Venture Capital Funding

5% of venture capitalists have generated 90% of the industry's profits. Choosing the right VC firm and the right individual VC investor is one of the most consequential decisions a founder, capital allocator, or young VC can make. Blake Jackson and I have developed a transparent, data-driven methodology for ranking which VCs are best at what they do.  We rank both firms and individual investors on six factors: valuation, dilution, net profits, value add, human-capital decay, and how credit is allocated between firms and individual investors. Each factor is straightforward to construct and interpret. We applied the methodology to more than 230,000 investments by over 13,000 VCs across 30 years. Today I’m sharing the entire methodology. To illustrate how it works, I’m also sharing our 2023 rankings of the top 100 US-based VC firms and top 100 individual VC investors: https://lnkd.in/g98jvm5P A few findings: — Sequoia ranks first among firms, with about 1.5X the points of the second-place investor. — Just 67 companies drive most of the top 100's 2023 results, with Snowflake, Robinhood, and DoorDash the most important ones. — Nearly 75% of VC-backed companies returned less to their investors than the investors put in. We also compared our results with the US-based VCs in the 2023 Forbes Midas list. The differences are stark. Only 42 of our top 100 appear on Midas. Among investors ranked in top 100 by both lists, the correlation is only ~0.27. We attempted to replicate the Midas methodology and found significant inconsistencies that methodological differences alone cannot explain. The full methodology and preliminary results are available on my Substack. I welcome feedback — including data corrections — from VCs, firms, and anyone in the ecosystem. What’s next: I will be releasing the 2026 rankings soon, first on my Substack. Subscribe if you'd like to see them first.

My friend raised $100 million from well-known VCs and is shutting the company down in the next couple of weeks. I met with him to learn what went wrong. He asked me to share his recent startup experience with my LinkedIn community, hoping it could benefit other founders. His biggest regret on his nearly 7-year journey was accepting a significantly overvalued Series A round. He raised a large financing round at a massive valuation from well-known VCs, which generated significant media buzz. This was the kind of moment many founders post about and celebrate. He had many term sheets and took the one with the largest valuation. Turns out, that inflated valuation from his round created immense pressure and set expectations so high that securing crucial follow-on funding became impossible. Then a few product delays hit. A key hire fell through. Normal startup turbulence. Follow-on funding dried up. Morale dropped. The story shifted. He also had many early VCs on his cap table that were chasing markups. Their playbook was simple: inject capital, hype the company, and flip it to the next investor at a higher valuation. The lesson? Valuation is not validation. It’s a bet. And if it’s misaligned with reality, it can sink even the most promising company. A more grounded valuation is the key to sustainable growth and navigating the long, unpredictable startup journey. Raise what you need. From people you trust. Build a good foundation to get through any ups and downs. #founder #funding #investing #vc #venturecapital #entrepreneur #startup

Europe’s space tech ecosystem doesn’t get enough credit for what it’s quietly building. Our latest European space tech map shows the most innovative space companies shaping the European ecosystem, from Build & Launch to Analyse & Product. Across the continent, over 5,000 companies are now active in space and satellite technologies, supported by ESA and EUSPA frameworks. The industry generates ~€8.8 billion annually and employs 60,000+ engineers and scientists. What makes Europe’s approach distinct is not scale, but structure. We’re building an interconnected network that combines scientific depth, industrial precision, and institutional reliability.   You can see it in the details: Reusable logistics platforms emerging in Germany and France. Micro-launchers advancing in the Nordics. In-orbit servicing startups gaining traction in the UK. The investment landscape is catching up to this momentum. In 2024, venture capital flowed into upstream space technologies at record levels: 🇩🇪 Germany – $561M 🇪🇸 Spain – $274M 🇬🇧 UK – $250M 🇫🇷 France – $229M 🇫🇮 Finland – $134M 🇨🇭 Switzerland – $113M   This shift to problem-solving investments is reflected in Europe’s largest space tech fundraises in the past 12 months:   − The Exploration Company (France/Germany) – $160M, Series B − Isar Aerospace (Germany) – $165M, Series C − ICEYE (Finland) – $136M, Series D − KINEXON (Germany) – $130M, Series A − Descartes Underwriting (France) – $120M, Series B   At APEX Ventures, we’re proud to back founders who are driving this transformation forward — companies like OKAPI:Orbits, ATMOS Space Cargo,OroraTech, Yuri each redefining what European innovation looks like in orbit. Let us know if we missed any startups, and we will add them in our version 2 of this map.   #Venturecapital #AI #Deeptech #Startups   Follow us at APEX Ventures and subscribe to our newsletter for exclusive content on groundbreaking Deep Tech startups:   🔗 https://t2m.io/EV2qHQuo

