Every IC meeting hits the same snag. Two or more live deals, each with a story, and no clean, apples to apples view of net return versus risk. The team burns time rebuilding a comparison that should already exist. Even when the numbers are there, they are framed differently. One memo leans on yield, another on upside, a third on sponsor track record. The discussion shifts to format instead of the decision. Underwriting ~15 min to run Compare Competing Allocations Vic prompt Use Vic to compare these two industrial deals competing for my next $25 million allocation: a 450,000 sf stabilized asset in Phoenix at 5.8 percent cap and a 380,000 sf value-add asset in Dallas with 65 percent leased at closing. Purpose Replaces the 120 minutes an analyst normally spends building the comparison by hand with a 15-minute output that surfaces the key trade-offs for your mandate. Inputs Opportunities Required Mandate Optional Output Format Optional Outputs A matrix with normalized scores across the six criteria plus a documented recommendation on the preferred allocation. Time saved Replaces about 120 minutes of manual comparison with a ~15 minute output. How it works You give Vic the opportunities and, if you have one, your mandate. That can be two deals or a short list competing for the same check. The mandate sets preferences for net return, risk tolerance, sponsor profile, market exposure, terms and alignment, and liquidity. If you care about the output format, say so. Run it with a simple command: "Use Vic to compare these two industrial deals competing for my next $25 million allocation: a 450,000 sf stabilized asset in Phoenix at 5.8 percent cap and a 380,000 sf value add asset in Dallas with 65 percent leased at closing." Vic returns a comparison matrix with normalized scores across six criteria: net return, risk, sponsor, market, terms and alignment, and liquidity. The normalization step is the point. Each deal is adjusted to your mandate so the scores reflect your priorities, not the memo author. A high yield deal with weak terms will not pass if your mandate puts weight on alignment and downside protection. You also get a written recommendation that says which allocation to back and why. It calls out the tradeoffs in plain language. For example, higher current income versus lease up risk, stronger sponsor versus tighter terms, or better market liquidity versus lower going in yield. The goal is a decision you can defend, not another spreadsheet. This replaces the two hours an analyst usually spends building a clean comparison by hand. More important, it standardizes how the team compares deals. Same criteria, same scoring frame, same output each time. That consistency keeps IC discussions on substance. A practical aside: "terms and alignment" and "liquidity" are often afterthoughts in deal memos. Here they sit next to return and risk, where they belong. When they are scored in the same view, it is obvious when a deal looks good on paper but falls short on structure. Use it when you have real competition for capital. Two deals, three, or a short list. If there is no mandate, you still get a clean side by side. If there is a mandate, the output reflects it and the recommendation reads like it came from someone who knows your box. The result is simple: a normalized scorecard and a documented call. You can take it into an IC meeting and move the conversation from "how do these compare" to "are we comfortable with this tradeoff."