CRM and sales decision

Poach VC

A technical user can reproduce the core filtered exports and daily emails, but the vendor's proprietary identity-resolution data and scale are durable advantages that are hard to match; building a minimal replacement is realistic, but matching product parity is not.

Visit website

Built by Jared Rhizor, who ships 4 products in this index

You pay

$1/mo

$12/yr

Read off the official pricing page.

You’d pay instead

$100one-off56 h to build

$150/mo6 h/mo upkeep

On cash alone, building overtakes the subscription at 159 seats.

No open-source build does this yet

Nothing published replaces this one, so a replacement starts from an empty file. Here is what it would have to cover.

What a replacement has to do

  • Monitor VC follows on Twitter, resolve identities to LinkedIn, label people with AI, store and expose records, and generate daily CSV/email exports.

What it still won’t have

  • Proprietary identity-resolution accuracy and tuned matching heuristics
  • Historical dataset scale and proven early-warning signals amassed by the vendor
  • Curated daily newsletters and editorial selection
  • Operational polish (uptime, onboarding, and ready-to-use filtering presets)

What remains hard

  • Proprietary dataWe match Twitter accounts to LinkedIn accounts using our proprietary identity resolution and enrich our records with work history and education.
Read the build prompt

First-year cost

Keep paying

Paying is—cheaper in year one.

On cash alone, building overtakes the subscription at 159 seats.

Paid seatsseats

Money you would actually spend

Keep paying
—

Subscription price × seats × 12

Build it
—

AI build —APIs + hosting —

Time you would spend

—

—

What you would spend

What we assumed

The verdict above measures whether you could build it. This one is only about money.

Runnable build prompt

Not run yet
Build a self-hosted Poach-like lead enrichment service using Node.js (Express) + Postgres + Redis. Core features: 1) Ingest Twitter follows for a configurable list of VCs (use Twitter API or mocked ingest) and store follow events; 2) Identity-resolution worker that queries LinkedIn (or accepts manual LinkedIn URLs) and enriches profiles with work history and education; 3) AI labeling microservice (call an LLM) that classifies role labels and generates short bios; 4) REST API to query/filter profiles and a CSV export endpoint; 5) Daily scheduler that composes an email with top leads and attaches a CSV (use a transactional email provider). Out of scope: training proprietary ML models, replicating the vendor's historical dataset, and premium UI. Include error handling, retries for external API calls, background job visibility, basic tests for API and workers, and deployment instructions using Docker and a small cloud VM (e.g., $20/mo).
How we checked1 sources · 2/3 runs agreed · evidence score 52

How the score was reached

  • Partly verdict base52
  • Price verified on pricing page+3
  • Hard moats found in the evidence-3
  • Evidence score52

The base comes from the verdict. Everything under it is a check that either happened or did not, and each one is a fact frozen in this record rather than a judgement made at render time - so the same evidence always produces the same number.

How scoring works →

Cited sources · 1

Every page the run actually retrieved.

Integrity checks

What held up, and what did not.

✓ Price read off the page! 2 of 3 runs agreed; the verdict is the majority✓ Citations limited to fetched pages! 1 moat quoted from the page