---

For years, technical due diligence has followed a familiar pattern: hire expensive consultants, wait weeks for reports, hope the findings make sense to business-focused decision makers. The result? Many lower and mid-market M&A facilitators simply skip comprehensive technical assessment, and self-funded searchers resign themselves to limited analysis within tight budgets.

That dynamic is changing fast.

Modern AI and automation tools are democratizing technical due diligence in ways that seemed impossible just a few years ago. The work that used to require $50,000 in consultant fees and specialized expertise can now be done for a fraction of that cost—often with more objectivity and faster turnaround.

But this shift isn’t just about saving money. It’s about fundamentally changing who can conduct effective technical assessment and how thoroughly they can evaluate acquisition targets.

The Traditional TDD Cost Barrier

Let’s start with the uncomfortable truth: traditional technical due diligence was built for deals that could afford it.

Private equity firms acquiring $100M+ companies budget $50,000-$150,000 for technical assessment without blinking. They bring in specialized consulting firms, pay for weeks of senior developer time, and generate comprehensive reports that inform multi-million dollar decisions.

That approach doesn’t scale down to the lower middle market.

When you’re evaluating a $3M EBITDA service business, spending $75,000 on technical due diligence fundamentally changes your deal economics. For self-funded searchers working with $300,000-$700,000 in search capital, that kind of expense isn’t just expensive—it’s prohibitive.

The result? Technical assessment gets compressed, simplified, or skipped entirely. M&A facilitators rely on high-level questions and hope for the best. Searchers with business backgrounds try to evaluate technology they don’t fully understand. Critical risks go unidentified until after closing.

What AI Automation Actually Delivers

Here’s where the landscape has shifted dramatically: automated tools can now handle 60-70% of what you used to pay consultants for.

Security scanning that once required manual code review now runs automatically, identifying vulnerabilities, outdated dependencies, and configuration issues in minutes rather than days.

Code quality analysis that demanded experienced developers interpreting complex architectures now produces objective metrics: test coverage percentages, code complexity scores, maintenance burden indicators.

Dependency analysis that used to mean manually tracing third-party libraries now generates complete software bills of materials (SBOM), flagging licensing risks and outdated packages automatically.

Documentation analysis that required reading through incomplete wikis and outdated READMEs can now be accelerated with AI assistants that identify gaps, contradictions, and missing critical information.

These aren’t theoretical capabilities. They’re production-ready tools that non-technical buyers can deploy right now.

The Five Metrics That Tell 80% of the Story

One of the most powerful aspects of automated technical assessment is how it translates complex technical systems into objective, comparable metrics. You don’t need to understand microservices architecture to interpret these numbers—and that’s precisely the point.

1. Test Coverage (>70% is good, 40% is a red flag)

This metric identifies how many third-party libraries, frameworks, and packages are significantly behind current versions.

What it tells you: Dependencies more than a few versions behind create security vulnerabilities and technical debt. If more than 40% of dependencies require major updates, you’re looking at months of remediation work just to maintain current functionality.

How to get it: Dependency scanning tools (many free or low-cost) generate these reports in minutes.

3. Bug Trend Lines (consistent 12-month increase requires investigation)

Track open bugs and support tickets over the past 12-24 months.

What it tells you: Increasing bug counts signal quality problems, team capacity issues, or technical debt accumulation. A consistent upward trend means problems are being created faster than they’re being fixed.

How to get it: Pull data from issue tracking systems (Jira, GitHub Issues, support ticketing systems) and graph the trends.

4. Weekend/After-Hours Work Patterns (burnout signal)

Analyze when code commits and system deployments happen—business hours vs. nights and weekends.

What it tells you: Consistent weekend and late-night activity indicates team burnout, insufficient capacity, or chronic firefighting. These developers will likely quit shortly after acquisition if they beleive new ownership won’t fix the underlying problem.

How to get it: Git repository analysis tools show commit timestamps. Cloud monitoring shows deployment patterns.

