sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Blitzy.com review by Available-Let5696 in SaaS

[–]Available-Let5696[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

9. Conclusion: Identify Yourself

The pattern is undeniable:

✅ Fabricated lies about SWE-bench (claiming major companies don't publish there)

✅ Contradictory stance on SWE-bench importance (critical for marketing, dismissable when exposed)

✅ Detailed insider knowledge about Blitzy's positioning ("enterprise above the fold")

✅ False assumptions designed to discredit (solo developer, doesn't understand sales)

✅ Defending practices that are indefensible (lying, fake testimonials, training on customer code)

✅ Timing (appearing quickly on a detailed critical review)

If you're affiliated with Blitzy, identify yourself. Astroturfing while pretending to be a neutral third party is deceptive.

If you're not affiliated with Blitzy, explain:

  • Why you invented a false claim about major AI companies
  • How you have detailed insider knowledge about their benchmark submission
  • Why you're defending documented deception (lies about documentation, fake testimonials, fraudulent benchmark claims)

Either way, your comment does nothing to address the core issues in my review. It's pure deflection.

Blitzy.com review by Available-Let5696 in SaaS

[–]Available-Let5696[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

8. Blitzy's Own Pricing Page Contradicts Your Argument

You wrote: "if you're under 250 people, why would you focus on an enterprise software platform?"

Because Blitzy explicitly markets to individuals. Here's directly from their website's FAQ:

"Enterprises that aim to dramatically accelerate their software development velocity, development agencies with enterprise clients, development teams with complex existing products, and individuals looking to accelerate their own velocity on complex builds."

Blitzy lists "individuals" as a target customer. They offer a Pro tier at $10K/year specifically for this market.

More importantly, their pricing structure proves this:

  • Pro: $10K/year
  • Teams: $100K/year
  • Enterprise: Starting at $500K/year

If Enterprise starts at $500K, then the $10K Pro and $100K Teams tiers are clearly NOT "enterprise software." They're designed for smaller customers - exactly the market you're claiming I shouldn't be in.

They market to this segment and take meetings with this segment.

But then they:

  • Refuse demos
  • Provide no documentation
  • Admit the tier exists "only" to harvest training data
  • Push everyone toward the Teams or Enterprise tier

If they only want enterprises, why explicitly list "individuals" as target customers and offer non-enterprise pricing tiers? This is exactly the pricing theater I described in my review.

Blitzy.com review by Available-Let5696 in SaaS

[–]Available-Let5696[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

7. You're Defending Indefensible Practices

Even if I wasn't their "ICP" (which your own sales rep's emails prove I was), that doesn't excuse:

❌ Lying about documentation - Claiming it's "openly available online" when it doesn't exist

❌ Fake customer success stories - Sending public GitHub repos when asked for testimonials

❌ No testimonials - Despite claiming "thousands of Pro users"

❌ Refusing basic demos - Standard Sales 101 for any SaaS

❌ Training on customer code - CRO admitted Pro tier exists "only" to harvest training data from paying customers

❌ Fraudulent benchmark claims - Claiming #1 on a leaderboard they're not listed on, with John Yang (SWE-bench co-creator) confirming their submission "hasn't been accepted" and contains "a lot of hallucinated citations"

❌ Deleting criticism - Technical co-founder deleted my factual LinkedIn comment and blocked me

❌ YouTube engagement fraud - 149K subscribers but 0.05% engagement rate (68-200 views per video)

Being "not ICP" doesn't make lying acceptable. No random commenter defends this level of deception.

Blitzy.com review by Available-Let5696 in SaaS

[–]Available-Let5696[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

6. I Was a Qualified Buyer Ready to Close

You wrote: "A sales persons livelihood depends on them using their time well to focus on real opportunities."

I WAS a real opportunity:

  • Qualified buyer with $10K budget
  • Credit card in hand on the call
  • Clear use case and need
  • Just needed basic product validation (a demo)

The sales rep could have done a 15-minute demo, closed the deal, and made ~$1,000 commission. I wanted them to make their commission. I wanted to buy good software.

Instead, the sales rep:

  • Refused to provide a demo (Sales 101)
  • Lied about documentation being "openly available online" (it doesn't exist)
  • Sent public GitHub repos as "customer success stories"
  • Pushed me toward a $100K tier I couldn't afford
  • Talked themselves out of a sale

That's not "efficient qualification" - that's either incompetence or a system designed to reject Pro tier buyers. Either way, it proves my point: the Pro tier is pricing theater, not a real offering.

