How Zencity CEO Eyal Feder-Levy grew to $10M revenue and 400 customers in 2025.

Nathan Latka (00:00) Hey folks, my guest today is Eyal Fadar-Levy. He's the CEO and co-founder of ZenCity, the platform that uses advanced AI to help local government agencies reach residents, understand them, and act based off insights powering the work of government with community voices. They work with over 400 agencies as well, zencity.io. Eyal, you ready to take us to the top? All right. So is this like when I'm in Austin, Texas, I get an alert on my phone that says, Eyal Feder-Levy (00:21) Let's do it Nathan, thanks for having me. Nathan Latka (00:27) Warning, flood warning, 3 p.m. tonight, text message, is that you? Eyal Feder-Levy (00:32) ⁓ We do some of that as well, but our main focus is finding you and asking you to give your feedback to the City of Austin. Tell the city how they're doing. Think about it as an NPS for government, if you will. Nathan Latka (00:42) Okay, how would the local city of Austin, if they're a customer of you, get a link to me personally, a community member to collect my feedback? Eyal Feder-Levy (00:51) So let's take it a step back for a second. Local governments are probably the institutions with the most impact on our lives. We don't think about it that often, but they're in charge of public safety, public health, infrastructure, trash pickup. Like everything that allows us to live our lives in beautiful cities like Austin are the direct responsibility of the city's county state agencies that serve us as residents. To do that, they manage incredibly large budgets. Do know, example, how much money, I'm based in Brooklyn, how much money the city of New York spends every year? ⁓ Nathan Latka (01:18) ⁓ definitely north of three billion. Eyal Feder-Levy (01:23) definitely north of 3 billion. The budget that's being discussed right now for July is $122 billion a year. That's a lot of money. This industry spends $3.3 trillion a year just in the US. So they do all these things and they don't know if they're doing a good job or not. They never know like how well are we doing on trash bag? How well are we doing on public safety? Do people in Austin feel safe? So we've built a bunch of ways to reach people like you and hear from you. Do you think the city is doing a good job to help them? Nathan Latka (01:29) my gosh. Eyal Feder-Levy (01:52) harder decisions around budgeting, around policy, around things like that. Nathan Latka (01:55) But what is, I mean tell me specifically though, because every link I get from the government I just ignore it. I'm going, there's no upside for me. I'm not gonna take five minutes to fill out a survey. I'm not doing this. And obviously your solution, no one's gonna pay for it if it gets no responses. So what have you figured out? Eyal Feder-Levy (02:08) 100 % agree with you. What we found is that people actually want to their input. just as you said, it feels like throwing your voice into the void and it feels like a lot of work. You need to show up at a meeting, you need to find a babysitter, you need to take a day off work just to give your input. We've built a lot of ways to reach people by leveraging the fact that they're spending time online. So we combine social media and media monitoring capabilities. We pick up whatever people are already sharing on Facebook or Twitter or Reddit or wherever they're talking. We've built technology to run scientific grade representative surveys via digital ads. So basically we buy ads that are targeting people that live in Austin, for example, buy their demographic ⁓ information and then ask them to give us their input. And that works really, really well. And we build more classic engagement tools like post interaction surveys, you know, when we send you a text message after you called 3-1-1 or after you went to get a permit ⁓ and more classic digital engagement websites. But those are basically the different ways we reach. Nathan Latka (03:04) interesting. And so what does, I'm going to force you to do an average here because I'm sure you have a wide range of pricing, but what does the average government pay you per month or per year to use your technology? Eyal Feder-Levy (03:15) So it varies by population size. So big cities like Austin pay us more than smaller communities like don't know, Sugarland, Texas, or I don't know, Denton, Texas. And pricing starts from about 10, 20K a year for smaller municipalities and our largest customers pay us about a million. Nathan Latka (03:33) Give me a sense, a million dollar a year customer would be a population of what, million people? Is it a one to one ratio? Eyal Feder-Levy (03:38) Yeah, for example, we work with national agencies in the UK, national government offices, or we work with the state of Arizona or some of the largest cities in the country. They would be in the hundreds of... Nathan Latka (03:51) One of the parts of the S1 when folks go public is they'll always talk about how many enterprise logos they have. Henry Shucks S1 in Zoom Info will say, 196 customers are paying us more than a million per year. This is a very thing to be proud of. Are you comfortable sharing how many folks you have that are more than a million a year? Eyal Feder-Levy (04:08) ⁓ So we have ⁓ in what we call our enterprise tier, which is a population of north of 350,000 residents. We have about 50 customers and they all pay us six figures or more. Nathan Latka (04:19) That's six figures or more, not