Six slides from real pitch decks that use integrations — the other software a product connects to — as evidence. For each, we record what the slide actually shows: a count over time, a total with a build-speed claim, a wall of named partners, an early count beside targets, or partners still in negotiation. We note which figures are measured, which are claims and which are plans.

Integration slides from real pitch decks

Each example shows the exact stored slide beside its analysis and links to the full teardown. Figures are the companies' own unless marked as our calculation. Stage and year are given only where the slide states them.

MindsDB product slide — slide 11

Open-source platform connecting AI models to databases. The slide is tagged "Exponential growth: Community driven integrations results"; footer page 11.

MindsDB pitch deck product slide 11 — MindsDB deck, slide 11. Exact stored slide matched to this analysis.

Our analysis: The slide makes integrations a momentum metric and gives a cause: opening integration-building to the community. Pairing contributors with integrations makes the cause plausible, though the slide does not split integrations by who built them.

Evidence and limitation: Company-reported, dated and plotted. Our calculation: 15 to 100 is 6.7 times; contributors grew 4.3 times over the same period.

What a founder can adapt: Plot your integration count by quarter and mark what changed when growth accelerated.

Supporting analysis

What the deck claims: Title "Integrations". Table, 2022-Q1 vs 2023-Q1: Contributors 100 to 433 (+333%); Integrations 15 to 100+ (+566%). Chart "Integrations vs. Quarter", Q1-2020 to Q1-2023, y-axis 0 to 125, with a dashed vertical line at Q1-2022 labelled "Community driven integrations".

Presentation choice: It is the only slide here with a measured, dated integration series.

When it does not fit: Don't claim a driver of growth without a metric that moves with it.

Read the MindsDB deck teardown

Coralogix product slide — slide 6

Log analytics and observability software for engineering teams; footer page 6.

Coralogix pitch deck product slide 6 — Coralogix deck, slide 6. Exact stored slide matched to this analysis.

Our analysis: Grouping by category shows a developer buyer that each layer of their stack is covered, and the 24-hour claim answers the objection about missing tools. The total is undated and the build time is untested on the slide.

Evidence and limitation: Claimed total and build time; 14 named examples shown.

What a founder can adapt: Group integrations by the layer of the customer's stack and say how fast you add a missing one — with an example.

Supporting analysis

What the deck claims: Title "Endless Data Integrations"; subtitle "Over 100 integrations - Pluggable API for any integration creation in under 24H". Logos by category: Code Libraries (Python, Java, .Net), Log Shipper (logstash, Fluentd, Filebeat), CI/CD (Jenkins, Circle CI, GitHub), Cloud Providers (AWS, Azure, GCP), Containerization (Docker, Kubernetes), "And Many More...".

Presentation choice: It pairs breadth with a promise for gaps.

When it does not fit: Don't title a slide "endless" when you can give the count and date.

Read the Coralogix deck teardown

Veem product slide — slide 10

Business payments platform for small and mid-sized companies; footer page 10.

Veem pitch deck product slide 10 — Veem deck, slide 10. Exact stored slide matched to this analysis.

Our analysis: The screenshot is the strongest element: it shows the customer never leaves the accounting system to pay. The bottom line ties integrations to adoption, the business argument. A share of payments initiated through integrations would have turned it into traction.

Evidence and limitation: Named partners and a product screenshot; no count, usage or revenue share.

What a founder can adapt: Show one integration working inside the partner's screen and say what share of usage comes through it.

Supporting analysis

What the deck claims: Title "Highly Integrated Experience — Plug-in Payments to the Customer's Business Context". "Integrations with Third-Party Services": Oracle NetSuite, Xero, Intuit QuickBooks, Magento, Zapier, "And more...". "Example Integration Interface": a NetSuite bill-payment screen with "Veem It!" and "Upload Attachment to Veem" buttons, captioned "Veem payment option accessible from core work flows". Footer: "Veem's Integration into Various Accounting Packages Allows for Seamless Adoption of Services".

Presentation choice: It shows the integration in use, not just its logo.

When it does not fit: Don't stop at logos when you can show the workflow.

Read the Veem deck teardown

Xentral product slide — slide 7

Operations software (ERP) for e-commerce businesses. The slide is titled "Fully Customizable to your needs".

