Aiolum Browse stories
All stories
AI critique app for designs, pitch decks and resumes, for iPhone, iPad and Android · United States

Crit: Revenue, team and how it was built

Solo founderB2CDesign

Crit (AI critique app for designs, pitch decks and resumes, for iPhone, iPad and Android, United States): US$42 MRR self-reported, October 2026. Evidence grade D: reported, not verified. Team: 1 maker listed: Vishal Mehta, through his IDYeah Studio LLC; headcount not published. Launched March 2026; still running.Added 6 November 2026

Outcome
US$42 MRR self-reported, October 2026
Evidence
D reported, not verified
Launch
March 2026
Status
Still running
Team
1 maker listed: Vishal Mehta, through his IDYeah Studio LLC; headcount not published
Outside funding
None reported
Main channel
Not stated
Reported, not verified

What is not verified

The only money figure, US$42 MRR, comes from one source: the IndieMakerList profile, facts checked on 19 October 2026, which says the maker shares small revenue numbers in his X bio. X could not be read for this page. No payment-processor profile, store revenue report or interview was found. A reader could look for a verified revenue profile such as TrustMRR or a founder post with a dashboard screenshot. The headline number is grade D: one claim or one estimate, with no second source. Aiolum shows it because the story is useful, and marks it so that it is not mistaken for a verified figure.

Crit is an AI design critique app, a program that looks at a piece of visual work and writes the kind of review a senior designer would give: what works, what is unclear, and what to change first. It also reviews pitch decks and resumes. The app sends the uploaded file and the user's context to Anthropic's API, which is a paid service that runs Anthropic's Claude models for other companies, and shows the answer as scores, a diagnosis and three fixes. Reports stay on the user's device.

The seller is IDYeah Studio LLC, the design studio of Vishal Mehta in Cupertino, United States. Version 1.0 appeared in the App Store on 9 March 2026 as a pitch deck critique; resume critique followed in April and design critique in May, and version 2.0 in September added revision checks. IndieMakerList, a directory of independent makers, listed Crit at "$42 MRR (self-reported)" in a profile with facts checked on 19 October 2026. MRR means monthly recurring revenue, the subscription money that comes in each month.

That figure is the only money figure found, and the directory says it comes from the maker's own X bio. It is small: US$504 a year if it holds for twelve months, by this page's calculation. The story is here as an example of an early, one-person AI app from a domain expert, not as a large business.

Crit: US$42 MRR self-reported, October 2026. AI critique app for designs, pitch decks and resumes, for iPhone, iPad and Android, United States, solo founder, evidence grade D.
The story in one card. Share it with the address of this page.
01

How much revenue does Crit make?

Each row shows the evidence grade and the source numbers from the list at the end of this page. The grades are explained in How Aiolum verifies.

A seven-month-old critique app with a self-reported US$42 MRR in October 2026, three App Store ratings and more than 10 Google Play downloads
FactValueGradeHow we knowSources
Monthly recurring revenue, October 2026US$42 (self-reported)DIndieMakerList profile of Vishal Mehta, facts checked 19 October 2026, read 6 November 2026: "$42 MRR". The directory says he shares small revenue numbers for each product in his X bio. The same figure is in the directory's open data file generated on 5 November 2026. No payment-processor or store figure was found.[1, 8]
Run rate from that figureUS$504 a yearcalcCalculated: US$42 times 12, using the directory's self-reported figure.[1]
First App Store version1.0, 9 March 2026CApp Store version history. The page shows "Mar 9" without a year, as Apple does for the current year; the listing's copyright line is 2026.[5]
Seller and makerIDYeah Studio LLC; Vishal MehtaCThe App Store and Google Play name IDYeah Studio LLC as seller; the Google Play developer email is Vishal's address at idyeah.studio. IndieMakerList describes him as a Cupertino product designer with more than 25 years of UX experience.[1, 5, 6]
AI model providerAnthropic's APICPrivacy page, last updated 2 October 2026: "Our service sends the content needed for the critique to Anthropic's API to generate feedback."[4]
Other services namedSupabase, RevenueCat, Apple, Google, ResendCPrivacy page: Supabase for optional Sign in with Apple, RevenueCat for subscription status, Resend for Android issue reports.[4]
What it reviewsPNG or JPEG designs; PDF pitch decks up to 20 slides; PDF resumes up to 3 pagesCSupport page and Google Play listing. Google Play also gives file size limits of 5 MB and 7 MB.[3, 6]
App Store ratings3 ratings, average 5.0CApp Store page read 6 November 2026. Two written reviews are shown, dated 29 March and 27 May.[5]
Google Play downloadsmore than 10CGoogle Play listing shows "10+ Downloads", updated 12 October 2026, rated Everyone.[6]
Price changeUS$12.99 a month in March 2026; US$5.99 a month in November 2026CThe earlier price is in the App Store release note for version 1.4; the current price is on the company's site and support page.[2, 3, 5]
Sister productCrit by Keya, a web audit toolDIndieMakerList lists a separate product at crit.keya.studio that "reviews any website or product from eight expert perspectives", at a self-reported "$200 ARR". keya.studio shows "Eight-lens audit with clear findings". Not part of the headline.[1, 7]
Outside fundingnone reportedDNo source mentions investors or a funding round.[1]
Time from launch to the October 2026 figure7 monthscalcCalculated: March 2026 to October 2026.[1, 5]

How to read this table: grade D is a figure from one source that nobody has checked, here a directory entry that quotes the maker. Grade C is what the company's own pages or app store listings say. A "calc" value (grade X) was computed on this page. No value is grade A or B.

