What is the difference between Riverflow V2 Fast and Gemma 3n 4B?

Riverflow V2 Fast is developed by Sourceful while Gemma 3n 4B is developed by Google AI. Riverflow V2 Fast has a 8K token context window vs Gemma 3n 4B's 33K. You can compare their actual outputs across 2 challenges on RIVAL to see how they differ in practice.

Which is better, Riverflow V2 Fast or Gemma 3n 4B?

It depends on your use case. Riverflow V2 Fast and Gemma 3n 4B each have strengths in different areas. RIVAL lets you compare their real outputs side-by-side across 2 challenges so you can judge which fits your needs best.

How can I compare Riverflow V2 Fast and Gemma 3n 4B on RIVAL?

This page shows a side-by-side comparison of Riverflow V2 Fast and Gemma 3n 4B across shared challenges. You can vote on which model produced the better output, and Pro users can create custom challenges to test both models with their own prompts.

Rival

Riverflow V2 FastvsGemma 3n 4B

2 challenges

Why Riverflow V2 Fast?

9 months newerFeb 2026

Why Gemma 3n 4B?

4x more context33K

Favorites

Riverflow V2 FastGemma 3n 4B

Movie

—

2001: A Space Odyssey

19688.1

Album

—

Kind of Blue

Miles Davis

Book

—

Dune

Frank Herbert

City

—

Kyoto

Japan

Game

—

The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild

Adventure, Action4.5

2 / 2

Advanced Investment Memo (IC Memo)financial modeling

Write a pro-level buy-side investment memo with valuation and diligence questions.

Riverflow V2 Fast

Sourceful · Feb 2026text

No content available for this output.

Gemma 3n 4B

Google · May 2025text

Internal Investment Committee Memo: LedgerLift (LLLT)

Date: October 26, 2023

To: Investment Committee

From: [Your Name/Team]

Subject: Investment Recommendation – LedgerLift (LLLT)

1. Recommendation: Long

12-Month Price Target Range: $55 - $70
Thesis: LedgerLift is capitalizing on the growing need for efficient B2B spend management and AP automation within the mid-market, exhibiting strong growth, improving profitability, and a robust recurring revenue model. The company's compelling customer retention and expanding addressable market position it for continued success.

2. Business: Why LedgerLift Wins / Why Now

LedgerLift provides a SaaS platform that streamlines B2B spend management and automates accounts payable processes for mid-market enterprises. The company’s value proposition is clear: reduce operational costs, improve financial visibility, and enhance efficiency.

LedgerLift wins due to its strong product-market fit, evidenced by a rapidly growing customer base and impressive customer retention metrics. The shift towards digital transformation in financial operations, coupled with the increasing complexity of supply chains, creates a favorable tailwind for LedgerLift’s growth.

The “now” is particularly compelling as the mid-market, historically underserved by sophisticated spend management solutions, is increasingly adopting SaaS platforms. Increased economic uncertainty is also driving companies to prioritize cost optimization and efficiency gains, further accelerating demand for LedgerLift’s services.

3. KPI Quality Check

LedgerLift demonstrates strong KPI performance:

NRR (Net Revenue Retention): 123% - Exceptional NRR indicates strong customer satisfaction and expansion revenue, suggesting a sticky product and effective upselling/cross-selling efforts.
Logo Churn: 6%/yr - This is a healthy churn rate for a SaaS business, suggesting good customer engagement and value delivery.
Gross Retention: 94% - High gross retention reinforces the product-market fit and customer loyalty.
CAC Payback: 18 months - While not exceptionally low, the 18-month payback is reasonable for a SaaS company in this segment and suggests efficient customer acquisition.

Potential Concerns:

Concentration: The top 10 customers represent 16% of revenue, and the top customer 3%. While currently manageable, this concentration presents a risk if any of these major accounts were to churn. Diversification efforts should be monitored.
S&M Spend: S&M as % of revenue is 34% in FY25, which is a significant investment. It will be critical to ensure this spend continues to generate efficient customer acquisition.

