What Does Technical Due Diligence Cost?
Technical due diligence usually costs between SEK 50,000 and 200,000, depending on company size and system complexity. The review covers architecture, technical debt, security, key-person dependency, and licenses. Findings rarely just affect the price – they shift risk and often become conditions in the deal.
When a company is being acquired or raising capital, the finances get scrutinized in detail. The technology deserves the same scrutiny – in a digital company, the code, the systems, and the people who build them are a large part of the value. Technical due diligence answers one simple but decisive question: is the buyer getting what they think they’re paying for? Here’s the price picture and what the review actually covers.
What technical due diligence costs
The price usually falls between SEK 50,000 and 200,000. The range is deliberately wide, because engagements vary hugely. A smaller company with a single product, a unified codebase, and organized documentation can be reviewed at the bottom of the range. A larger company with multiple systems, many integrations, and an unclear history requires more work and lands higher.
What drives the cost is scope and access. The more there is to review, and the harder it is to get access to code, environments, and key people, the more hours it takes. A well-organized seller makes the review cheaper – simply by making it easier to carry out.
In terms of time, it’s usually one to three weeks from when the reviewer gets access to what’s being assessed. The pace is set by the deal: a fast transaction compresses the review down to what matters most, while a more thorough review takes longer.
What gets reviewed
Technical due diligence moves through a few core areas, each with its own risk:
- Architecture and scalability. Is the system built to withstand growth, or will it need rebuilding as volume increases? An architecture that holds up today but not tomorrow is a hidden future cost.
- Technical debt. How much shortcut-taking and deferred maintenance is in the code? Debt isn’t wrong in itself, but it needs to be known – whoever buys the debt should know what it will cost to pay off.
- Security. How is data, access, and vulnerability management handled? Gaps here can be both a direct risk and a sign of how mature the company is operationally.
- Key-person dependency. How much of the knowledge sits in the heads of one or two people? If the product lives or dies with individuals who might leave after the deal, that’s a material risk.
- Licenses. Which third-party components and open-source licenses are in use, and under what terms? The wrong license in the wrong place can restrict how the product may be used or resold.
Typical findings and how they affect the deal
A review that finds nothing is unusual – and being spotless isn’t the point. The point is knowing what you’re buying. Common findings are significant technical debt under a working surface, security gaps that were never prioritized, documentation that lives in people’s heads rather than in writing, and a critical dependency on a single developer.
Such findings rarely stay a footnote. They shift risk, and risk shows up in the price. A common outcome is that the valuation gets adjusted down, that part of the purchase price is held back until issues are fixed, or that the agreement is conditioned on certain people staying on for a period. The report gives the buyer something to negotiate with – facts instead of gut feeling.
There’s value for the seller too. Running your own review in advance makes it possible to answer questions with answers, clean up the worst issues before negotiation, and avoid a late-stage surprise sinking the whole deal.
How to get the most out of the review
Technical due diligence is cheap relative to what a misjudged acquisition can cost. The best way to keep both price and risk down is to prepare the material: consolidated code, updated documentation, and access to the people who know the system. The better the visibility, the more accurate the picture.
At Weapp we do this kind of technical review and translate the findings into concrete consequences for the deal. Want to know how a review would be structured for your case? You’re welcome to get in touch, or read more about our services.
Frequently asked questions
What does technical due diligence cost?
A common range is SEK 50,000–200,000. A smaller company with a clear codebase and few systems lands at the bottom, while a larger company with multiple products, integrations, and unclear documentation lands higher. The price is driven by how much needs reviewing and how hard it is to get visibility into it.
How long does technical due diligence take?
Usually between one and three weeks from when the reviewer gets access to the code, systems, and key people. A focused review of a small company goes faster, while a broad review with interviews and a deep dive into security takes longer. The timeline is set by the deal's pace and the depth of the review.
What gets reviewed in technical due diligence?
The core areas are architecture and scalability, technical debt, security, key-person dependency, and licenses. The reviewer looks at how the system is built, how maintainable it is, what risks exist, and how dependent the company is on individual people or restrictively licensed third-party components.
Who commissions technical due diligence?
Usually the buyer ahead of an acquisition or an investor ahead of a funding round, to understand what they're actually paying for. Sometimes the seller also runs their own review in advance, to be able to answer questions and avoid surprises during negotiation. The commissioning party is whoever carries the technical risk in the deal.
Can the findings affect the price of the deal?
Yes, that's often the whole point. Significant technical debt, security gaps, or heavy key-person dependency can lower the valuation or become conditions in the agreement – for example, a withheld portion of the purchase price or requirements for remediation. The report gives the buyer facts to negotiate with instead of gut feeling.