Crit prices in November 2026, US prices from the company's site and support page (grade C)
PlanPer month, billed yearly (US$)Per month, billed monthly (US$)Limit
Free003 complete critiques in total, not per month; on Android the free critiques include the first fix only
Crit Pro, annual (iOS)3.33billed US$39.99 a year; new critiques, revision reviews, PDF export
Crit Pro, monthly (iOS and Android)5.99same features; 7-day trial for eligible subscribers

The site lists Crit Pro at US$5.99 a month on iOS and Android, or US$39.99 a year on iOS, which the site says saves 44% against twelve monthly payments. Pro is for individual use with daily fair-use limits; automated or bulk use is not supported. The monthly plan has a 7-day trial for eligible subscribers. Apple or Google Play collects the payment. An App Store release note of March 2026 shows an earlier price of US$12.99 a month after the trial.

02

When did Crit launch, and how did it grow?

From a pitch deck reviewer in March 2026 to a three-way critique app for designs, decks and resumes, in seven months. Each entry carries its grade.

  1. 9 March 2026CVersion 1.0 in the App Store. Early versions critique pitch decks. [5]
  2. March 2026CVersions 1.2 to 1.5 add a 7-day free trial and fix purchases for international users. The paywall shows US$12.99 a month after the trial. [5]
  3. 27 to 28 April 2026CVersions 1.6 and 1.7 add resume critique and a PDF download of each report. [5]
  4. 24 May 2026CVersion 1.9: "Crit now critiques design", with five design dimensions: visual hierarchy, clarity, brand consistency, accessibility and emotional tone. [5]
  5. 17 to 22 September 2026CVersion 2.0 adds revision checks against earlier fixes; version 2.1 adds the annual plan. [5]
  6. October 2026DIndieMakerList lists Crit at a self-reported US$42 MRR, from the maker's X bio. The Android app is updated on 12 October. [1, 6]
03

Why did Crit work?

Four causes, in the order they mattered. Each one is a reusable lesson.

01

Domain expertise turned into a fixed format

Every critique has the same parts: an overall score, five dimension scores, a diagnosis and exactly three fixes. The format reflects how a design lead reviews work, and it keeps the AI answer short enough to act on before a meeting.

02

Context before critique

The user says who the work is for and what it must achieve, and for a resume adds the target role and a job description. The same screen can get different feedback for a different goal, which is the main difference from a generic chat prompt.

03

Three markets from one engine

The app started with pitch decks, then added resumes and designs within three months. Each type is a separate page on the site, so one model call and one report format serve three groups of buyers.

04

A thin, low-cost stack

The model is rented from Anthropic, sign-in from Supabase and subscriptions from RevenueCat, and reports are stored on the device, so the maker runs little backend of his own.

How it was built

These details come from the company's privacy page, support page and store listings. They are grade C. [4, 3, 5]

  • Native apps for iPhone and iPad (iOS 18.6 or later) and for Android.
  • Critiques are generated through Anthropic's API; the backend keeps results in memory for ten minutes to support retries and does not store uploaded files durably.
  • Supabase receives the account identifier for optional Sign in with Apple. The Android app has no sign-in.
  • RevenueCat tracks subscriptions; Apple and Google Play take the payments.
  • Resend delivers Android issue reports to the support inbox.
  • Critique history is stored only on the device; an account does not sync history between devices.

Tools named in the sources

Each one opens its page in the Tools tab, with every story that uses it.

04

Who tried this before Crit, and why did they fail?

Four companies in our database of failed startups tried to give designers or job seekers feedback or design help as a product. The values below are from that database and are not independently verified.

Died 2013 to 2016Burned US$120K

Watchsend

The promise

Record each tap and swipe of app users so that designers can see where an interface fails.

Why it died

Larger analytics companies offered the same, and video data cost too much to store.

Competition
Died 2014 to 2020Burned US$4.7M

The Grid

The promise

Let AI design a website, without a designer.

Why it died

The AI of the time made weak designs, and simpler website builders gave better results.

Product/Tech Failure
Died 2009 to 2012Burned US$20K

Jobspice

The promise

A well-designed resume for job seekers without design skills.

