Other matching filters
- What it does
- Expertise, location, industry, commitment, with dealbreakers
- Who it's for
- Founders
- The catch
- Demo, not the live app
- Worth using?
- Yes, start here [1]
Founder and startup talent network · Features guide
The paid filters are the feature that decides whether Premium is worth money. The daily feed is slow, CoffeeSpace AI has no price, and the talent network is invite-only. [1] [3] [5]
Add Omnitwine as a preferred source on Google| Feature | What it does | Who it's for | The catch | Worth using? |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other matching filters | Expertise, location, industry, commitment, with dealbreakers | Founders | Demo, not the live app | Yes, start here[1] |
| Premium filters | Age range, equity preference, number of founders, prior startup experience | Founders who need one of them | Mobile app only; check the lock on the free tier | Only if one filter is essential[1] [2] |
| Distance setting | Maximum 10 miles, locked in the demo | Local founders | Marked as Business Class in the demo | Test it on the free tier first[1] |
| Daily recommendation feed | A daily set of profiles | Anyone matching | Slow for at least one reviewer in 2025 | Yes, but judge it after a week[3] |
| Matches on stated needs | Shows only people who meet each other's requirements | Founders | Built on company statements; no independent test | Yes; set requirements carefully[4] |
| CoffeeSpace AI | Ranks candidates for early engineering roles | Startups hiring | No price or method published | Ask for a written quote first[5] |
| Talent network | Matches job seekers with startups | Job seekers | Invite-only while in beta | Not yet for most people[7] [8] |
The Playground demo lists four filters that work only in the mobile app: age range, equity preference, number of founders, and prior startup experience. The Playground calls them premium filters. The Playground says Business Class unlocks certain filters, without naming which ones. Open the filter screen on the free tier before you pay to see which ones are locked. [1] [2]
The other filters in the demo cover expertise, location, industry and commitment level, and most of them let you set a dealbreaker. Check which of these your tier allows, and set them first. If the list is still wrong after that, a paid filter only narrows the same pool. [1]
The daily recommendation feed is the feature the store highlights most. One App Store reviewer in October 2025 says the profile trickle is too slow. The developer replied that it is testing an advanced search with about 100 users, and it gave no date for a wider launch. [3]
The daily limit on profiles is not stated in any source, so count what you receive for a week and judge the feed by that number.
TechCrunch reported in November 2024 that matching includes only candidates who meet each other's requirements, and that profiles combine public LinkedIn data with what you enter. That rule makes your requirements the main lever: a narrow setting cuts the list, and a loose one floods it. [4]
The Playground is a demo with fictional profiles. It runs out of recommendations and then sends you to the mobile app. Its end screen cites 1,588 'actual candidates', with no date or definition. Use the demo to learn the filters, not to judge the candidate pool. [1]
CoffeeSpace AI ranks candidates for founding and early engineering roles, using semantic search, keyword search, filters and language models. Its site gives no method, and its only calls to action are 'Book a call' and 'Book a demo'. Founders hiring early staff should ask for the price and the method in writing before a demo. [5]
The talent sign-up asks for your name, email, LinkedIn URL, whether you are open to work, and a résumé of up to 10 MB in PDF, DOC or DOCX. The company says in October 2026 that the network is invite-only while in beta, after promising in June 2026 that it would go live 'in the next couple of weeks'. [6] [7] [8]
Its homepage shows talent statistics as if the network were live. Read those as the company's claims until the beta opens to you.
Bibliography