seven figures. So more than 100 grand a year. Okay, great. That's still pretty darn good. How did you get started on this? Take me back to your first customer. What were you selling back then? Eyal Feder-Levy (04:21) Yeah. Yeah, exactly. ⁓ Well, I'm an urban planner by profession. Zensity is actually my first private sector job. ⁓ And my co-founder and I started this company out of a real pain that we felt in our day to day. We've been really passionate about government and really passionate about people's opportunity to participate in government. And as people working in and around government, we just felt that there aren't good enough tools to be able to actually hear from people. We saw our friends in the tech industry know everything there is to know about their users. Who's clicking what? How are they reacting? See the sessions in hot jar. While in government, we had no visibility to what the customers that we were serving that were paying us a lot of money and taxes every year, what they actually didn't want. So that was where we started. We started that social media monitoring aspect and grew over time ⁓ to ⁓ do ⁓ more and more ways of reaching. Nathan Latka (05:21) And so was June 2015, that's when you wrote the first line of code or was that first customer? Eyal Feder-Levy (05:26) That was first line of code. First customer took us about 18 months on this. We ran four or five different POCs with customers before that. But in the beginning of 2017, we had our first Nathan Latka (05:38) Okay, so got it. So you were building from 2015 to 2017. How did you fund that? Were you already super wealthy? Eyal Feder-Levy (05:44) No, we were very young and very stupid. ⁓ basically, what ⁓ Zensity does today was our fourth pivot. We built three different products in the same space before that between June of 2015 ⁓ and February of 2017, all of them with paying customers in government, ⁓ but none of them scaled to ⁓ really solve the problem like what Zensity does. Nathan Latka (06:10) It's really hard for a founder to shut down an early idea, especially if you have, you know, five, 10 K of revenue. It sounds like you had a couple of those, but you shut it down and moved on. How did you have that discipline? Why did you know it was the right time to shut those down and why stay on the current concept is N city. Eyal Feder-Levy (06:22) That's a really, really great question, Nathan. think it took a lot of guts to shut down something that somebody was paying for. ⁓ I think we mostly ⁓ just saw that we're, you we were really, really passionate about this problem and we saw that the solutions we were building were not making enough impact for our customers. Yeah, they were willing to pay for it, but they were not in love with the product. Their eyes weren't starry when they were using it. It was fine, ⁓ but not crazy. ⁓ And ⁓ we kept doing, you know, more research with them, asking more questions, we kept hearing from them that there's something else that they want more and pivoting to that next thing as we working. Nathan Latka (06:58) Okay, so 2017 is your first customer. Fast forward to today, how many customers are you working with? Eyal Feder-Levy (07:02) you So little bit over 400 customers today. ⁓ yeah, we're originally founded in Tel Aviv, started with a few cities back in Israel, and today most of our customers are in North America, in the US. Nathan Latka (07:18) Very cool. Okay. So started in Tel Aviv. I have to also ask too, you know, I've never met, maybe I have a selection bias, but anyone who served in the IDF, I mean, really, man, mean, there's so many of them, I could go on and on. They all seem to build successful software companies. Are they teaching you, you know, while you're going through military training, are they also teaching you how to build a software company or what's going on here? Eyal Feder-Levy (07:24) Thank Well, know, everybody in Israel has to go to the army, so we all get that training. But I think it mostly teaches you grit and working towards a goal. We learned that early on. I think that's a privilege. And also we go to school at a later age, so we know a little bit more about what we want and what we want to do. Nathan Latka (07:56) Well hey, tell me more about how you capitalize the business. Did you bootstrap or raise? Eyal Feder-Levy (08:01) So we raised five different rounds since the middle of 2017. We bootstrapped those first two years until we got to something we felt is scalable. once we had a little bit over $100K in ARR, we raised our first seed round. But overall, we raised $90 million to date from wonderful VC investors. Nathan Latka (08:19) 2017 based off my research, you did a 1.7 million seed, is that right? And then the most recent one was a series C with stepstone for 40 million in June, 2024, is that right? Interesting, fill in the gaps in between. Why did you decide to raise in between? I guess that would have been your series A and a series B, I guess. Eyal Feder-Levy (08:30) Exactly. So we did that 1.7 would be what's called a pre-seed in today's terms. So a pre-seed in 1.7 2017, then a seed of 6 million in 2018, an A round of 13 million in 2020, a B round of 30 million in 2021, and then the C round in 2020. Nathan Latka (08:58) And what makes this, when you're going through the calculation on do we raise, do we not raise, obviously 2021 saw incredible valuations when you raised your series B. So I imagine you were probably able to get a really healthy