single-reviewer grades. Every published AI Asset Score + Memo has been through at least two sets of eyes over 1–4 weeks.
Most submissions do not reach the Deal Memo stage. The bar is intentional — it keeps the signal clean for buyers.
Six structural guarantees. Not marketing — actual mechanisms.
Traditional marketplaces earn 5–15% of the transaction. That means high scores = more revenue for them, which distorts the grade. We don't touch the sale — we charge for packaging services separately.
The 5 dimensions are fixed. Weights are fixed. Even if the seller pays for the Packaging Sprint, the final score is still calculated from the same rubric — the Sprint just helps them earn more points legitimately.
Revenue = Stripe screenshot. Users = analytics dashboard. Testimonials = named contact. If we can't verify it, it doesn't count toward the score.
An AI asset scored 82 in January can drop to 65 by April if the market moved or usage fell. Grades are timestamped and re-scored on request. Buyers see the freshness.
We keep a public log of scored projects that failed to sell — and why. Sellers can opt out, but most agree because it's how the market learns.
Buyers report post-purchase: was the transfer smooth? Did revenue hold up? These signals adjust the weights on Transferability and Proof over time.
Not a smear — just where we differ structurally.
| AIAsset.Market | Flippa | MicroAcquire | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Takes commission on sale | No | 10% | Optional 4% |
| Public rubric with weights | Yes | No | No |
| Score expires / requires re-audit | 90 days | No | No |
| Verifies revenue claims | Yes (required) | Partial | Self-report |
| AI-native asset focus | Only AI | Everything | Mostly SaaS |
| Free grade available | Yes | No | No |
| High-bar curation | Yes | No | No |
| Full VC-style memo per listing | Yes — 10 sections | Listing form only | Listing form only |
| Evaluation Committee review | Yes | Single seller-facing agent | Automated + optional broker |
Every valuation multiple on this site assumes a 1–2× annual profit payback. Here's the reasoning.
Traditional business marketplaces (Flippa, MicroAcquire, Empire Flippers) use 3–5× annual profit as the default. That's fine for a boring SaaS or an Amazon FBA — the market moves slowly, moats hold, and a buyer can plan 4–5 years ahead. For an AI asset, that assumption breaks in ways that are already visible today:
Our multiplier by asset type:
| Asset type | Payback | Multiple (annual profit) |
|---|---|---|
| AI wrapper (GPT/Claude API) | 12–18 months | 1.0 – 1.5× |
| AI SaaS with proprietary data or brand | 18–24 months | 1.5 – 2× |
| AI with distribution + low platform risk | up to 30 months | up to 2.5× |
| Classic SaaS with corporate contracts | 3–5 years | 3–5× (not AI, comparison only) |
If a seller quotes a Flippa-style 4–5× multiple on an AI asset, we mark it as overpriced and recommend Pass — or renegotiate to 1.5–2× before proceeding.
Real Flippa listing tested through our AI Asset Score — August 2026.
The listing:
Our AI Asset Score output:
Our verdict:
Asking $3.2M is 60–140% above our strategic-value ceiling and 11–22× above our operator-value ceiling. Buy only if seller drops to $2M for a strategic play, or $288k for operator run. Otherwise Pass.
This is exactly the honesty gap traditional marketplaces avoid — because they earn commission on the sale.
We'll publish a running Calibration Report as more listings are scored. If you have a specific listing you'd like tested — try the AI Asset Score widget.
Sellers — try the instant AI Asset Score widget or submit for a full Deal Memo evaluation. Buyers — tell us what you're looking for and we'll match you with relevant assets.