4. Base/Bull/Bear Model (2026-2030)

Metric	2026 (Base)	2026 (Bull)	2026 (Bear)
Revenue	$900m	$1,050m	$760m
Gross Margin	79%	80%	78%
Operating Margin	20%	22%	17%
EBIT	$180m	$220m	$130m
Unlevered FCF	$140m	$200m	$80m

DCF Calculations:

Base Case:
- Discounted Cash Flows (DCF) calculation: Using WACC of 10%, terminal growth rate of 3%, and estimated FCF for 2031, the DCF model yields an Enterprise Value (EV) of approximately $1.25 billion. Subtracting net debt ($0.5B) results in an Equity Value of $0.75 billion. Dividing by shares outstanding (190m) gives an implied value per share of $3.95.
Bull Case:
- DCF calculation: Using WACC of 9%, terminal growth rate of 4%, and estimated FCF for 2031, the DCF model yields an EV of approximately $1.45 billion. Subtracting net debt ($0.5B) results in an Equity Value of $0.95 billion. Dividing by shares outstanding (190m) gives an implied value per share of $5.00.
Bear Case:
- DCF calculation: Using WACC of 12%, terminal growth rate of 2%, and estimated FCF for 2031, the DCF model yields an EV of approximately $0.80 billion. Subtracting net debt ($0.5B) results in an Equity Value of $0.30 billion. Dividing by shares outstanding (190m) gives an implied value per share of $1.58.

5. Comps Cross-Check

The median EV/NTM Revenue multiple of the peer group is (9.0x + 7.0x + 11.0x) / 3 = 9.0x.

Applying this multiple to LedgerLift’s projected 2025 revenue of $820m yields an implied EV of $7.38 billion. Subtracting net debt of $0.5 billion results in an equity value of $6.88 billion. Dividing by shares outstanding (190m) gives a per-share valuation of $36.21.

Adjustment: The median multiple is slightly higher than our base case DCF implied value per share ($3.95), suggesting potential undervaluation. The higher multiple in the peer group may reflect higher growth expectations or superior profitability. However, the lower multiple in the bear case suggests the market may be overly cautious about LedgerLift's long-term prospects.

6. Catalysts, Risks, and "What Would Change My Mind"

Catalysts:
1. Continued Strong Revenue Growth: Consistent achievement of revenue targets will validate the company’s growth trajectory.
2. Improved Profitability: Further margin expansion driven by economies of scale and operational efficiencies.
3. Successful Product Expansion: Introduction of new features or product lines that expand the addressable market.
Risks:
1. Customer Churn: Higher-than-expected churn rates could negatively impact revenue growth.
2. Increased Competition: New entrants or aggressive moves by existing competitors could erode market share.
3. Economic Slowdown: A recession could lead to delayed customer purchases and reduced sales cycles.
What Would Change My Mind:
1. Significant Increase in Top Customer Concentration: If the top 5 customers account for >25% of revenue, it would significantly increase risk.
2. Stagnant NRR: A decline in NRR below 110% would raise concerns about product stickiness.
3. Failure to Achieve Operating Margin Targets: Consistently missing operating margin targets despite revenue growth would indicate challenges with profitability.

7. Diligence Questions for Management

Can you provide a more granular breakdown of customer churn by segment (e.g., customer size, industry)?
What are your plans to address the concentration risk associated with the top 10 customers?
What is the projected impact of the increased S&M spend on future growth and profitability?
What are the key drivers behind the projected margin expansion in the base case?
How are you monitoring competitive threats and adapting your strategy accordingly?
What is the current pipeline and expected close rate for new customer acquisitions?
What are the key risks associated with your reliance on subscription revenue?
Can you elaborate on the investment plans for product development and innovation?
What is the company's capital allocation strategy for the next 12-18 months?
How are you ensuring data security and compliance with evolving regulatory requirements?

Disclaimer: This memo is for internal discussion purposes only and does not constitute investment advice. All information is based on publicly available data and management presentations, which may be subject to change.

Vote

2 / 2

Mini LBO Underwritefinancial modeling

Build a simplified LBO with returns and sensitivities.

Riverflow V2 Fast

Sourceful · Feb 2026text

No content available for this output.

Gemma 3n 4B

Google · May 2025text

HarborTech Services (HTS) - 5-Year LBO Underwriting

Here's a simplified year-by-year analysis of the HarborTech Services LBO, followed by IRR/MOIC calculations, sensitivity analysis, and risk/protection levers.

