SBI Growth Advisory vs Craig Group: GTM Due Diligence Compared [2026 Guide]

Subtitle: An independent analysis for PE deal teams choosing between two GTM diligence providers Last updated: Q1 2026 (this comparison is refreshed quarterly) Category: GTM Due Diligence Tags: gtm-due-diligence, sbi-growth-advisory, craig-group, private-equity, commercial-diligence, revenue-operations

1. Opening Hook

You have twenty-one days of exclusivity left. The LOI is signed. Quality of Earnings is running in parallel. Management's revenue bridge looks reasonable — 22% growth last year, a pipeline that supposedly covers 3.4x next year's number, and a freshly hired VP of Sales who "transformed" the team in nine months. Everything checks out on paper. Then your operating partner asks a question nobody in the data room can answer: Is this pipeline real, or is it a CRM fiction that collapses the moment we start applying rigor?

That question — the gap between reported commercial performance and actual revenue engine capability — is precisely what GTM due diligence exists to answer. And when you decide to commission that work, two firms that frequently appear on PE shortlists are SBI Growth Advisory and Craig Group. Both conduct GTM diligence for private equity buyers. Both deliver actionable findings designed to influence deal decisions and post-close planning. But they approach the work from fundamentally different positions — and depending on your deal size, timeline pressure, and what your investment committee requires, one may be a significantly better fit than the other.

This guide breaks down exactly where they differ and how to choose.

2. TL;DR Comparison Table

3. Why This Comparison Matters

The uncomfortable truth about post-close revenue misses is that they are rarely a surprise in hindsight. The pipeline was always softer than reported. The churn signals were already in the data. The pricing power that management claimed was already eroding at renewal. What was missing was not the data — it was the diligence to interrogate it before the wire transfer.

GTM due diligence has emerged as a distinct workstream precisely because Quality of Earnings and traditional commercial due diligence leave a gap. QoE validates the numbers that already happened. Market diligence asks whether the opportunity exists. GTM diligence asks a harder question: Can this commercial engine actually capture the opportunity at the scale the growth thesis requires? It examines the pipeline, pricing discipline, retention dynamics, sales productivity, and organizational capability that determine whether projected revenue is buildable or aspirational.

SBI Growth Advisory and Craig Group both operate in this space, but they serve meaningfully different segments of the PE market. SBI brings the scale, depth, and institutional credibility that large-cap and upper-middle-market deal teams expect. Craig Group brings the speed and operator sensibility that lower middle market funds need when exclusivity windows are tight and budgets are calibrated to deal size.

Understanding this distinction matters because choosing the wrong provider is not just a procurement mistake — it is either paying for thoroughness you do not need or, worse, accepting a level of depth that does not match the complexity of what you are underwriting.

4. Company Profiles

4a. SBI Growth Advisory — Profile

Positioning & Approach

SBI Growth Advisory positions itself as a revenue growth advisory firm with a dedicated GTM Due Diligence practice built specifically for PE firms and strategic acquirers. The firm frames GTM diligence as "investment clarity through revenue intelligence," explicitly acknowledging the 30- to 60-day exclusivity window that defines the timeline pressure deal teams face. SBI's published methodology goes deeper than most competitors: it specifies blind customer interview counts (15–25 per engagement), deliverable page lengths (100–150 pages), and a structured cadence that typically runs four to six weeks. The firm blends what it calls "advanced analytics, AI, and human insight" into its diligence process.

SBI's diligence scope covers three core pillars: market validation (TAM, growth trajectory, competitive positioning), revenue engine quality (pipeline health, retention metrics, unit economics, sales productivity), and value creation planning (a 100-day roadmap with prioritized execution levers). The inclusion of a value creation plan as a standard diligence deliverable — not an upsell — is a notable differentiator.

PE Ecosystem & Client Base

SBI has built significant PE-oriented thought leadership. Its "GTM Due Diligence: The Hidden Value Creation Lever" article is a frequently cited piece that functions as both SEO positioning and buyer education. The firm targets large-cap and upper-middle-market deals, though it does not publicly restrict by deal size. SBI's broader platform claims scale credentials — 120+ team members, 500+ clients served, and $5B+ in attributed revenue impact — though these figures span the full advisory practice, not GTM diligence specifically.

