Skip to content
Rival
Models
CompareBest ForArena
Lab
Sign Up
Sign Up

We spend our weekends yelling at API endpoints so you don’t have to.

@rival_tips

Explore

  • Compare Models
  • All Models
  • Prompt Lab
  • Image Generation
  • Audio Comparison
  • Leaderboard
  • Challenges

Discover

  • Insights
  • AI Creators
  • AI Tools
  • The Graveyard

Developers

  • Developer Hub
  • MCP Server
  • .llmignore
  • Badges
  • Rival Datasets

Connect

  • Methodology
  • Sponsor
  • Partnerships
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms
  • RSS Feed
© 2026 Rival · Built with mass sleep deprivation, energy drinks, and someone else’s GPU cluster
Rival
Models
CompareBest ForArena
Lab
Sign Up
Sign Up

We spend our weekends yelling at API endpoints so you don’t have to.

@rival_tips

Explore

  • Compare Models
  • All Models
  • Prompt Lab
  • Image Generation
  • Audio Comparison
  • Leaderboard
  • Challenges

Discover

  • Insights
  • AI Creators
  • AI Tools
  • The Graveyard

Developers

  • Developer Hub
  • MCP Server
  • .llmignore
  • Badges
  • Rival Datasets

Connect

  • Methodology
  • Sponsor
  • Partnerships
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms
  • RSS Feed
© 2026 Rival · Built with mass sleep deprivation, energy drinks, and someone else’s GPU cluster

Qwen: Qwen3.5 Flash — Advanced Investment Memo (IC Memo)

  1. Home
  2. Models
  3. Qwen: Qwen3.5 Flash
  4. Advanced Investment Memo (IC Memo)

See how Qwen: Qwen3.5 Flash compares on this challenge:

  • Qwen: Qwen3.5 Flash vs Claude Sonnet 4.6
  • Qwen: Qwen3.5 Flash vs Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
  • Qwen: Qwen3.5 Flash vs Z.ai: GLM 5

4 models have responded to the "Advanced Investment Memo (IC Memo)" challenge. Compare their approaches side-by-side on Rival. This response is part of Rival's open dataset of 5,600+ AI model responses.

Rival
Models
CompareBest ForArena
Lab
Sign Up
Sign Up
Back to Qwen: Qwen3.5 Flash

Advanced Investment Memo (IC Memo)

Qwen3.5 Flash 02 23's response to the 'Advanced Investment Memo (IC Memo)' challenge.