As investors, we know that risk is inherent. But you can 𝐝𝐞-𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐤 your startup investments. How? By adjusting your support based on each startup stage’s risks. This risk chart by Abhishek Maran is great. But here’s how I’d change it from an investor’s POV 👇 In pre-seed, the risk lies mostly in 𝐯𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐝𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧. > Does it solve a real problem in the market? In seed, the risk lies mostly in 𝐭𝐞𝐚𝐦 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐞𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐲. > Do they have the skills to effectively iterate and improve? In Series A, the risk lies mostly in 𝐝𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐫𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲 (PMF). > Are customers really interested and willing to pay? In Series B, the risk lies mostly in 𝐞𝐱𝐩𝐚𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧. > Are they able to handle the complexities of scaling? In Series C+, the risk lies mostly in the right 𝐞𝐱𝐢𝐭 𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐠𝐲. > Are they on track and prepared for an attractive exit? There are risks that are always there, regardless of a company’s maturity: ➡ Market Disruption ➡ Competition ➡ Culture 💬 My tip for investors: Be able to provide the network, resources, mentorship, and coaching that startups need to overcome the inevitable challenges and risks. Because at the end of the day, THEIR success is YOUR success. #investing #venturecapital #strategy #innovation #technology 🔔 Curated content for investors - trends, insights, and resources.

This is what success looks like in VC. Founders in the portfolio succeeding is one part. But the numbers are key too. How to measure real wins in VC: ❇️1. DPI (Distributions to Paid-In Capital) - Measures actual cash returns to limited partners (LPs). - Reflects tangible profitability for LPs. - Usable to fund future fund commitments. ❇️2. TVPI (Total Value to Paid-In Capital) - Combines cash distributions and unrealised investments. - Provides a broader view of fund performance and efficiency. - Takes into account private market valuation. ❇️3. IRR (Internal Rate of Return) - Evaluates time-adjusted yearly return rates. - Measures fund performance over time. ❇️4. Bulge Bracket Follow-on - Assesses follow-on funding from top-tier firms. - Demonstrates investment quality and outcome potential. - Particularly valuable for early-stage funds. ❇️5. Gross MOIC (Multiple of Invested Capital): - Measures performance of underlying investments - Excludes fees and expenses which are front-loaded and can distort performance at early stage of fund. These key metrics help LPs evaluate the health of VCs. Peeling back all the snazzy branding, press and glowing reviews... End of the day, VCs are investors and trusted stewards of capital. They need to pick not just the right businesses but at the right price. And, they need to deliver value to their LPs. Anything more to add?

The Army Just Launched FUZE. A $750M Annual VC Fund for Defense Startups. Secretary Dan Driscoll unveiled the Army's new venture capital model at the Demand Signal Forum in Arlington. Former private equity exec turned Army Secretary just flipped the acquisition playbook. FUZE channels $750M annually into nontraditional contractors. The man behind it? Driscoll ran a $200M VC fund before taking office. Iraq veteran with 10th Mountain Division. Yale Law grad. Sworn in by VP Vance in February. He calls traditional acquisition a "calcified bureaucracy" and he's not wrong. How it works. • Scout external tech, not internal solutions • Live pitch events starting October at AUSA • Other Transactional Authorities for rapid contracts • "Colorless money" flexible funding across programs First targets. • Counter-drone systems (interceptors, jammers) • Electronic warfare for spectrum dominance • Energy resilience (batteries for -40°F operations) • AI-driven autonomy and command systems Two prizes already announced. • $500K for emerging tech (October 2025) • $2.5M for counterstrike capabilities with U.S. Army Europe The shift is stark. Traditional acquisition takes 10+ years. FUZE promises prototypes to programs of record in months. Army labs and 75th Innovation Command vet the tech. Winners scale to production. Critics worry about over-focusing on tech while recruiting struggles. But Ukraine proved agile beats legacy. When commercial drones outpace billion-dollar programs, the model needs disruption. Three ways in. • SBIR/STTR grants for early stage • xTech challenges for specific problems • Direct pitches at AUSA mid-October Startups like Anduril benefit. Legacy primes lose their moat. The Army's telling innovators "we're open for business." Is your tech ready for a VC-style pitch to the Pentagon?