The firm does not publish a client list on its GTM diligence service page, instead referencing "Success Stories" as a content category. This is consistent with the confidentiality norms of PE diligence work, though it does mean prospective buyers must rely on referrals or request references directly.

Team & Delivery Model

SBI's team page reflects a large, multi-disciplinary bench spanning pricing, revenue operations, sales training, and technology enablement. The firm has evolved its internal platform (branded as "Wayforge") and positions its team composition as blending strategic consultants with practitioners who have operational experience. Leadership bios emphasize backgrounds in sales effectiveness, commercial strategy, and PE-adjacent advisory work. The firm's geographic footprint is North American-centric, consistent with its PE client base.

4b. Craig Group — Profile

Positioning & Approach

Craig Group positions itself as a GTM diligence and growth advisory firm with a deliberate focus on lower middle market private equity. Where SBI's positioning emphasizes comprehensiveness and institutional scale, Craig Group leads with speed and practitioner credibility. The firm's GTM due diligence offering is structured as a rapid two- to three-week sprint that audits go-to-market motions across marketing, sales, and customer success — the full commercial stack, not just the sales funnel.

Craig Group frames its diligence work as filling the blind spots that QoE misses, specifically targeting the question of whether the current revenue engine is scalable. The sprint model is purpose-built for the compressed timelines and leaner budgets that characterize lower middle market transactions, where exclusivity windows are often shorter and deal teams may not have the runway (or the budget) for a six-week, $300K engagement.

PE Ecosystem & Client Base

Craig Group's PE focus is explicit and narrowly defined. The firm does not attempt to be all things to all deal sizes — it has chosen the lower middle market as its primary arena and built its delivery model around the constraints of that segment. This deliberate focus is a credibility signal for funds operating in the $20M–$150M deal range, where GTM diligence providers that primarily serve mega-cap deals may not calibrate their scope or pricing appropriately.

The firm publishes outcome-based case study summaries, including a RevOps and CRM transformation engagement that resulted in "doubled revenue" and other ROI claims around efficiency and growth programs. These case studies serve double duty — demonstrating diligence capability and evidencing post-close execution capacity. Named case study companies include FHAS and Enersponse, though the portfolio of PE fund clients is not publicly enumerated.

Team & Delivery Model

Craig Group's GTM diligence page features team biographies that emphasize PE operating backgrounds, RevOps expertise, and direct experience with SaaS and B2B services businesses. The team composition tilts toward practitioners — partners with portfolio operations backgrounds and revenue architecture certifications — rather than career strategy consultants. This operator orientation is deliberate and reflects a delivery model where the people conducting diligence have personally built and run the kinds of commercial engines they are evaluating.

5. Methodology Deep-Dive

5a. How SBI Growth Advisory Conducts GTM Diligence

Scope & Framework

SBI's published methodology is among the most detailed in the GTM diligence landscape. The firm structures its assessment across three interconnected domains: market validation, revenue engine quality, and value creation planning. Market validation covers total addressable market analysis, growth trajectory modeling, and competitive positioning — the "outside-in" layer that contextualizes the internal assessment. Revenue engine quality digs into pipeline health, sales productivity metrics, pricing realization, customer retention and expansion dynamics, revenue concentration risk, and unit economics. Value creation planning synthesizes findings into a prioritized 100-day roadmap with specific execution levers.

The firm publishes a "best practices" framework for PE buyers that includes blind customer interviews, win/loss analysis, bottoms-up revenue modeling, and capability benchmarking as core diligence activities — not optional add-ons. This level of methodological transparency is uncommon among GTM diligence providers and functions as both a buyer education tool and a quality signal.

Data & Interview Approach

SBI's interview methodology anchors on 15–25 blind customer interviews per engagement. The "blind" designation is significant: customers are interviewed without knowing which PE firm or deal is driving the research, which reduces the management coaching risk that undermines most customer reference checks. Beyond customer interviews, SBI's methodology includes win/loss analysis (understanding why deals were won or lost, not just whether they closed), bottoms-up revenue modeling (building a revenue forecast from pipeline mechanics rather than management's top-down projection), and capability benchmarking (comparing the target's commercial capabilities against relevant peer sets).

