Point Sopact Sense at your portfolio dataset and it blends SROI across investees — weighted by inputs, with contribution by investee and the top value drivers — so the headline ratio shows which investments actually create the value.
In short: A blended SROI aggregates the ratio across a whole portfolio — but a single headline number can hide which investees actually drive the value and which have almost no evidence behind them. To do it honestly, weight each investee's contribution by the inputs invested, show the value drivers, and flag any investee whose ratio rests on thin data. Point Sopact Sense at your portfolio dataset; it computes the blended ratio and grades each investee — green where it's measured, amber where the evidence is thin, red where it isn't measured at all.
A blended ratio is only as honest as its weakest investee. Work from a clean portfolio dataset with persistent contact IDs and load your Decision Brief so Sense knows the evidence standard:
You are the Sopact Sense Assistant working over the [DEMO] dataset (clean data + persistent contact IDs). Load my Decision Brief (decision, audience, outcomes, indicators, evidence standard) first, then wait for my task.
Ask for the blend and the breakdown together — a single ratio without contribution by investee tells you nothing about where the value comes from:
Aggregate SROI across portfolio [PORTFOLIO]: blended ratio, contribution by investee, top value drivers; weight by inputs; flag low evidence. Grade green / amber / red.
Five elements make it honest: the dataset (every investee's real data); the blended ratio (the portfolio headline); weighting by inputs (so a small investee can't swing the average); flagging thin evidence (investees running on too little data); and the grade (green / amber / red at a glance).
Sense returns the blended ratio with contribution by investee and a grade on each. The demo runs on the Funder Portfolio dataset, engineered to grade one green, one amber, one red:
Run on the Funder Portfolio dataset (DEMO 06) already loaded in Sopact Sense.
GRADE: green | INV-205 | measured, with enough responses to weight confidently; amber | INV-207 | thin evidence — few responses behind its ratio; red | INV-210 | unmeasured — no outcome data, excluded from the blend
The green investee is well measured and can be weighted confidently, the amber investee has too few responses behind its ratio to trust fully, and the red investee has no outcome data at all — it's excluded from the blend rather than guessed.
The blend is worth most when you firm up the investee dragging on its credibility. Take the lowest-graded investee and fix it with one realistic change:
Take the lowest-graded element above and fix it using only what the program could realistically measure. Show the before → after grade and the single indicator/edit that moves it to green.
For the portfolio, that's collecting baseline outcomes for the unmeasured investee before next cycle — so it can enter the blend on evidence instead of being left out.
Generate a decision-first report in your own brand, then a shareable link:
Create a 'missing & incomplete' report from this analysis in Sopact branding [or paste your website URL / brand guideline to apply your own]. List every element graded amber or red, what is missing, and the one input that fixes each. Lead with the decision this report informs.
Create a shareable link for this report and open it in a new tab.
The blend can flatter the weak. A high-performing investee can mask several that aren't measured. Always ask Sense for contribution by investee, not just the headline ratio.
Weight by inputs, not by count. Averaging investee ratios equally lets a tiny investment swing the portfolio number. Ask Sense to weight each investee's contribution by the capital invested.
Exclude, don't guess. An unmeasured investee should be flagged and left out of the blend, never assigned a placeholder ratio. Ask Sense which investees are running on too little evidence to include.
Tighten the portfolio while you're here. Ask Sense which investee would most improve the portfolio's evidence if measured next:
Which single investee, if it collected outcome data next cycle, would most improve the credibility of this blended SROI — and what one indicator should it start with?
Calculate each investee's SROI on its own value map, then blend them into a portfolio ratio by weighting each by the inputs invested — so larger investments count proportionally. Crucially, show contribution by investee and flag any whose ratio rests on thin or missing data, rather than letting one headline number stand in for the whole portfolio.
A blended SROI ratio is a single social-return figure for an entire portfolio, formed by combining each investee's net present value and dividing by total inputs. It's useful for a top-line view, but only honest when paired with the per-investee breakdown — otherwise it hides which investments actually create the value.
Because aggregation averages out detail. One strong investee can pull the blended ratio up while several others are barely measured or not measured at all. Weighting by inputs, showing contribution by investee, and flagging low-evidence investees are what stop a blended ratio from quietly papering over the weak spots.
Open Sopact Sense, paste your program description, and put it to work.
Try in Sopact