5. Deployment Frequency (maturity indicator)

How often does the team deploy changes to production? Daily? Weekly? Monthly? Quarterly?

What it tells you: Frequent, reliable deployments indicate mature processes and automation. Infrequent, high-risk deployments suggest manual processes, lack of testing, and brittleness. This metric predicts how quickly you can make changes post-acquisition.

How to get it: Check CI/CD system logs or simply ask “How often do you deploy to production?”

Numbers Don’t Lie, But Opinions Do

This is where data-driven technical assessment becomes powerful for non-technical decision makers.

When a seller tells you “the code is in great shape” or “we follow best practices,” you’re relying on subjective judgment from someone with a strong incentive to present positively. When automated tools tell you test coverage is 18% and 47% of dependencies are outdated, you’re looking at objective facts.

For M&A facilitators advising clients, this objectivity is invaluable. You can present quantitative metrics that don’t require technical interpretation. Your clients can compare acquisition targets using the same benchmarks, making informed decisions even when they lack technical backgrounds.

For searchers conducting their own due diligence, this objectivity levels the playing field. You don’t need to become a software architect to understand that 65% test coverage is better than 15%, or that stable bug counts are preferable to exponential growth.

The 70% Solution: What Tools Can and Cannot Do

Here’s the important caveat: AI and automation handle the mechanical, repeatable aspects of technical assessment extraordinarily well. They surface issues, measure objectively, and scale analysis that would be prohibitively expensive manually.

But they don’t replace judgment.

Tools can tell you that the codebase has 45% outdated dependencies. They cannot tell you whether that matters for your specific growth plans and operational context.

Tools can identify that the owner makes 80% of production system deployments. They cannot assess whether that represents dangerous concentration or normal small-business operations.

Tools can measure test coverage at 25%. They cannot determine whether that’s acceptable for your risk tolerance and post-acquisition technical investment plans.

This is where domain expertise still matters—but critically, you need much less of it when tools have already done the objective analysis. Save your limited budget for the judgment calls that require understanding your specific deal, not for the mechanical work of scanning code and measuring metrics.

Practical Implementation: Where to Start

For M&A facilitators advising clients on acquisition targets:

1. Begin with automated security scans before engaging any consultants. Tools like Snyk, GitHub Dependabot, or OWASP Dependency-Check can run for free or minimal cost, revealing critical vulnerabilities immediately.

2. Generate the five key metrics as standard practice for every deal. Build a simple scorecard you can present to clients: test coverage, outdated dependencies, bug trends, work patterns, deployment frequency.

3. Use AI assistants to accelerate document review. Upload technical documentation to tools like ChatGPT or Claude to identify gaps, contradictions, and missing critical information faster than manual reading.

4. Bring in specialized expertise only after you’ve exhausted what automated tools reveal. If scans show 15% test coverage and 50% outdated dependencies, you don’t need a consultant to tell you there’s technical debt—you need expertise to quantify remediation costs and implications.

For self-funded searchers with limited budgets:

1. Start free. Most critical analysis tools have free tiers sufficient for initial assessment: GitHub Advanced Security, Dependabot, CodeQL, SonarQube Community Edition.

2. Learn to ask for the metrics directly. During initial seller conversations, request access to code repositories, issue tracking systems, and deployment logs. You don’t need to interpret the code—just run analysis tools and read the output.

3. Build your assessment template before you start evaluating targets. Create a simple spreadsheet capturing the five key metrics for each business you evaluate. Consistent measurement enables comparison.

4. Invest strategically in expertise. Once automated tools have identified specific concerns, you can engage specialists for targeted deep-dives. A $5,000 focused security audit is more valuable than a $50,000 general assessment when you already know where the problems are.

The “Can We Get Cyber Insurance?” Litmus Test

Here’s a practical AI-automation combination that reveals massive amounts about technical posture:

Run automated security scans to identify vulnerabilities, then ask the seller’s insurance broker: “Can we get cyber insurance coverage, and at what premium?”

