Engagement Models
Where we partner.
Four distinct inflection points. Each addresses a different operating need, with capital and execution structured accordingly.
TGC partners with B2B SaaS founders across four structural inflection points. The engagements differ in stage, capital deployed, embedded-team shape, and milestone cadence - but share a common thesis: capital is necessary, capital is rarely sufficient, and the bottleneck at each stage is operating throughput. Each engagement model is jointly designed with the founder before the term sheet, and capital deploys against milestones the founder helps define.
The summaries below are deliberately short; each links to a full page describing the diligence we run, the operating-thesis structure, the embedded-team composition, and the typical 60–90 day diagnostic that precedes investment. If you’re unsure which model fits, the readiness assessment scores your stage in 8 minutes; otherwise the contact form is the fastest path to a partner conversation.
Pre-Series A
Co-invest & accelerate
For founders who have crossed initial product-market fit and are within reach of repeatable acquisition. We typically co-invest alongside seed or Series A leads, taking a minority position and pairing it with a focused embedded team - usually 4–8 named operators across engineering, GTM, and finance. The mandate is narrow: shorten time-to-Series-B by removing the operating bottlenecks that won’t resolve themselves with capital alone. Diligence emphasizes founder-team durability, ICP discipline, and unit-economics trajectory rather than absolute ARR.
- Typical check
- €0.5M–€2M
- ARR range
- €0.5M–€1.5M
- Engagement length
- 18–24 months
- Embedded team
- 4–8 named operators
Scale phase
TGC as catalyst
For B2B SaaS scaleups whose constraint is operating throughput, not capital. We invest €2M–€5M and deploy a 12–18 person embedded team for a 24-month operating thesis: hardening platform-engineering velocity, sharpening NRR, and standing up the leadership bench beyond the founder. Decisions are made with the founder; the operating thesis is jointly authored before capital deploys, and tranche-release is tied to milestones the founder helps define. This is the engagement model TGC is most structurally suited for.
- Typical check
- €2M–€5M
- ARR range
- €1M–€5M
- Engagement length
- 24 months
- Embedded team
- 12–18 named operators
Expansion
TGC-driven growth
For €5M+ ARR companies pursuing geographic expansion (US-EU, Nordics-DACH, Benelux-UK) or adjacent-product platform extensions. Capital is structured to fund the expansion specifically, not refill general runway. The embedded team is heavier on the new-region build (local hiring, channel motions, regulatory) and lighter on the core product. Diligence focuses on expansion sequencing, capital-efficiency of the new region, and the founder’s appetite for the multi-region operating cadence.
- Typical check
- €5M–€15M
- ARR range
- €5M+
- Engagement length
- 24–36 months
- Embedded team
- 15–25 named operators
Buy-side / Partnerships
M&A and joint ventures
For founders considering tuck-in acquisitions, vertical-SaaS roll-ups, or structured joint ventures. The integration risk in software M&A is operational, not financial - most failed acquisitions stall on engineering integration, GTM consolidation, or finance back-office unification. TGC structures the deal financially and deploys the embedded team that delivers the integration. We act as financial sponsor + operating partner; control stays with the founder.
- Typical check
- €3M–€20M
- Use of capital
- Tuck-in M&A, JV formation
- Engagement length
- 12–24 months
- Embedded team
- Integration-shaped (varies)
How to choose the right engagement
The right model is rarely a function of stage alone. It depends on what specifically the founder is trying to compress - go-to-market velocity, engineering throughput, board-governance maturity, or geographic reach. Most founder conversations start with a 60-minute call where we map the constraint, identify which TGC engagement actually fits, and move to a written diagnostic if there’s alignment. A surprising number of conversations end with us recommending the founder pursue a different instrument (venture capital for pre-PMF, venture debt for runway extension without dilution, traditional PE for control-and-roll-up theses) because the operating-capacity model isn’t the right fit. We’d rather pass cleanly than miscast the engagement.