The combination of primary research depth and analytical modeling creates a dual-evidence approach: qualitative insight from the market and quantitative stress-testing of the numbers. This is particularly valuable in situations where management's narrative and the underlying data tell different stories.

Deliverables & Timeline

SBI's standard deliverable is a 100–150 page report, a scale that reflects the comprehensiveness of the analysis and the institutional expectations of investment committees at larger funds. The report integrates findings across all three assessment domains and culminates in a 100-day value creation roadmap. The typical timeline runs four to six weeks, which aligns with the standard exclusivity period for upper-middle-market and large-cap transactions. SBI explicitly frames the engagement around the 30- to 60-day decision window, suggesting the firm has structured its process to deliver within — not beyond — the timeline constraints that PE buyers face.

5b. How Craig Group Conducts GTM Diligence

Scope & Framework

Craig Group structures its GTM diligence as a cross-functional audit spanning marketing, sales, and customer success. Rather than assessing each function in isolation, the sprint model evaluates how the full commercial stack operates as an integrated revenue engine — a distinction that reflects the firm's RevOps-oriented philosophy. The assessment framework examines customer acquisition efficiency, pipeline quality and velocity, sales execution patterns, retention and expansion dynamics, and the underlying systems and processes that either enable or constrain growth.

The firm positions its diligence work explicitly as complementary to Quality of Earnings, not competitive with it. Where QoE validates the historical financials, Craig Group's GTM diligence tests whether the forward-looking revenue thesis is achievable given the actual capability of the commercial organization. This positioning is precise and useful for deal teams that need to explain to investment committees exactly what each diligence workstream covers and where the boundaries are.

Data & Interview Approach

Craig Group's data collection model combines data room analysis with competitive intelligence gathering and primary interviews. The firm conducts voice-of-customer interviews alongside frontline interviews with sales representatives, managers, and customer success personnel. This dual-perspective approach — external customer view and internal operator view — creates a triangulated picture of commercial performance that is harder to manipulate than either source alone.

The competitive intelligence component adds a market context layer: understanding not just how the target performs in absolute terms, but how its GTM motions compare to competitive alternatives in the market. For lower middle market businesses that may operate in fragmented or niche sectors, this competitive lens can surface positioning risks that are not visible in the financial data.

Deliverables & Timeline

Craig Group's primary deliverable is a quantified risk assessment using a red/yellow/green scoring framework. This format is designed for rapid consumption by deal teams and investment committees — it prioritizes clarity and decision-usefulness over volume. Findings are categorized by severity and paired with 100-day plan recommendations that translate diligence insights into actionable post-close priorities.

The two- to three-week sprint timeline is notably faster than SBI's four-to-six-week standard. For deal teams operating under tight exclusivity with limited runway, this speed advantage is not merely a convenience — it can be the difference between having GTM diligence findings available for the investment committee presentation and having to proceed without them.

6. Pricing & Engagement Economics

The pricing dynamics of this comparison deserve direct commentary. SBI is one of the few GTM diligence providers in the market that publishes its fee range, and the $150K–$500K band reflects the scope and depth of a comprehensive, enterprise-grade diligence engagement. For a fund underwriting a $300M platform acquisition, a $250K GTM diligence investment represents less than 0.1% of enterprise value — a rounding error relative to the risk being mitigated. The ROI case is straightforward: if diligence surfaces a material revenue risk that adjusts the purchase price by even 2–3%, the engagement pays for itself many times over.

Craig Group does not publish pricing, which is the industry norm rather than the exception. However, the firm's deliberate positioning in the lower middle market — where deal sizes, fund sizes, and diligence budgets are proportionally smaller — implies a fee structure calibrated to that segment. A $50M add-on acquisition cannot absorb a $400K diligence workstream the way a $500M platform deal can. While we cannot confirm Craig Group's pricing, the market logic suggests fees meaningfully below SBI's published range, consistent with the tighter scope and compressed timeline.

For deal teams evaluating both firms, the pricing question is inseparable from the scope question. SBI's higher fee buys more depth — more interviews, more analytical modeling, a thicker report, and a longer engagement window. Craig Group's sprint model buys speed and focus — a targeted risk assessment delivered in time to influence a fast-moving decision. Neither pricing model is inherently superior; each is calibrated to a different deal context.