If automated scans show critical vulnerabilities and the business can’t obtain insurance (or only at exorbitant rates), you’ve identified a deal-breaker without needing deep technical expertise. The insurance market has effectively conducted risk assessment for you.

If scans look clean and insurance is readily available at reasonable rates, you’ve validated security posture through both technical analysis and market evaluation.

This combination—automated scanning plus insurance underwriting—provides non-technical decision makers with both objective data and third-party risk validation.

What This Means for Lower Middle Market M&A

The democratization of technical due diligence through AI and automation isn’t just about cost savings. It fundamentally changes what’s possible in smaller deals.

M&A facilitators can now offer clients technical assessment capabilities that were previously available only to larger deals with bigger budgets. This levels the competitive playing field and enables better client service without proportionally higher costs.

Self-funded searchers can conduct meaningful technical evaluation within realistic budgets, reducing dependence on information asymmetry and seller representations. Better technical assessment means better deal selection and more informed valuation negotiations.

Small business advisors without technical backgrounds can provide valuable guidance on technology matters, using objective metrics and automated analysis rather than relying entirely on specialist referrals.

The bar for effective technical due diligence has dropped dramatically—not because standards have lowered, but because tools have improved.

Getting Started: The 30-Day Technical Assessment

Here’s a realistic framework for conducting data-driven technical assessment using modern tools:

Week 1: Automated Scanning

• Security vulnerability scanning
• Dependency analysis and licensing review
• Code quality metrics generation
• Infrastructure configuration review

Week 2: Metrics Analysis

• Calculate the five key metrics
• Analyze trends over 12-24 months
• Identify outliers and red flags
• Generate comparison scorecard

Week 3: Targeted Deep-Dives

• Focus on specific concerns identified in Weeks 1-2
• Engage specialists only for high-risk areas
• Validate critical findings with seller
• Assess remediation costs for identified issues

Week 4: Integration and Reporting

• Synthesize findings into business-focused report
• Quantify technical debt in dollar terms
• Assess operational readiness for acquisition
• Provide post-acquisition roadmap recommendations

This timeline assumes part-time effort from a non-technical buyer. Full-time focus can compress this significantly. The key point: automated tools enable this analysis without requiring full-time technical consultants.

The Skills You Actually Need

You don’t need to become a software developer to leverage AI and automation in technical due diligence. But you do need to understand:

What questions to ask. Tools surface issues, but you need to ask the right questions to interpret significance. “Can I operate this system post-acquisition?” is more useful than “Is this architecturally elegant?”

How to read the metrics. Test coverage percentages and dependency counts aren’t intimidating when you know the benchmarks. Greater than 70% test coverage is good. Less than 20% is concerning. The middle requires judgment based on your specific situation.

When to escalate to experts. Automated tools handle mechanical analysis brilliantly. When findings require business judgment or specialized technical expertise, that’s when you engage (expensive) human consultants—but with specific, targeted questions rather than open-ended assessments.

How to translate findings to business terms. Technical debt isn’t interesting until it has a dollar value. Outdated dependencies matter when they affect acquisition valuation or post-close operations. The translation from technical findings to business implications is where value gets created.

The Bottom Line

Technical due diligence is no longer an “enterprise-only” capability requiring specialized expertise and large budgets. AI and automation tools have democratized 60-70% of the analysis that used to cost $50,000+ and take weeks to complete.

For M&A facilitators, this creates opportunity to better serve lower and mid-market clients with objective, data-driven technical assessment. For self-funded searchers, this enables meaningful technical evaluation within realistic budgets. For business advisors without technical backgrounds, this provides accessible frameworks for assessing technology risks and opportunities.

The tools exist. The metrics are standardized. The barriers to entry have dropped dramatically.

What remains is the judgment to interpret findings within your specific deal context—and that’s where human expertise, business knowledge, and strategic thinking still dominate. Use automation to handle the mechanical work. Reserve your time, budget, and mental energy for the decisions that actually require human judgment.

That’s the future of technical due diligence in the lower middle market. And it’s available today.