revenue multiple for better or for worse looking back today. We'll just say for better or for worse. But what made this so expensive to build? Was it engineering expense, go to market expense, something else? Why'd you have to raise so much? Eyal Feder-Levy (09:06) moment. Thank That's a question and I think I like your approach here because I don't think that raising money is a success in and of itself. I feel that we're privileged to work with great investors. So other than the money, we also got some great advice and great board members along the way. But generally raising money is not a success. A success is selling your product to great customers and maybe eventually ⁓ reaching a great outcome of an IPO or an exit as a business. We raised a lot of money throughout the way, mostly on engineering costs. We were doing AI back before AI was cool ⁓ and a lot of building of the product itself. ⁓ And our original funding round was... driven somewhat by go-to-market. I remember I was thinking, should we go to a conference in the US, or no, because we didn't have the money. And that was the moment we decided, okay, we need to raise some real money here to get this business going. Nathan Latka (10:06) And you mentioned you passed $100,000 of AR in 2017. Do you remember your first million dollar year? Eyal Feder-Levy (10:12) Yeah, we even had a party as a company. We celebrated. That was probably like 2019, I believe. Nathan Latka (10:14) When was that? 2019 and what was the most challenging about going from zero to million of revenue? Eyal Feder-Levy (10:25) ⁓ Most challenging going from zero to one million. ⁓ I think the most challenging piece was probably ⁓ understanding how to build trust with customers who didn't know who we are and what we do yet. Finding the right type of customers who are excited by being early adopters and that are willing to go through that learning motion with you. ⁓ And I think another thing that was challenging and it's one of the things I talked to a lot of young founders today. is believing in yourself and your ability to do that. Like when you sit in front of somebody and you've never sold a deal in the US, for example, having that belief that your product is good and that you're able to sign a contract with the person in front of you was something that kind of felt like science fiction at the time, but our ridiculous belief that we can do it allowed us to jump through lot of hoops, even though we've never done that before. Nathan Latka (11:16) There's a lot of founders watching right now, maybe in Paris, France or India going, man, I listen to Nathan's podcast to figure out how to sell into the US market. Again, you figure this out. They're going, do I hire someone and stick them in New York City? Do I call them while sitting in India or France? What did you do it? Did you give an AE a quota? How did you get your first US customer? Eyal Feder-Levy (11:33) So I think first customers have to come through you because you know your product well and you're the one that is passionate about building it. And you'll be selling yourself as much as you're selling the product because your product is not fully big. If it's fully big, then only now you're selling it. You're way too late to selling the product. So you're selling somebody on an idea, on a vision, more than on the product itself in the early days. That's the early adopter motion. Our motion in the beginning was just like... get me as many warm intros as I can to US municipalities. In Israel we have that no more because we came from government so we could just reach out to folks. But warm intros was the name of the game. Put me in front of people with... Nathan Latka (12:12) How would you get the governor of an Israeli city to introduce you to the governor of New York City? Eyal Feder-Levy (12:17) So I'll tell you, our first customer in the US is the great city, West Sacramento, California. 60,000 people, a suburb-ish of West Sacramento, wonderful community. They've been a customer for now almost 10 years, since late 2017. And I met the mayor of West Sacramento in a conference in Korea. We won an award by a Canadian organization and they held their annual conference in Korea. And they asked me what I want, do I want money, do I want anything? I said, Just introduce me to all the American cities that are participating in the conference. Let me set up a time with them to show what we're building. So they facilitated the introductions. There was Sacramento and Pittsburgh and a couple of other cities. And I had the chance to sit down for 45 minutes with each of them. We built a pre-made demo for each one of them. And that got us through the door to start that conversation with that positive introduction. Nathan Latka (13:11) I love that. Okay, so that's you're at a 2019 time frame million of ARR you go from one to two to three network effects and introductions You do your 13 million a round in 2022 20 million be around 2021 heyday Wasn't always rosy though. You had a public layoff at least in the press reported at 20 % layoff in 2022. What happened there? Eyal Feder-Levy (13:28) So I'll say, think the journey of a startup, we've been around for now almost 10 years, the journey of a startup is never a linear line. And I think that that's something true to anybody who's starting a company. need to some very, very few are privileged to just go like a rocket ship like this and exit. Most companies will go through ups and downs throughout