Xentral pitch deck product slide 7 — Xentral deck, slide 7. Exact stored slide matched to this analysis.

Our analysis: Integrations here support a modularity argument: connect to any shop, add modules as you grow. The large numbers do the work, but without a partner name a reader cannot tell which shop systems are covered.

Evidence and limitation: Claimed totals; no partner named and no date.

What a founder can adapt: Name the top shop platforms behind the count and date it.

Supporting analysis

What the deck claims: Three tiles: "60 — Over 60 Integrations & GROWING — Connect with Shops"; "300 — Over 300 modules cover almost any business case possible"; "UPDATES — New Integrations are being developed". Bullets: "Open-source API (Jede Art von Drittsysteme anbinden)" and "Designed from the ground up to scale! Buy more or remove as needed to match your needs".

Presentation choice: It shows integrations used to argue product breadth.

When it does not fit: Don't present a count with no named example.

Read the Xentral deck teardown

Mailage product slide — slide 10

Early-stage team email product focused on integrations. A milestones slide.

Mailage pitch deck product slide 10 — Mailage deck, slide 10. Exact stored slide matched to this analysis.

Our analysis: The slide is candid about stage: five integrations now, more planned, tied to user and paid-plan targets. It shows the integration count as a roadmap metric rather than a boast — appropriate before launch.

Evidence and limitation: Current figures are company claims; 12+ and 20+ are targets.

What a founder can adapt: Give today's count, dated targets, and which integrations come first.

Supporting analysis

What the deck claims: "Current Status: We currently have 110 Users, 5 integrations, 6000 beta signup queue." "Next 1-3 months: Fixing product issues and getting ready for a public beta launch, Target Users: 500, Integrations: 12+." "6-8 months: Incorporate Premium features and launch Paid plans. Target Free Users: 700, Target Paid Users: 50, Integrations: 20+."

Presentation choice: It shows how to present integrations honestly at the earliest stage.

When it does not fit: Don't merge targets into the current count.

Read the Mailage deck teardown

Buffer product slide — slide 10

Social media scheduling tool. The slide is titled "A sharing standard". The page was read from the original deck file, but its stored image is blocked because the deck's page count is not yet verified in our records; no substitute is used.

Verified source excerpt — slide 10

"6 integrations so far"; "in talks with Reeder, Pocket and Feedly"; "We plan to become the default sharing standard in any app". A phone screenshot shows a share menu with Copy Link, Safari, Pocket, Twitter, Facebook, Buffer and Message.

The exact product image is not present in the stored slide-image set. No substitute is used.

Our analysis: Integrations here are a distribution strategy: every app that adds a Buffer share button sends users to Buffer. The slide separates live (6) from in-talks (3 named apps), which keeps it honest.

Evidence and limitation: Current count claimed; three partners in negotiation; the standard is a plan.

What a founder can adapt: If integrations bring you users, say how many sign-ups come through them, and name partners in talks as talks.

Supporting analysis

What the deck claims: "6 integrations so far"; "in talks with Reeder, Pocket and Feedly"; "We plan to become the default sharing standard in any app". A phone screenshot shows a share menu with Copy Link, Safari, Pocket, Twitter, Facebook, Buffer and Message.

Presentation choice: It shows integrations framed as a distribution channel, with negotiations labelled as such.

When it does not fit: Don't count partners in negotiation as integrations.

Read the Buffer deck teardown

Why integrations count as evidence

For software sold into existing workflows, integrations decide how hard a product is to adopt. A buyer who must export data by hand, or wait for an engineering project, buys more slowly and leaves more easily. An investor reading a product slide therefore asks: does this plug into what customers already run, and is that list getting longer? Integrations can also be a distribution channel — a listing inside a larger platform's marketplace or share menu puts the product in front of that platform's users.

The weakness of the format is that counts are easy to inflate. One vendor's "integration" is a full two-way sync; another's is a webhook or a third-party connector. A slide that shows only a big number invites the question of what was counted. The slides below show how founders make the number mean something: by showing growth, naming partners, showing the integration in use, or being candid about what is still a plan.

Integrations sit naturally on the product slide, but they often support other arguments in the deck — Buffer's slide is really about becoming a distribution standard, and MindsDB's is about community momentum. Decide which argument the integrations serve and say it.

