by Tsani Following the first three parts of Domain Names Under the Microscope (Part 1 and Part 2, and Part 3), this fourth part continues the series with another set of recently funded companies, focusing on whether their domain name choices are built to support the next phase of growth.
Evaluation criteria applied across all companies:
Brand search dominance, Extension trust, Memorability, Typo risk, Pronunciation clarity, Email reliability, Phishing resistance, Competitive leakage, Global linguistic safety, Category signal and range, Perceived leadership, Investor and enterprise confidence, Upgrade pressure, Defensive posture, Direct navigation potential, Cross channel consistency, Geographic scalability, Legal and confusion risk, Brand story potential, Economic efficiency.
Domain Name Assessment and Verdict
Company: Vanagon Ventures
Amount: €20 Million
Industry: AI
Domain name: vanagon.vc
Score: 5 out of 10
Key Issues Summary:
• .vc extension limits trust outside venture and startup-native audiences.
• Email reliability weaker than .com in institutional contexts.
• Competitive leakage to vanagon.com or similar variants.
• Upgrade pressure increases with broader market exposure.
Verdict: A serviceable insider-domain that constrains credibility and ownership at global scale.
Company: Ananda Impact Ventures
Amount: €73 Million
Industry: Venture capital fund
Domain name: ananda.vc
Score: 6 out of 10
Key Issues Summary:
• .vc extension narrows perception to fund-specific use cases.
• Brand search dominance capped by extension choice.
• Leakage risk if ananda.com is active in adjacent sectors.
• Upgrade pressure persists for broader brand ownership.
Verdict: Appropriate for a venture fund but structurally limiting beyond a closed investor audience.
Company: CoolSem Technologies
Amount: Not specified, Pre-Seed
Industry: Semiconductor Manufacturing
Domain name: coolsemtechnologies.com
Score: 5 out of 10
• Long, multi-word construction reduces memorability.
• Weak direct navigation and verbal recall.
• Brand search efficiency diluted by generic structure.
• Upgrade pressure toward a shorter primary brand likely over time.
Verdict: Functional but inefficient for a semiconductor company aiming for global recognition.
Company: Anzen Industries
Amount: $2.2 Million, Pre-Seed
Industry: Biotechnology
Domain name: anzenindustries.com
Score: 5 out of 10
Key Issues Summary:
• Generic “industries” suffix weakens brand distinctiveness.
• Competitive noise from similarly named companies.
• Reduced memorability and brand recall.
• Upgrade pressure increases with enterprise and regulatory exposure.
Verdict: Adequate early on but structurally weak for a biotech company at scale.
Company: GoodDay Software
Amount: $7 Million, Seed
Industry: Software & SaaS
Domain name: gooddaysoftware.com
Score: 5 out of 10
Key Issues Summary:
• Long compound name reduces memorability and direct navigation.
• Descriptive structure limits brand defensibility.
• Brand search leakage likely toward shorter variants.
• Upgrade pressure grows with broader SaaS distribution.
Verdict: Serviceable but cumbersome for a global software brand.
Company: Elyos AI
Amount: €11.113 Million, Series A
Industry: AI
Domain name: elyos.ai
Score: 6 out of 10
Key Issues Summary:
• .ai extension limits trust outside technical audiences.
• Competitive leakage if elyos.com exists elsewhere.
• Email reliability weaker than .com.
• Upgrade pressure persists for enterprise adoption.
Verdict: Clean early-stage positioning constrained by extension choice over time.
Company: SPUN
Amount: $1.8 Million, Seed
Industry: AI, Travel & Hospitality
Domain name: spun.global
Score: 4 out of 10
Key Issues Summary:
• .global extension lacks mainstream trust and familiarity.
• Weak email reliability and higher phishing risk.
• Competitive leakage to spun.com or regional variants.
• High upgrade pressure as consumer exposure increases.
Verdict: Structurally weak for a consumer-facing travel and hospitality brand.
Company: Gutology
Amount: €21.8 Million
Industry: Healthcare
Domain name: gutology.co.uk
Score: 5 out of 10
Key Issues Summary:
• Country-specific extension limits geographic scalability.
• Competitive leakage to .com and other ccTLDs.
• Reduced trust outside the UK market.
• Upgrade pressure increases with international expansion.
Verdict: Appropriate for a UK-focused presence but restrictive for a global healthcare brand.
Company: Mal
Amount: $230 Million
Industry: Fintech
Domain name: mal.ai
Score: 4 out of 10
Key Issues Summary:
• .ai extension limits trust in fintech contexts.
• Significant upgrade pressure for regulatory credibility.
Verdict: Structurally risky and poorly aligned with fintech trust requirements.
Company: Sukidayo
Amount: ¥85 million, Seed
Industry: AI
Domain name: sukidayo.co.jp
Score: 5 out of 10
Key Issues Summary:
• Country-code extension limits global reach.
• Linguistic opacity outside Japanese-speaking markets.
• Competitive leakage to .com or other extensions.
• Upgrade pressure grows with international ambitions.
Verdict: Suitable for a domestic market focus but constrained for global scale.
Final Thoughts
Domain name decisions reflect speed, access, geography, and capital constraints at the moment a company needs to move. What follows shifts from the choice itself to the cost of carrying it forward. Some domain names support scale and grow with the company. Others quietly require explanation, defense, or workaround. For founders, the practical advantage comes from recognizing when a domain name continues to support the business and when growth has moved beyond the conditions that shaped the original decision.
Post a request on DomainsForEquity.com to explore domain name options aligned with your company’s next stage of scale.