1) Year-by-Year Financial Projections (FY2026–FY2030)

FY	Revenue	EBITDA	Cash Interest (TL)	Cash Interest (Mez)	Cash Taxes	Capex	ΔNWC	Free Cash Flow (FCF)	Ending Term Loan	Ending Mezzanine Debt
2026	$970.0m	$135.0m	$36.0m	$18.0m	$3.4m	$29.1m	-$4.8m	$88.8m	$3.6x EBITDA	$1.5x EBITDA
2027	$1,034.6m	$148.5m	$40.3m	$21.0m	$4.7m	$31.1m	-$5.2m	$97.3m	$2.8x EBITDA	$1.3x EBITDA
2028	$1,095.4m	$163.0m	$44.8m	$24.0m	$6.5m	$32.9m	-$5.7m	$103.0m	$1.9x EBITDA	$1.1x EBITDA
2029	$1,156.9m	$177.5m	$49.2m	$26.4m	$7.9m	$34.7m	-$6.2m	$108.3m	$1.3x EBITDA	$0.9x EBITDA
2030	$1,156.9m	$184.7m	$53.1m	$28.8m	$9.2m	$34.7m	-$6.2m	$110.4m	$0.8x EBITDA	$0.1x EBITDA

Calculations:

Cash Interest (TL): 4.0x EBITDA * 9.0% = 0.36x EBITDA
Cash Interest (Mez): 1.5x EBITDA * 12.0% = 0.18x EBITDA
Cash Taxes: max(0, EBITDA - Cash Interest) * 25%
Capex: 3.0% of Revenue
ΔNWC: 0.5% of Incremental Revenue (calculated as Annual Revenue Growth * Previous Year Revenue)
Free Cash Flow (FCF): EBITDA - Capex - ΔNWC - Cash Interest
Ending Debt: Beginning Debt + Cash Flow - Amortization (TL) - PIK (Mez)

Note: The table assumes the $120m EBITDA in FY2025 is the starting point for projecting subsequent years.

2) Equity IRR and MOIC

Initial Equity Investment:

Purchase Price: 12.0x $120m EBITDA = $1,440m
Transaction Fees: 2.0% of $1,440m = $28.8m
Total Equity Invested: $1,440m + $28.8m = $1,468.8m

Exit Value:

FY2030 EBITDA: $184.7m
Exit Multiple: 10.5x EBITDA = $1,949.05m
Exit Fees: 1.0% of $1,949.05m = $19.49m
Net Exit Value: $1,949.05m - $19.49m = $1,929.56m

Equity IRR:

Total Cash Flow: $1,929.56m - $1,468.8m = $460.76m
IRR = (Ending Value / Initial Investment)^(1/Number of Years) - 1
IRR = ($460.76m / $1,468.8m)^(1/5) - 1 = 13.65%

Equity MOIC:

MOIC = (Net Exit Value / Initial Investment)
MOIC = ($1,929.56m / $1,468.8m) = 1.31x

3) Sensitivity Analysis

Exit Multiple	Exit-Year EBITDA Margin	Equity IRR
9.5x	16%	12.5%
10.5x	17%	13.65%
11.5x	18%	14.8%

Note: These are approximate calculations based on the provided data and assumptions.

4) Underwriting Risks and Downside Protection Levers

Underwriting Risks:

Revenue Growth Slowdown: The base case assumes consistent growth. A significant downturn in data center demand or increased competition could impact revenue.
Higher Interest Rates: Unexpected increases in interest rates could significantly increase debt service costs, impacting FCF.
Increased Capex: Unforeseen capital expenditures (e.g., major infrastructure upgrades) could strain cash flow.
Working Capital Deterioration: Faster increases in NWC than projected could reduce free cash flow.
Data Center Consolidation/Churn: Loss of key data center clients or increased churn could negatively impact recurring revenue.

Downside Protection Levers:

Conservative Revenue Projections: Using lower revenue growth rates in sensitivity analysis.
Strong Contractual Base: The reliance on recurring service contracts provides a degree of revenue predictability.
Amortization of Debt: The annual amortization of the Term Loan reduces the principal balance over time, lowering interest expense.
Optional Term Loan Paydown: The ability to prioritize debt repayment provides flexibility in managing cash flow.
Operational Improvements: Focus on cost efficiencies and service enhancements to maintain or improve EBITDA margins.

Disclaimer: This is a simplified LBO analysis based solely on the provided information and assumptions. A real-world LBO would involve significantly more detailed due diligence and financial modeling.