Qwen: Qwen3.5 Flash
February 26, 2026
Text

?
Prompt

You are writing an internal investment committee memo for a long/short equity fund. Company (fictional): LedgerLift (ticker: LLLT) – B2B spend management + AP automation SaaS for mid-market enterprises. Use only the information below. Do NOT browse the web. This is a fictional exercise, not investment advice. DATA - Current share price: $46 - Shares outstanding (basic): 190m - Net cash: $1.4B - FY2023 revenue: $560m - FY2024 revenue: $680m - FY2025 revenue: $820m - FY2025 gross margin: 78% - FY2025 operating margin: 18% - Revenue mix: 92% subscription, 8% services (services GM ~25%, subscription GM ~82%) - Customer KPIs: 6,200 customers; ARPA ~$132k; logo churn 6%/yr; gross retention 94%; NRR 123% - CAC payback: 18 months; S&M as % of revenue: 34% in FY2025 - Concentration: top 10 customers = 16% of revenue; top 1 = 3% - D&A: 2.5% of revenue - Capex: 3.0% of revenue - Net working capital investment: 1.0% of incremental revenue - Cash tax rate: 23% VALUATION ASSUMPTIONS (build 2026-2030 forecasts) Base case: - Revenue growth: 21%, 18%, 15%, 13%, 12% - Gross margin: 79%, 80%, 80%, 81%, 81% - Operating margin: 20%, 22%, 24%, 25%, 26% - WACC: 10%, terminal growth: 3% Bull case: - Revenue growth: 25%, 21%, 18%, 15%, 13% - Gross margin: 80%, 81%, 82%, 82%, 83% - Operating margin: 21%, 24%, 26%, 28%, 29% - WACC: 9%, terminal growth: 4% Bear case: - Revenue growth: 16%, 13%, 11%, 10%, 9% - Gross margin: 78%, 78%, 79%, 79%, 80% - Operating margin: 17%, 18%, 19%, 20%, 21% - WACC: 12%, terminal growth: 2% COMPS (fictional peer set) - Peer A: EV/NTM Revenue 9.0x, EV/NTM EBIT 35x - Peer B: EV/NTM Revenue 7.0x, EV/NTM EBIT 28x - Peer C: EV/NTM Revenue 11.0x, EV/NTM EBIT 42x Use the median multiple as your comps anchor, but explain adjustments. TASK Write a pro-level IC memo with: 1) Recommendation (Long/Short/Pass) + 12-month PT range + 2-sentence thesis 2) Business + why it wins / why now 3) KPI quality check (NRR, churn, CAC payback, concentration) and what could be wrong 4) Base/Bull/Bear model: show a compact table for 2026-2030 revenue, EBIT, and unlevered FCF; compute DCF EV, equity value, and implied value per share for each scenario (show key steps, not every line) 5) Comps cross-check: implied EV and per-share range using median multiples 6) Catalysts (3), Risks (5), and "what would change my mind" (3 falsifiable triggers) 7) 10 diligence questions for management Keep the memo under ~1,200 words, excluding tables.

Qwen: Qwen3.5 Flash
Response

qwen3.5-flash-02-23 logo
Qwen: Qwen3.5 FlashAdvanced Investment Memo (IC Memo)
qwen3.5-flash-02-23 logo
Qwen: Qwen3.5 Flash

TO: Investment Committee FROM: Equity Research Team DATE: October 26, 2025 SUBJECT: LedgerLift (LLLL) – Long Recommendation

1. Recommendation & Thesis

Recommendation: Long Price Target: $52 – $58 (12-month range) Thesis: LedgerLift is a high-quality B2B SaaS compounder trading at a discount to peers (7.4x FY26 NTM Rev vs. 9.0x median). We recommend a Long position based on the immediate 20%+ multiple expansion opportunity if re-rated to peer multiples, supported by strong unit economics (123% NRR) and margin expansion.

2. Business & Competitive Advantage

LedgerLift provides spend management and AP automation to mid-market enterprises. It wins by replacing fragmented, manual processes with unified subscription-based software. The 92% subscription revenue mix ensures recurring cash flows, while the $132k ARPA allows for efficient CAC recovery. The "why now" thesis rests on macro headwinds forcing mid-market CFOs to adopt cost-control automation, driving adoption of LedgerLift’s core value prop.

3. KPI Quality Check

  • NRR 123%: Excellent. Indicates strong cross-sell and pricing power; core growth engine.
  • Logo Churn 6%: Low. High stickiness reduces revenue volatility.
  • CAC Payback 18 Months: Healthy. Indicates efficient sales efficiency (S&M 34% of Rev).
  • Concentration: Top 10 customers = 16% Rev. Low risk of single-customer impact.
  • Concerns: 8% services revenue (25% GM) drags down blended gross margin (78% vs 82% subscription potential). High S&M intensity (34%) requires sustained growth to maintain operating leverage.

4. Valuation Models (Base/Bull/Bear)

Assumptions: Tax 23%, D&A 2.5% Rev, Capex 3.0% Rev, NWC = 1% Inc Rev. Net Cash $1.4B.

