Methodology — the exact scoring logic, stated openly

The engine is deterministic: same inputs, same report, every time, with no LLM anywhere in the scoring loop. Every threshold it checks comes from a publicly published listing standard. I publish the mechanics here because the rules are already public — what you're paying for is structuring your position against them, not the arithmetic. If you can run all of this yourself, you probably don't need me.

Gate scoring — vs public listing standards

Each exchange publishes several alternative financial standards; an issuer needs to clear only one, plus the liquidity gates. The engine evaluates your reported metrics against every standard on each venue. A standard passes only if all of its required metrics clear:

metric_ratio = max(0, your_value) / required_min standard passes ⇔ every metric_ratio ≥ 1.0 quant_score = mean( min(1, metric_ratio) ) × 100

The mean caps each metric at 1.0 so that over-clearing one metric can't paper over a shortfall in another. The engine scores you against the standard you're closest to clearing, so you're never penalized for failing a standard you'd never use (e.g. an earnings test when you're pre-profit). Thresholds come from Nasdaq Listing Rules 5315 / 5405 / 5505, NYSE Listed Company Manual §102.01, and KRX KOSDAQ 상장규정.

Governance-readiness score

A weighted sum (weights total 100) of the real public-company governance gates:

PCAOB audit (22) · reporting close (14) · SOX 404 (14) board majority (14) · audit committee (14) comp/nominating committees (10) · CFO+IR (12)

Each is met/unmet from your self-attestation; the score is the sum of the weights you've met. A founder super-voting class is treated as a disclosure item (weight 0), not a readiness deficit. Bands: 0–29 Not ready · 30–59 Early · 60–84 Progressing · 85–100 Substantially ready.

Venue-fit matrix

Fit blends quantitative closeness, whether you're outright eligible, and a transparent strategic weight:

fit = quant_score + (eligible ? 12 : 0) + strategic_weight (clamped 0–100) strategic_weight: top US tier & cap ≥ $500M → +12; cap < $150M → −15 Capital Market & cap < $150M → +10 non-US venue & Asia-nexus → +35; no nexus → −30

Every adjustment is published here — there is no hidden factor. Ties are reported honestly: when several venues all clear and all suit your scale, the model says so rather than manufacturing a false ranking, and the tiebreak (brand, comps, index mechanics, banker fit) is left to you and your underwriter.

Timeline & cost model

Timeline bands start from your governance band and extend for open gaps and the binding financial shortfall. Direct-cost bands key off the recommended venue's tier. The underwriting band is ≈ 5–7% of a primary-raise proxy (the lesser of your expected float or 25% of market cap). All figures are directional public ranges, not quotes.

What the engine cannot do

It benchmarks the numbers and facts you enter against public rules. It does not determine listing eligibility — only an exchange does that, applying qualitative judgment. It can't see a condition buried in a standard it hasn't captured, and it isn't underwriting, legal, or accounting advice. It's a planning aid: it tells you how far you are from each gate and where, so you build the right things in the right order and walk into advisor meetings already up to speed.

Sources (all public)

Disclaimer. This page and every report are educational benchmarking against published exchange standards — not underwriting, securities, legal, accounting, investment, or tax advice, not a determination of listing eligibility, and not a valuation. Standards change; figures are not warranted for accuracy. Verify the current rule text with the exchange and engage qualified counsel, a PCAOB auditor, and an underwriter before relying on anything here. IPOPath is not a broker-dealer, investment adviser, underwriter, or law firm. · Home · Guides · Sample report · Privacy · Terms & refunds