The 8 Part Test Before Taking a VC Term Sheet: #1. Talk to as many founders they’ve invested in as you can. Do reference checks. You may hear 1 or 2 rough stories, bear that in mind. In fact, expect that. Don’t expect 100% support, at least not for folks at big funds that write big checks and serve on boards. But talk to as many as you can, at least a few. And listen. And ask how supportive they were vs. the others. You will hear advice from a lot of folks to talk to founders that failed, to see how the VCs supported them. I think that’s fine. But the flaw in that advice is that failures are messy. You get more value IMHO talking to founders that built something that got to some scale at least. #2. Ask how many investments they write second and third checks into. VCs that don’t write second checks are less valuable. Their financial contributions will be mostly over after the initial check. At least know the answer here. All things being equal, it’s better to take money from a VC that often writes second and third checks. You probably will need one. #3. See how pushy they are around control. If they insist on a board seat for < 10% ownership, that’s a flag. If they want control disproportionate to the cap table, that’s a flag. #4. Ask if they’ll still be there in 10 years, at the same fund. Just ask.  If you don’t get a clear answer, they may not be. It’s definitely a bummer if a VC doesn’t stay at the firm that invested in you. Ask. And realize that if they don’t run the place, and/or aren’t a “managing general partner” or something similar — there’s a decent chance they aren’t at the firm as long as you’re at the helm as CEO. #5. Ask what’s the toughest founder-VC experience they’ve been through, and what they learned from it. They are always frictions. See what they’ve learned from it. #6. Ask about some of their stories of bringing in outside CEOs to run their startups. See how it happened, and why, and how they think about it. Bringing in an outside CEO at the growth stage is a complex topic, with complex answers. Good to know how they think about it. Personally, I’ve never done it. I’m Team Founder or bust. #7. Ask what their worst investment was, and why. They know. Let them talk about it for a while. Don’t interrupt or stop them :). You’ll learn a lot. #8. Ask what CEO they’ve invested in that they respect the most. This is what they’ll be looking for from you.  If you don’t like what you hear, it may not be a great fit. If you have options.

2025 was the year SpaceTech startups in India really took flight Digantara raised $50M Series B in Dec 2025, Pixxel beat incumbents to win the ₹1200 crore EO-PPP, Govt launched the ₹1600 crore Antariksh Venture Capital Fund & much more India’s $10bn+ SpaceTech opportunity is visible in plain sight - there is progress on Policy, Product & Procurement. Here is a recap of the year gone by⤵️ 1️⃣ SpaceTech startups delivered on milestones despite being on shoestring budgets (a) Jan 2, 2025 - Bellatrix Aerospace - RUDRA green propulsion demo on POEM-4 successful (b) Jan 14, 2025 - Pixxel - First 3 Firefly hyperspectral satellites launched (Transporter-12) (c) Jan 14, 2025 - Digantara - First space-based SSA satellite launched (same rideshare) (d) May 21, 2025 - Skyroot Aerospace - Stage-separation test (Vikram-1) successful (e) Jun 11, 2025 - Skyroot Aerospace - Payload fairing separation test successful (f) Aug 8, 2025 - Skyroot Aerospace - Stage-1 static fire (KALAM-1200 motor) successful (g) Aug 26, 2025 - Pixxel - Second Firefly batch launched, completing phase-1 2️⃣ Funding shifted from small Seed cheques to large institutional rounds: (a) April ‘24: Dhruva Space (SmallSat platform) - $15M Series A (b) Dec '24: Pixxel (Earth Observation stack) - $24M Series B extension (c) May '25: InspeCity (satellite life extension) - $5.6M Seed (d) Sep '25: SpaceFields (propulsion)- $4.5M pre-Series A (e) Dec '25: Digantara (space situational awareness stack) - $50M Series B And, we have all heard rumors of a $55M Series C at Pixxel! Therefore, Digantara, Pixxel & Skyroot Aerspace would be the 3 Indian SpaceTech companies which have raised > $50M in a single funding round! 🏆 India’s RTP in space lies in our ability to provide globally optimal Tech at an affordable price: In 2017, ISRO’s PSLV-C37 carried 101 foreign satellites - less than a year later, the Cabinet cleared funding for 30 more PSLV launches. My grandfather reminded me of 21st November 1963 - ISRO’s first ever launch, India’s 1st ever rocket launch. India’s first rocket was transported on a bicycle through the sandy lanes of Thumba, near Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala - St. Mary Magdalene Church served as the launch command station. The world didn’t notice this at all but every major milestone since (e.g. Chandrayaan, Mangalyaan etc) has been closely tracked by the West. His words were: “We’re always late & therefore written off - but when we apply our mind+people++capital with conviction, we catch up & then shock everyone” #startups #india