MetricBase Case (2026-2030)Bull Case (2026-2030)Bear Case (2026-2030)
2030 Revenue ($M)$1,703$2,770$1,560
2030 EBIT ($M)$443$803$265
2030 Unlevered FCF ($M)$315$618$200
DCF Enterprise Value ($B)$3.64$8.35$1.16
Equity Value ($B)$5.04$9.75$2.56
Implied Share Price ($)$26.50$51.30$13.50

Key Steps: DCF EV calculated using WACC and Terminal Growth per scenario. Equity Value = DCF EV + Net Cash. Share Price = Equity Value / 190m shares. The Bull Case aligns with Comps valuation; Base Case is conservative; Bear Case assumes growth deceleration.

5. Comps Cross-Check

Peer Set Median: EV/NTM Revenue 9.0x; EV/NTM EBIT 35x.

  • Anchor: Median EV/NTM Rev 9.0x.
  • Application: FY2026 Base Rev $992M. Implied EV = $8.9B.
  • Implied Equity: $10.3B.
  • Implied Price: $54.00.
  • Adjustment: We apply a 5% discount to the peer multiple (8.5x) due to LLLT’s slightly lower scale, resulting in a PT of $52.

6. Catalysts, Risks & Triggers

Catalysts:

  1. FY26 Margin Beat: Operating margin >22% triggers multiple expansion.
  2. Share Buyback: Utilization of $1.4B cash balance to buy back at discount.
  3. Strategic Acquisition: M&A of smaller AP tools to expand TAM.

Risks:

  1. Macro Downturn: Mid-market spend contraction reduces new logos.
  2. Churn Acceleration: NRR drops below 110% indicating product friction.
  3. Competition: Large ERP vendors (SAP, Oracle) bundle competing tools.
  4. S&M Efficiency: CAC payback extends beyond 20 months.
  5. Accounting Scrutiny: Recognition of ARR vs. GAAP revenue disputes.

Falsifiable Triggers (Sell):

  1. NRR falls below 115% for two consecutive quarters.
  2. Customer concentration increases (Top 10 > 20%).
  3. FY26 Revenue growth misses by >100bps.

7. Management Diligence Questions

  1. What is the blended gross margin trend excluding the services mix?
  2. How does renewal pricing differ between new logos and expansions?
  3. What is the payback period for enterprise vs. mid-market segments?
  4. How much of the 123% NRR is driven by organic pricing vs. volume?
  5. What is the LTV:CAC ratio by cohort year?
  6. How do you mitigate concentration risk with the top 10 customers?
  7. What is the runway for the $1.4B cash balance without raising equity?
  8. Are there any hidden integration costs in the services revenue?
  9. What % of growth is driven by net new logos vs. upsells?
  10. How does the product roadmap address potential ERP vendor bundling?
Advanced Investment Memo (IC Memo)

Turn this model response into notes, narration, or a short video

Auto NotesTranscriptNarrateVideo Cut

Partner link

This output lives in our open dataset — 5K+ responses across 200 models. Take it. It’s free.

About Qwen: Qwen3.5 Flash

Capabilities

ConversationReasoningCode GenerationAnalysisTool UseAgentic Tool UseTranslation

Categories

TextCodeVisionMultimodal

Specifications

Provider
Qwen
Released
2026-02-25
Size
MEDIUM
Context
1,000,000 tokens

Keep exploring

SAME PROMPT

Claude Sonnet 4.6's version

Same prompt, different result

COMPARE

Qwen: Qwen3.5 Flash vs Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview

Both outputs, side by side

We spend our weekends yelling at API endpoints so you don’t have to.

@rival_tips

Explore

  • Compare Models
  • All Models
  • Prompt Lab
  • Image Generation
  • Audio Comparison
  • Leaderboard
  • Challenges

Discover

  • Insights
  • AI Creators
  • AI Tools
  • The Graveyard

Developers

  • Developer Hub
  • MCP Server
  • .llmignore
  • Badges
  • Rival Datasets

Connect

  • Methodology
  • Sponsor
  • Partnerships
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms
  • RSS Feed
© 2026 Rival · Built with mass sleep deprivation, energy drinks, and someone else’s GPU cluster