Sunny Ray sits down with Soma Pirityi, founder of ETA Technologies, a serial entrepreneur who spent years on the venture capital side of the table. Pirityi explains why investors say they back people yet rarely measure them, and how that gap led him to build a data-driven assessment for early stage founding teams. He shares the seed deal that inspired the company, where a promising team was rejected because the CEO was eight months pregnant, and what it revealed about unconscious bias. The conversation covers how ETA Technologies gets past founder overconfidence by tracking how people answer, including mouse movement and reactions to repeated questions, and how a 360 degree section has co-founders answer as each other. Pirityi also discusses red flags such as co-founder misalignment, excessive risk aversion, and extreme coachability, plus the data from 20,000 startup teams tested over four years. He closes with the shift that pushed the company to assess solo founders as well.
A serial founder and ex-VC explains how ETA Technologies measures founder chemistry with behavioral data instead of gut feeling.
What are you building today, and what is ETA Technologies?
I've sat on both sides of the table, as a serial entrepreneur and in VC. Investors say they back people, not products, yet nobody buys a stock on a good feeling. Wall Street uses data and algorithms. I want to bring that same scientific, data-driven rigor to early stage investing, and that's what ETA Technologies does.
What did your years in venture capital teach you that founders rarely get to see?
I assumed VCs just analyzed pitch decks and spreadsheets all day. A few months in, I realized early stage investing is the most people-driven business there is. Market size and competition questions are really ways to understand the team. Founders polish their data room and financial model, but almost nobody prepares the team side, and that's what decides the deal.
Why did the people side get skipped for so long?
It wasn't skipped, it just wasn't done scientifically. Take the common rejection that your market isn't big enough. Often that isn't about the math. It means the investors doubt the team has the growth mindset to escape a small market. A company is a group of people who design the plan, execute it and build the technology.
Was there a deal that crystallized the idea for ETA Technologies?
Yes, and it's a sad story. We looked at a seed deal that checked every box: a serial entrepreneur, strong unit economics, a big market. The investment committee rejected it because the CEO was eight months pregnant. Measuring the team mathematically would have shown a raw diamond. She raised elsewhere, and it highlighted how much unconscious bias against female founders remains.
What is the hardest part of turning founder chemistry into a measurable report?
There are two things. First, defining what a good entrepreneur even is, which took us about ten months. Second, confidence bias: founders have to believe they'll be the one who makes it. So we look at how you answer, not just what you answer, including mouse movement and how you react when the same question repeats.
What happens during the roughly 15 minutes a founding team spends on the assessment?
It has three parts. First, a warm-up on your entrepreneurial aspiration and personal motivation. Second, scenario questions where we track both your answers and your behavior, like timing and reactions under pressure. Third, a 360 degree section where co-founders impersonate each other and answer as the other person, which shows how well they know each other and how aligned they are.
How certain are you that the behaviors you monitor are actually predictive?
Building the proprietary behavioral models took about two years. The most valuable asset we have now is the data: we've tested 20,000 startup teams over the last four years. We follow them, testing in 2023 and checking where they are in 2025 and 2026. That shows us which behavioral patterns lead to success and which lead to failure.
What red flags does your system catch that a normal reference call would miss?
Co-founder misalignment is a big one, where one founder wants a unicorn and another wants a lifestyle business. Then risk: most teams are actually too risk-averse, not gamblers. And coachability cuts both ways. Some founders are stubborn, others chase every shiny object or follow advisors religiously instead of acting as the captain of the ship.
Building something daring? Sunny talks to founders like this every day. Fifteen minutes to see if your story belongs on the stage.
Claim your pre-interviewSend a founder here and we will know it was you.