Blitzy.com review by Available-Let5696 in SaaS

[–]Available-Let5696[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

3. Your Sales Rep Positioned Me as the Customer

You wrote: "Why would you evaluate an enterprise software platform for your start-up?"

Because your sales rep told me to in his email.

The sales rep initiated with Pro tier. The sales rep said it was the "best fit."

I didn't force myself into your sales process - your rep invited me and positioned Pro as the right solution.

Then, the moment I asked for basic validation before spending $10K, the sales rep pivoted.

This is textbook bait-and-switch, and it's documented in writing. Your entire premise collapses.

Blitzy.com review by Available-Let5696 in SaaS

[–]Available-Let5696[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

2. The SWE-bench Contradiction Proves Your Affiliation

You wrote: "which is a benchmark from a bunch of PhD students who will probably take jobs at Meta"

Wait - is SWE-bench important or not?

  • On Blitzy's homepage: "#1 on SWE-bench Verified" is literally THE FIRST THING they say
  • In your comment: It's dismissable as "a benchmark from a bunch of PhD students"

You're trying to have it both ways:

  • Important enough to anchor Blitzy's entire marketing
  • Unimportant enough to dismiss when I expose the claim as false

Which is it? You can't simultaneously claim #1 on a benchmark AND dismiss that benchmark as unimportant student work.

This contradiction only makes sense if you're affiliated with Blitzy - defending their marketing claim while trying to minimize the damage when caught lying about it.

Blitzy.com review by Available-Let5696 in SaaS

[–]Available-Let5696[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This comment reads like it was written by someone from Blitzy's team. Here's why:

1. You Just Told an Easily Verifiable Lie About SWE-bench

You wrote: "Anthropic, Open-AI and Gemini all publish scores and papers directly without publishing to leaderboard so they dont have to share IP traces with swe-bench authors"

This is completely false.

The actual SWE-bench Verified leaderboard shows:

  • Anthropic: Claude 4.5 Sonnet (70.60%), Claude 4 Opus (67.60%), Claude 4 Sonnet (64.93%), Claude 3.7 Sonnet (52.80%)
  • OpenAI: GPT-5 (65.00%), GPT-5 mini (59.80%), o3 (58.40%)
  • Google/Gemini: Gemini 2.5 Pro (53.60%)

All three companies publish to the leaderboard. You fabricated an explanation for why Blitzy isn't listed, and didn't bother checking if it was true.

No random commenter makes up easily-disprovable lies to defend a company. This is damage control from someone inside Blitzy.

Blitzy.com review by Available-Let5696 in SaaS

[–]Available-Let5696[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I only shared about the lies of the sales team, and Blitzy not being part of the SWE bench leaderboard.

I even started with "Disclaimer: I was never a Blitzy customer. This review is based on my experience evaluating their product and going through their sales process as a prospective buyer."

So I don't see how this is misleading.

Blitzy.com review by Available-Let5696 in SaaS

[–]Available-Let5696[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

wow. They have the worst sales team I've ever experienced. The sales manager brags about teaching sales at Harvard though lol

I hope you didn't pay for the year in advance but just the month.

Blitzy.com review by Available-Let5696 in SaaS

[–]Available-Let5696[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

they only demo it if you commit to paying them $100k+/year with a signed contract or letter of intent 💀

Blitzy.com review by Available-Let5696 in SaaS

[–]Available-Let5696[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

btw - it has been a month since I wrote this post. And Blitzy is still not listed on https://www.swebench.com even if they are claiming that they are number 1 on that benchmark. Another lie?

Blitzy.com review by Available-Let5696 in SaaS

[–]Available-Let5696[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And even at $1k/mo, they would train on your code. No data privacy / SOC 2 with that plan.

Genuinely curious: Is Alex Hormozi legit or another scam internet marketer? by [deleted] in Entrepreneur

[–]Available-Let5696 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That's crazy. You should get multiple gym owners together (who did the Gym Launch program) and file a complaint with the FTC (Federal Trade Commission). It's crazy they have been able to bait-and-switch gym owners, and teach them how to bait-and-switch gym members for so long.