AI Tools for Life Sciences Investment Banking: A Diligence Workflow
A life-sciences transaction team needs a research file that explains the asset, its competitive position, disclosed rights and the questions a buyer still needs to resolve. Start with that diligence deliverable when evaluating AI tools. Keep the science, commercial assumptions and transaction terms traceable to their sources.
Maven Bio publishes this guide and is one of the selected vendors below. The descriptions use official product materials. They are not independent tests of speed, accuracy or transaction outcomes, and the list is not a ranking.
Define the mandate and information boundary
Specify the proposed transaction, indication, geography, development stage and rights under consideration. Record whether the task uses public information or authorized confidential material. A public asset screen cannot establish undisclosed contract terms or confirm that an owner is willing to transact.
Before providing data-room material to a tool, have the transaction team confirm permitted use, access controls and the firm’s approved environment. Keep public-source findings separate from confidential diligence responses so the team can control what appears in a pitch or buyer communication.
Match the product to the diligence question
Maven Bio describes structured biopharma comparisons through Smart Tables and cited research narratives through Report Builder. Evaluate these capabilities for the scientific landscape and source-backed asset brief.
AlphaSense documents research, financial data and monitoring capabilities. Evaluate it for company-disclosure research and commercial context. Ask which licensed materials support the answer and whether the team may reuse them in a transaction deliverable.
AlphaSense platform description
Evaluate Pharma documents historical deal information and product forecasts. Evaluate it for identifying possible transaction comparisons. Check deal date, asset stage, territory and the split between upfront and contingent value before describing two deals as comparable.
Evaluate Pharma product description
Luminance documents contract intelligence and review capabilities. Evaluate that category with counsel for finding relevant provisions in authorized contracts. A tool’s extraction of a clause does not determine its legal effect or settle a rights question.
These are distinct roles within a diligence process. Confirm the relevant capability in a demonstration rather than assuming that an AI research product also supplies confidential rights data, legal advice or a validated valuation model.
Prepare a reviewable diligence brief
| Section | Required evidence | Question to resolve |
| Asset overview | Identity, sponsor, program status and source dates | Do names and ownership references describe the same asset? |
| Clinical differentiation | Study design and results with original source links | Does the evidence support the proposed comparison? |
| Commercial scenario | Population, access, uptake and pricing assumptions | Which assumptions need outside diligence? |
| Transaction comparisons | Announcement and closing dates, territory and consideration | Are upfront, milestones and equity values being mixed? |
| Rights and obligations | Authorized contracts and counsel’s review | Which terms could limit the proposed transaction? |
Keep valuation assumptions visible
Ask the agent to separate disclosed amounts from inferred or undisclosed terms. A headline deal value may include contingent payments; do not present it as cash paid at closing. Use the company announcement and available filings to check the basis before calculating a comparison.
Search public company filings through EDGAR
Have the deal team own the commercial scenarios and valuation model. Preserve the reasons for selecting clinical-success assumptions, launch timing, market uptake and discounting. An extracted fact may support an assumption without proving that the assumption will occur.
Test with a completed, shareable diligence case
Give each shortlisted tool the same permitted source pack and ask for the same brief. Include ambiguous rights language, an asset alias and a deal with contingent consideration. Compare missed issues, incorrect citations and correction time against your team’s reviewed result.
Maintain a question list for unresolved evidence and assign a reviewer to each item. The useful output is a brief the team can inspect and revise before sharing, with a clear boundary between established facts and open diligence.
A public-equity analyst typically revises an investment thesis using public disclosures. For a transaction, the team must also resolve rights, deal terms and confidential diligence questions before making a recommendation.
Read the biotech equity-research workflow
For a demonstration, bring one asset and the public-source question your team needs to answer. Ask to inspect the supporting evidence and unresolved questions before reviewing the draft transaction narrative.