Why it died

It sold one narrow product while LinkedIn and free tools covered the same need.

Competition
Died 2012 to 2015Burned US$120K

Scoutzie

The promise

Custom design work from selected freelance designers.

Why it died

Cheaper marketplaces such as Fiverr and Upwork took the buyers.

Competition

The failed startups come from our database of 1,749 dead startups, retold here in our own words. Its entries are AI-assisted summaries of public sources, so these cards carry no evidence grade.

What changed

Watchsend and The Grid each needed heavy technology of their own: video capture and storage, or a design system that did not yet work well. Jobspice and Scoutzie sold one narrow service that free tools or cheaper marketplaces could replace. All four raised money and still could not cover their costs.

Crit rents its model from Anthropic and pays per request, so it needs no AI team and no servers for training. A multimodal model, one that reads images and PDF layout as well as text, can now write a usable critique of a screen or a deck, which The Grid's generation of AI could not. The risk from the predecessors remains: the same model is available to anyone, including the design tools that designers already use.

05

Can one person copy Crit now?

Yes, the method is easy to copy. A paying audience is the hard part.

One expert, a fixed review format, a rented model and app-store billing are enough to ship this kind of app in weeks. The self-reported US$42 MRR after seven months shows that shipping is not the same as finding buyers.

Where it is still open: Expert critique in other fields where people want a second opinion before a meeting: grant proposals, sales emails, product requirement documents, architecture diagrams.

  1. 1Write down how you review work in your own field, as a fixed list of dimensions and a fixed number of fixes.
  2. 2Ask the user for the audience and the goal before the model sees the file.
  3. 3Give a small number of complete free reviews, then charge a subscription.
  4. 4Add a revision check, so a second upload compares the new work with the earlier fixes.

What could go wrong for Crit?

The risks are the mirror image of the causes above.

What is not verified

The only money figure, US$42 MRR, comes from one source: the IndieMakerList profile, facts checked on 19 October 2026, which says the maker shares small revenue numbers in his X bio. X could not be read for this page. No payment-processor profile, store revenue report or interview was found. A reader could look for a verified revenue profile such as TrustMRR or a founder post with a dashboard screenshot.

Very small so far

Three App Store ratings and more than 10 Google Play downloads in November 2026 show an early product. The monthly price fell from US$12.99 in March 2026 to US$5.99, as the release notes and the site show, which suggests the maker is still testing what buyers will pay.

Depends on one model provider

The privacy page names Anthropic's API as the service that writes every critique. A price change, an outage or a change of Anthropic's terms would reach Crit directly.

Competition

Other stories on this site generate interfaces (UX Pilot) or review resumes (Rezi, Sheets Resume); Crit sells the critique of finished work instead, and general chat apps that read images can give a similar review without a separate app.

One person, written as "we"

The support and privacy pages write "we" and "our team", and the support address is a studio address. The only person a source names is Vishal Mehta; no source gives a headcount, so the team is taken as one maker.

Reviews and AI limits

The App Store shows two written reviews, both very positive; their authors' relation to the maker is not known. The site itself says the AI "can miss context, make mistakes, or disagree with your intent" and that scores are not a certification.

Sources

The grade next to each source is the best grade that the source can support. "Read in full" means that the text of the page was downloaded and the numbers were checked in it.

  1. D IndieMakerList: Vishal Mehta (@idyeahstudio), Creator of Crit, Crit by Keya
    Read in full on 6 November 2026. Directory profile, facts checked 19 October 2026, not claimed by the maker. Source for the self-reported US$42 MRR and the maker's background.
  2. C Crit home page: AI Design Critique Before the Client Review
    Read in full on 6 November 2026. Source for the product, the free critiques and the Pro prices.
  3. C Crit Support: Uploads, Subscriptions and Privacy
    Read in full. Source for file limits, what a free critique includes and the subscription terms.
  4. C Crit privacy page, last updated 2 October 2026
    Read the sections on AI processing, service providers, subscriptions and children. Source for Anthropic's API, Supabase, RevenueCat and Resend.
  5. C App Store: Crit: AI Design Advisor, IDYeah Studio LLC
    Read in full on 6 November 2026. Source for the version history, ratings, age rating 4+ and in-app purchase prices.
  6. C Google Play: Crit, AI Design Advisor, IDYeah Studio
    Read in full on 6 November 2026. Source for the download count, update date and developer contact.
  7. C keya, a studio for thoughtful digital work
    Read in full. The maker's product studio page; source for the sister audit product only.
  8. D IndieMakerList open data, makers.json, generated 5 November 2026
    Downloaded by the pipeline's harvester on 6 November 2026; read the Vishal Mehta record. Same figure as the profile, same underlying source.
  9. C Database of failed startups, local export
    Local export. AI-written summaries, not independently verified. Source for the failed predecessors.

Run this company? Send corrections or a verified figure to aiolum@livyden.com

Back to all stories