7. Deal Fit Matrix

Best fit for SBI Growth Advisory:

• You are underwriting a $200M+ platform acquisition with a complex, multi-segment commercial organization — multiple products, multiple buyer personas, a blended direct/channel sales model, and a pricing structure that varies by segment. The investment committee needs a comprehensive GTM risk assessment that covers every surface area, and they expect a report with the depth and rigor of a formal diligence workstream.

• Your deal thesis depends on specific growth levers — pricing optimization, market expansion, cross-sell/upsell acceleration — and you need bottoms-up modeling that validates whether those levers are achievable with the current commercial engine. You want the 100-day value creation roadmap as a diligence deliverable, not something you have to commission separately post-close.

• You have four to six weeks of exclusivity and the budget to invest in a thorough assessment. The risk you are managing is not timeline — it is making a nine-figure commitment on a growth thesis that has not been independently stress-tested.

Best fit for Craig Group:

• You are moving on a lower middle market deal — a $30M–$100M acquisition where the commercial organization is leaner, the sales process is less complex, and the diligence budget needs to be proportional to deal size. You need GTM validation, but a $300K engagement with a 100-page report overshoots what the deal economics justify.

• Your exclusivity window is three weeks or less and you need GTM diligence findings before the investment committee meets. A four-to-six-week process simply does not fit the timeline. You need a firm that can mobilize quickly, conduct targeted interviews, and deliver a clear risk assessment in two to three weeks.

• You are an experienced buyer in this sector and do not need a comprehensive market validation — you know the market. What you need is a rapid, operator-informed stress test of the specific revenue engine you are acquiring. Red/yellow/green risk flags with 100-day plan recommendations are more useful to you than a 150-page narrative.

Other firms to consider:

• Blue Ridge Partners — if your primary concern is pricing architecture and revenue quality (their "Quality of Revenue" framework is highly productized and includes an independent revenue forecast model).
• Coppett Hill — particularly for UK/European deal teams seeking a structured GTM DD vs. CDD framework with strong PE value creation positioning.
• Clear Go-To-Market — if your deal hinges on buyer perception and you need deep, first-party customer and prospect intelligence rather than a broad GTM audit.

8. Head-to-Head Scoring Matrix

Score commentary:

SBI's methodology depth score of 5/5 reflects the most detailed published GTM diligence methodology in the market — specified interview counts, deliverable page lengths, named analytical techniques, and a structured multi-pillar assessment framework. Craig Group earns 3/5 on methodology depth: the sprint model is well-defined at a high level, but the firm publishes less granular detail about its specific analytical techniques and interview protocols.

On speed and turnaround, Craig Group earns 5/5 — the two-to-three-week sprint is purpose-built for compressed deal timelines and represents a genuine structural advantage for time-constrained transactions. SBI scores 3/5 on speed: the four-to-six-week timeline is appropriate for comprehensive engagements but is a constraint when exclusivity is short.

Both firms score equally on client evidence (3/5) — SBI publishes outcome claims and ROI framing but gates specific case studies, while Craig Group publishes case study summaries with named companies but limited quantitative detail. Neither firm achieves the transparency standard of publishing detailed, attributable client results, which remains rare across the GTM diligence landscape.

The weighted total favors SBI (4.20 vs. 3.30), but this aggregate score obscures the most important insight: these firms are not substitutes for each other. SBI wins on absolute depth, institutional credibility, and pricing transparency. Craig Group wins on speed, accessibility, and calibration to smaller deal economics. The right choice depends on your deal, not on a composite score.

9. Real-World Deal Scenarios

Scenario 1: "The Platform Acquisition with the Multi-Layered Growth Thesis"

Your fund is acquiring a $250M B2B SaaS company with a complex commercial organization: three product lines, an enterprise direct sales team, a mid-market inside sales motion, and a nascent channel partner program. Management projects 25% ARR growth driven by pricing increases, cross-sell penetration, and geographic expansion. Your operating partner wants to validate each of those growth levers independently before the investment committee meets in five weeks.

Best fit: SBI Growth Advisory. This deal demands the kind of multi-dimensional assessment that SBI's methodology is built for. You need 15–25 blind customer interviews to validate product-market fit across segments, bottoms-up revenue modeling to stress-test whether the pipeline can actually deliver 25% growth, and capability benchmarking to determine if the sales organization has the talent and process maturity to execute a multi-lever growth plan. The 100–150 page report with an integrated 100-day value creation roadmap is exactly what an investment committee reviewing a $250M commitment needs to see. The $200K–$350K diligence fee is proportional to the deal size and the risk being mitigated.