The five forms, most checkable first

A count over time (MindsDB) is the strongest. Its table shows integrations growing from 15 (2022-Q1) to 100+ (2023-Q1), labelled +566%, and contributors from 100 to 433, labelled +333%. A quarterly chart from Q1-2020 to Q1-2023 shows a flat line until a dashed marker labelled "Community driven integrations" at Q1-2022, after which the curve rises steeply. The figures are company-reported but dated and plotted, so a reader can see the inflection and its stated cause.

A total with a build-speed claim (Coralogix) answers the "what if you don't support my tool?" objection. The slide states "Over 100 integrations - Pluggable API for any integration creation in under 24H" and groups logos by category: code libraries (Python, Java, .Net), log shippers (logstash, Fluentd, Filebeat), CI/CD (Jenkins, Circle CI, GitHub), cloud providers (AWS, Azure, GCP) and containerization (Docker, Kubernetes), ending "And Many More...". The categories show coverage of the customer's stack; the 24-hour figure is a claim.

Named partner logos with proof of use (Veem) trade a number for recognition. Under "Integrations with Third-Party Services" Veem shows Oracle NetSuite, Xero, QuickBooks, Magento and Zapier, then an "Example Integration Interface" — a NetSuite bill-payment screen with a Veem button, captioned "Veem payment option accessible from core work flows". There is no count, but a finance buyer sees their own system.

A total beside product breadth (Xentral) presents integrations as part of a modular product: "Over 60 Integrations & GROWING — Connect with Shops", "Over 300 modules cover almost any business case possible", and "New Integrations are being developed", plus an open-source API. The claim is bold and unspecific: no partner is named.

Early counts with targets or negotiations (Mailage, Buffer) are honest about stage. Mailage's milestones slide lists current status — 110 users, 5 integrations, a 6,000-person beta signup queue — then targets of 12+ integrations in the next one to three months and 20+ in six to eight months. Buffer states "6 integrations so far", "in talks with Reeder, Pocket and Feedly", and the plan to "become the default sharing standard in any app", beside a phone screenshot of a share menu with Buffer among the options.

Measured, claimed or planned — label it

Of the six slides, only MindsDB's shows a measured series: dated counts and a plotted history. Coralogix, Veem and Xentral make claims about what exists now. Mailage mixes a current count with planned targets, and Buffer mixes a current count with partners under negotiation. Each is legitimate if labelled; the risk is a reader taking a target or a conversation for a live integration.

Our calculation on MindsDB: 15 to 100 is a 6.7-fold increase, consistent with the printed +566% (the slide's "100+" means the true figure may be higher). Contributors rising 4.3-fold over the same year supports the slide's claim that the community drove the growth, though the slide does not show how many integrations community members built.

Watch for three details a reader will check. First, the definition: say whether a listed integration is built and maintained by you, by the partner, or through a connector service such as Zapier, because investors discount the last kind. Second, usage: an integration nobody uses adds maintenance cost without adoption, so the share of active customers using at least one integration is more persuasive than the total. Third, dependency: if most customers arrive through one partner's marketplace, that partner's policy changes become a business risk worth naming. None of the six slides addresses all three; MindsDB comes closest on growth and Veem on usage in context.

For founders: if you track integrations, show the series and name the top partners by customer usage. If you are early, give the current count, name the partners you are negotiating with as negotiations, and set dated targets — as Mailage and Buffer do.

Common mistakes

Frequently asked questions

How do I show integrations on a pitch deck?

Give today's count with a date, show how it has grown, name the partners customers use most, and say what integrations do for adoption or distribution. MindsDB plots integrations by quarter; Veem names partners and shows its button inside NetSuite.

Is a large integration count enough?

No. Without a date, a definition or named partners, a count like Xentral's "over 60" cannot be checked. Add a trend or top partners.

Can I include partners I'm still negotiating with?

Yes, labelled as negotiations — Buffer lists "in talks with Reeder, Pocket and Feedly" separately from its 6 live integrations.

What should an early-stage startup show?

The current count and dated targets, as Mailage does (5 now, 12+ in one to three months, 20+ in six to eight months).

How do I show integrations drive growth?

Report the share of sign-ups or usage coming through them. None of the six slides here does; Buffer's distribution argument and Veem's adoption line would both be stronger with that figure.

How to Show Integrations on a Pitch Deck (6 Real Slides)