the years, as we did as well. And that's first and foremost, my responsibility as CEO, right? Any wrong decision we made or anything that comes back to me. In the beginning of 2022, there were two things that happened. Both we shifted some of our attention from mid-market selling to enterprise selling. So a lot of our growth in last few years has been in enterprise. And that was a conscious decision we made back in 2022. And second, the market changed a lot. Don't know if you remember that time. That is when people moved from growth at all costs into what was called back then sustainable growth. expecting a lot less burn and slower growth rates from SaaS companies. And those two patterns in between pushed us to need to make some really, really difficult changes and part ways with some incredible people who were part of our journey until that moment. Nathan Latka (14:37) What was the largest size of your team historically and where is it at today in 2026? Eyal Feder-Levy (14:41) At the height of it, at the beginning of 22, we were 163 people at the most. We are now a hundred and. Nathan Latka (14:48) Okay, 104, interesting. That makes a lot of sense. then... Eyal Feder-Levy (14:49) and we grew over 10x. Nathan Latka (14:53) Okay, so ⁓ do you remember your first 10 million ARR year? Would have been like 2025 maybe, 24? Eyal Feder-Levy (15:01) That would have been, I remember the exact year, but yeah, was the last few years. We're now in the middle of it. Nathan Latka (15:07) Okay, what's your goal for this year? What would you consider a massive win? You know, breaking 30 million, 40 million ARR? Eyal Feder-Levy (15:14) Well, you know, this is a very interesting time for SaaS companies. We need to face the fact that we have the danger of becoming obsolete ⁓ if we don't ⁓ shift to the new world. I think the biggest challenge that companies like us are facing that have a real business, that have customer love, that are driving real value, is how do we adapt quickly to the new world and keep meeting customer expectations. The interface through which people consume technology has changed. People are much more adapted. Chat interfaces and voice interfaces versus ⁓ looking at a dashboard that they were before. And a lot of the things that we were dreaming for many years are now a reality. So my biggest hope right now is that we are able to make that change effectively. That's what we've been working towards in the last 18 months or so, both in our internal operations and in our growth rates ⁓ of the AI ⁓ products and features that we've released over the last few months. Nathan Latka (16:10) I'm always I'm looking for advantages that current SaaS companies have in the age of AI. So one of those advantages is a true proprietary data source or a unique workflow that has a specialized intelligence they can't get from a foundation model. There's a couple other things as well. If you had to sort of clearly articulate your advantage, why a city, why West Sacramento can't rip you out and replace you with some cheap tool they built on lovable? What would your reasoning be? Eyal Feder-Levy (16:33) I think there's three things that we're ⁓ hearing a lot from our market and that we've hinged on in rolling out all of our new AI capabilities. The number one advantage that we have is the relationships that we already have with our customers. The fact that they are... working with us, the fact that they trust us, the fact that they ⁓ are used to have a good experience with us and receive technology services from us, that gives us a great ⁓ advantage, both in terms of our ability to sell more and provide them with more solutions, but also with our ⁓ understanding of the market. We've been working with these customers for a while. We know their pains, we know their challenges. That gives us a strong leg up versus somebody who's starting now from the outside. And in our specific case, The other big advantage is our unique proprietary data. So we've collected 1.3 billion data points for our customers in 2025, between the different ways that we hear from residents. 1.5 billion times that residents told us what they think about life in their community. That data set is unique to us and allows us to build a bunch of applications and workflows that are harder to do without that data. So we have that unique positioning as we're rolling out exciting new capabilities on top of the great tools that we already have in place. Nathan Latka (17:46) Can West Sacramento click a button that says export all of the text message feedback I've gotten over the past 10 years with my survey results and put that in Excel file? Eyal Feder-Levy (17:55) ⁓ I think that our approach to data ownership is one that we believe customers should own the that they collect and we shouldn't own the data. So we've made it so that it's easy for them to export that data, but still the analysis capabilities that we've built and the continued ability to collect more of that data is something unique to us, which is an ongoing perpetual need of these customers. And that's where that long-term relationship is built from. Nathan Latka (18:20) I hate to put you on the spot on this, but so Founder Path are underwriting and we've deployed about 250 million bucks into 700 software companies and we're constantly trying to figure out how should we look at the AI risk. We put it into three different buckets, the disruption risk, the data portability test and a moat durability