Scenario 2: "The Add-On with Three Weeks of Exclusivity"

Your fund is acquiring a $45M add-on to an existing portfolio company. The target is a B2B services business with a 15-person sales team and a straightforward direct-to-customer GTM motion. You know the sector well — this is your fourth acquisition in the vertical. You do not need a comprehensive market validation. What you need is a rapid assessment of whether the pipeline is real, whether the sales team can perform under new ownership, and whether there are hidden retention risks that management is not disclosing. The seller has given you three weeks of exclusivity, and your investment committee meeting is in eighteen days.

Best fit: Craig Group. The timeline alone makes this Craig Group's engagement to win. A two-to-three-week sprint is structurally designed for exactly this scenario. The red/yellow/green risk assessment will give your deal team a clear, consumable view of commercial risks without requiring them to parse a 150-page report under time pressure. The frontline interviews — talking to reps, managers, and customers directly — will surface the operational reality that the data room cannot convey. And the 100-day plan recommendations translate directly into your post-close integration playbook for the portfolio company.

10. The Intangibles

Operator Credibility

The distinction between "has studied commercial organizations" and "has built and run commercial organizations" matters in GTM diligence. Craig Group's team composition — with its emphasis on PE operating backgrounds and revenue architecture certifications — signals a practitioner orientation. The people conducting your diligence have personally experienced the challenges of building pipeline, managing a sales team through a PE transition, and implementing CRM systems that actually drive adoption. SBI's team blends strategic consulting expertise with operational experience at a larger scale, with the institutional weight that comes from a 120+ person organization. Both bring credibility, but the texture differs: SBI's credibility is institutional and methodological; Craig Group's is experiential and hands-on.

Intellectual Honesty

Will the diligence firm tell you to walk away from a deal? This is the question that separates genuine diligence from expensive validation of a decision already made. Both SBI and Craig Group position their work as independent risk assessment, but the structural incentives differ slightly. SBI's established PE relationships and thought leadership platform give it the institutional standing to deliver uncomfortable findings without existential risk to the client relationship. Craig Group's smaller scale means each engagement relationship carries more weight, but the firm's explicit "quantified risk assessment" framing — red/yellow/green flags — creates a structured mechanism for surfacing negative findings in a way that is difficult to soften or spin.

Speed Under Pressure

Real deals do not run on consulting timelines. Exclusivity extensions are uncertain, competitive processes compress schedules, and investment committee dates are fixed. Craig Group's sprint model is built for this reality — the two-to-three-week delivery window assumes pressure, not comfort. SBI's four-to-six-week window is reasonable for its scope, but deal teams should confirm early whether SBI can accelerate delivery if the timeline compresses mid-engagement.

Post-Close Continuity

Both firms offer post-close services, but the nature of that work differs. SBI's post-close capability extends through value creation advisory and growth strategy consulting — strategic guidance for the operating team. Craig Group's post-close work is more hands-on: RevOps execution, CRM transformation, and operational implementation. If your diligence surfaces problems that need to be fixed in the first 100 days, consider whether you need strategic advice or execution capacity — and choose accordingly.

11. Methodology & Sources

This analysis is based on publicly available information: vendor websites, published methodology documentation, case studies, client testimonials, and pricing disclosures. Where information was not publicly available, we note that explicitly. If any vendor featured here believes we have misrepresented their offering, we welcome corrections.

Sources

• SBI Growth Advisory — sbigrowth.com; GTM Due Diligence service page; "GTM Due Diligence: The Hidden Value Creation Lever" insights article; team page and scale credentials
• Craig Group — craiggroup.io; Go-to-Market Due Diligence service page; case studies page; team biographies
• Industry context — published GTM diligence frameworks from Blue Ridge Partners, Coppett Hill, and Clear Go-To-Market; transaction advisory cost benchmarks; PE diligence process standards
• Pricing data — SBI's published fee range ($150K–$500K) sourced from GTM Due Diligence service page; Craig Group pricing not publicly disclosed