Mattermark vs. CrunchBase

I love Mattermark. I think what they are doing with big data compilation and analysis is spot on for investor decision making and support for new ventures.

Presently, I’m not a paying subscriber to their service. But, I’ve been a short-term user of their services. And, I’ve really enjoyed their daily e-newsletter, ranking it in LinkedIn as one of my top 10 reads for professionals.

MM vs CB report coverRecently, Mattermark promoted their mobile database edition to some of us dedicated evaluators. I downloaded it and have tried it out a couple of times. My initial summary is: it’s got a ways to go to catch up to CrunchBase, which I’d consider the mostly widely available-to-the-public alternative.

To illustrate, I chose a private Austin tech company that received the most funding in the past year, a mobile software company called Mozido, and browsed the information provided by Mattermark vs. CrunchBase.

I saved a PDF of the screens, which you can view or print.

I like the clean white-space look, fast response time, and employee growth chart from Mattermark. But, I expected a lot more of the reference information to be click-able, rather than static.

And, I also expected to see more images of people, products, and places, e.g., Mozido’s headquarters building, maps of their locations, photos of the home screen of their flagship app, and the like.

These are the areas where CrunchBase outperforms Mattermark, at the moment. It is more visual, more complete, exceeding the information that Mattermark provides.

Since CrunchBase provides company officials and other 3rd parties the option to edit the company’s information, there is an incentive for the company to invest in good information “hygiene” – keeping their listing up-to-date, relevant, and highlighting positive achievements, while eliminating negative or old information.

Unlike a wiki-style approach, where edits are first allowed unencumbered, then corrected or reversed by moderators (like Wikipedia), any edits that you make and save to CrunchBase are put in a queue for a moderator review before being posted.

Sometimes, the new information is posted quickly to CrunchBase; other times, it seems like the refresh takes days. This delay can be a little frustrating to companies that are trying to spruce up their profiles before meeting with investors, customers, or the release of a piece of significant news.

In any event, it will be interesting to see how Mattermark continues to improve and refine their mobile offering. As of this moment, if I had to choose one new venture company profile database to use, I’d go with CrunchBase.

But, that’s the beauty: you don’t have to choose just one. So, I recommend you use them both, actively managing your company’s “face” to the investor world.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s