test. If we just focus on the middle one here, data portability, you just sort of talked a little bit about how you make it easy for people to get the data out of your platform, but you do that from a place of confidence. because what you're thinking is they're still gonna use our platform because you've built some workflow or the data compounds inside your system in some way. Can you maybe pick one of these Q1 through Q6 and maybe go deep on where you think you're the strongest? Eyal Feder-Levy (18:42) Okay. I think the strongest is the, I'm not sure I understand correctly, but data versus workflow value. Like think the thing that we really got figured out, and that's why we grew faster than any other solution in this space, is that workflow point. Right, at the end of the day, running a survey is very easy, right? You can open Google Forms, click a few buttons, you'll have a great, you know, form that people can fill out and you can send it over email, that's easy. our understanding of ⁓ how to incorporate this data into the workflow government, how to support budgeting, how to support communications, how to support city council meetings, how to support policy decision making on different levels is what allowed us to scale to service all these big organizations, why they choose us over, I don't know, a Qualtrics or SurveyMonkey or anything else. ⁓ So I think that that's where our strength lies and that's where our growth into AI has come from. Like all the AI... capabilities we've released and are releasing in ⁓ this year's roadmap are automating those workflows on different levels. Nathan Latka (19:56) believe that founders are way more powerful if they're not broke personally. They're not worried about where they're living, having a family, a house, et cetera. And a lot of them are scared to ever think about secondaries until they IPO one day, which never happens, right? That's like 0.001%. StepStone, your series C investor, right, is known, or at least they market themselves as, quote, customized portfolios that integrate primaries, secondaries, and co-investments. If you're comfortable sharing, not to put you on the spot here, but did you do anything during your fundraising to help either your the founders or early employees get liquidity along the way. Eyal Feder-Levy (20:30) ⁓ Well, first I'll say I agree with you. think that the more founders can invest their attention in business, the better it is. ⁓ I won't talk about my personal finances here, but I will say to all the founders that are out there listening that I think thinking about those things and talking about those things ⁓ with your board members and with your investors is a very important part of the fundraising ⁓ growth and journey and something that I would strongly recommend doing. Nathan Latka (20:55) mean, StepStone does minority and majority recaps along with the sort of main sale, Susquehanna growth. I mean, was that series C, like minority, majority, sort of recap? Eyal Feder-Levy (21:03) No, no, it was a straight up serious C, minority round, ⁓ very great investor, very, very happy to be working with StepStone, but definitely a classic. Nathan Latka (21:07) Okay. So how do you manage that dilution dynamic? Raising $90 million and I'm going to say you're somewhere between $10 million and $30 million of ARR today. You need to grow to get to an exit thing where the cash waterfall at close hits everybody. So you still have some growth to do. But imagine you plus current employees own less than 50 % of the company today. How do you ⁓ manage that? Eyal Feder-Levy (21:32) My perspective on that is very straightforward. I think that... Holding a smaller percentage of something big and meaningful is a lot more exciting to me ⁓ and a lot more valuable at the end than holding a big percentage of something smaller and less meaningful. My analysis and the reason we fundraised at every point was I believe that with this cash, we will build something that's greater than the sum of its parts and it will drive us meaningfully to the next round. So far it's proven itself out in every round we've raised. So I'm excited both with the things we build, with the acquisitions we made, and with different ways we've deployed capital throughout the years. And that continues to be I'd rather hold, you know, three or five percent of an incredible company that does something meaningful in the world and is worth a lot of money than hold 50 % of a small business that ⁓ is minority. That might not be the wisest financial decision, even though, you know, I've modeled it out all the times and I know that it's going to be better for me. ⁓ But more than that, I'm really passionate about what we're building and I really care about our customers and the problem we're solving and my ability to deploy more capital to build a better solution for that and to reach more customers. and continue growing that business is what excites me personally more than my percent of ownership. Nathan Latka (22:42) Do you consider how many options you have for liquidity and how those options go down quickly the more you raise because of investor expectations on exit value? Eyal Feder-Levy (22:50) Yeah, of course. Again, it's not the driving factor. I'm very much of a belief. One of the investors I trust the most once told me that companies can't be built to be sold. Companies need to be built to be great. And if you're a great company, then you will have a range of options at every ⁓ at