IdeaProof vs IdeaRoast (2026)

IdeaProof is a structured validation report generator. You describe your idea, it produces a document: market analysis, TAM/SAM/SOM estimates, a competitor landscape, and a summary of potential risks.

The output looks professional. It has sections. It has numbers. If you were putting together a pitch deck and needed something to point to when an investor asks “have you done any market research?,” the IdeaProof report gives you something to show.

Pricing is credit-based. The cheapest bundle is €9.99 for 150 credits; a single validation costs 20 credits, making one analysis roughly €1.33 at that tier. Higher tiers drop the per-analysis cost. You pay for a bundle of credits and burn them down.

IdeaRoast was built to answer a different question. Not “what does my market look like?” but “what is the single most likely reason this idea fails?”

Four specialist agents run independently — market, tech, finance, and timing. Each has a specific mandate and live web access via Exa. They are not looking for opportunities. They are looking for kill vectors: the competitor you missed, the unit economics that don’t work, the market trend moving against you, the technical dependency that creates existential risk.

The output is a verdict: a survival score, a one-line finding, and three to five specific actions to take this week. There is no PDF. There are no TAM charts. If you want something to show an investor, this is not the tool. If you want to know whether to keep building, it is.

$1 per roast. No subscription. No credit system.

IdeaProof makes sense if you have already decided to pursue an idea and need supporting documentation for a pitch, an accelerator application, or an internal business case. The report format is designed to be shared. It looks like research, which is useful when the audience cares more about presentation than precision.

It also makes sense if you want to explore a market space — not validate a specific idea — and want a structured overview to orient yourself before going deeper.

It does not make sense as a decision tool. The core question in early-stage validation is not “what does my market look like?” It is “should I build this at all?” IdeaProof is not designed to answer that question bluntly.

IdeaRoast makes sense if you are at the pre-build stage and need a real answer, not a professional-looking one. The adversarial setup is intentional: the agents are not helping you build a case for your idea. They are trying to break it.

It works best when you have a specific idea — not a broad market — and want to know the specific flaws before you commit months to building. The live data access matters here: if a competitor raised a round last month, the Market Agent finds it. IdeaProof, working from training data, does not.

For a broader comparison of all the validation tools worth considering, see the 2026 startup idea validator rankings.

These tools answer different questions. IdeaProof answers “what does my market look like?” IdeaRoast answers “what is wrong with my idea?”

Early-stage founders usually need the second question answered before the first one matters. You do not need a TAM chart for an idea that has a fatal flaw in its unit economics. You need to know about the flaw.

If you are pre-build and genuinely trying to decide whether to proceed: start with the adversarial check. Find the flaw first. If the idea survives, you can produce the polished report later.