every point. ⁓ So that's very much has been my approach and what we are focused on on building a great company, building great product, servicing our customers. But yeah, definitely you need to think about liquidity options and exit opportunities along the way to understand, you know. what are the options on the table. And definitely with this last round that we raised, there are a lot of ⁓ liquidity opportunities or exit opportunities that are off the table because there are smaller buyers. But to me, that's an exciting place to be. Again, we're also a consolidator, right? We've made three acquisitions to date ⁓ and we ⁓ continue to do &A as a big part of our strategy moving forward. ⁓ So we're excited to be in that space. It doesn't mean that we... only looking at IPO and we will only be you know a 10 billion dollar company and nothing below is exciting but ⁓ I feel very confident about going down a path which is the best path for the business even if it closes some liquidity opportunities along the Nathan Latka (24:01) Yeah, makes sense. Both Tyler Technologies and Axon are 20 billion plus market cap companies sort of in your space. If one of them came to you and offered you 300 million all cash upfront today, do you take the deal? Eyal Feder-Levy (24:10) The number one consideration that I always make every time we faced a question like that in the past is, is this going to accelerate our mission? Are we going to be able to service our customers better, reach more customers? I'm in government. This is what happens. But seriously, I'm kind of a hippie on that front. That's what we care about and that's what's driving us. And when that aligns, Nathan Latka (24:23) This guy's a politician, guys. I can't break him. He's too good. He's media trained. I'm doing my best here, okay? No, that's the right answer. Eyal Feder-Levy (24:38) And there's a great financial outcome. Great. Let's do it. I don't care about being CEO. I don't care about, you know, having a billion dollar exit. I care about that thing and I care about doing right by our employees and our investors and everybody who's been a part of this journey. Nathan Latka (24:50) Yeah, what about the flip side? There's a lot of companies that want to sell to a company like yours. Maybe they're doing one to five million in revenue. They want to partner up with somebody like you. What's the thing that drives you the most crazy about a founder at that size trying to exit to somebody like you? Eyal Feder-Levy (25:01) Well, first of all, if you are building a business in government, do you think it aligns with what we're doing and you're doing a million to five in revenue? Reach out to me, let's talk. But seriously, I think one of the things I was really excited about the acquisitions we've made was the super strong mission alignment between our team and the teams of the companies we acquired. Like in government. Nathan Latka (25:21) But that's table stakes. Like let's assume that all checks out. Tell me what, like is it a messy data room? Is it an annoying person on the cap table that wants 100x valuation that you can't negotiate with? Is it, yes, the deals when you put out term sheets, the deals that have blown up that you've tried to work on without naming the company you're trying to acquire, why do they blow up tactically? Eyal Feder-Levy (25:29) What gets me annoyed? Like what's the thing I don't like? Is your question? mostly on either misaligned expectations or personal egos. Sometimes I feel, CEOs and founders listen too much to their boards and their investors or external help. And they come in with big, you know, misaligned expectations, you know, maybe a company that is not growing, that expects a 10 X multiple on their revenue, right? Like, ⁓ so those misaligned expectations, sometimes let deals evolve and sometimes more interpersonal stuff, like people having very, know, something very important to them in terms of title or personal recognition that does not align. ⁓ But I will say that the vast majority of the deals that we've seriously looked at and that we, ⁓ like we've never retracted a term sheet from an acquisition, right? Like the number, when we got to that stage, we closed the deal and made it work. We did look at a lot of companies that we didn't move forward with, that was very much. Nathan Latka (26:35) And is your general strategy like I look at commonplace in January 2025 that you closed big presence in the UK? know, many people would say that almost doubled your presence in the UK. Are you sort of buying companies where the sales reps there have deep connections to geographies that you're not currently exposed to? Or how do you just think about that kind of strategy driving who you buy? Eyal Feder-Levy (26:55) ⁓ So what we are looking for is either a ⁓ product expansion or a market expansion. This needs to be added in some Right. ⁓ The two acquisitions we made before Comm place were very heavily product driven ⁓ more than they were market. We also got some great team and, and, and market benefits like elusive was in law enforcement, which we weren't in, you know, civil space had some Canadian presence that we didn't have, but mostly they were product acquisitions. Compliance has a wonderful product, but it's very similar to our existing engaged products. So we've combined the two to, get the best out of, of, of both of them, but it was mostly a market expansion acquisition. We're looking both entities and they have a different....