Founders: use this cheatsheet to understand the current market for startup valuations at Seed, Series A, and Series B. Data is from US startups who raised a primary round from Jan-Sept 2024. Usually these sorts of charts just give a median and track it over time - but in this case, I thought it would be useful to split the data into the full range. From the 10th percentile at the low end to the 90th percentile at the high end. 𝗜𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗙𝗶𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴𝘀 • Energy consistently has the highest or close to highest upper range across the sectors we studied. Maybe in part due to the high capital needs (which pushes valuations up if dilution is to remain manageable).    • The gap between the lower end of the range (say 10th to 25th percentile) is usually much smaller than the gap between the 75th and the 90th. There really are some wild outlier valuations across most industries.    • Industries are fairly close together at the median valuation at Seed, but the differences become much more stark as you move across the alphabet stages.    • Round sizes have been rising at Seed and Series A across the past year (and a little at B as well, though less so). This has in turn pushed those median vals higher.    • Companies that raise at the 90th percentile have no guarantee of staying on that upper pathway through the next round. Many startups will bounce around in the ranges from round to round.    • There are regional variations - the ranges for Silicon Valley startups will typically be higher at each benchmark than for startups in the Midwest or South. Not right answers in these charts - only a snapshot of real deals being completed. Share with a fundraising founder, and here's to a strong deal season to close 2024! #startups #founders #valuations #fundraising #venturecapital Farm-to-table data, prepared fresh every Thursday morning in our data newsletter. Subscribe at the link in graphic.

Europe is world-class at seeding innovation but poor at owning it as it grows. We need to change that! 💪🏼 Here's why, and how: Without a stronger domestic growth-stage ecosystem, we are essentially exporting the economic upside and long-term ownership of our own climate champions to foreign markets. Today, we at World Fund published our latest report: “The Series B Funding Gap in European Climate Tech: Key Market Insights.” The report quantifies a structural “missing middle” in European venture, the early-growth capital needed to take deep tech and hardware-heavy climate solutions from prototype to production. What we found: 1. Europe’s average Series B is $35.2M, more than 20% smaller than the US ($45.5M) 2. Europe accumulated a $13.5B Series B shortfall vs the US, an annual deficit of $2.7B 3. Only 15% of European Seed-backed climate tech companies reach Series B, vs 25% in the US 4. As rounds get larger, European participation drops sharply, by $250M+, nearly half of capital is foreign What we believe it will take to fix it: 1. Mobilising institutional capital (pensions, insurers, banks), supported by regulatory reform 2. Building more mid-sized European growth funds that can consistently lead $25–100M rounds 3. Expanding blended finance models that crowd in private capital at scale If Europe wants climate leadership, energy sovereignty, resilient supply chains, and the economic upside of the clean industrial revolution, we need to close the Series B gap. Special thanks to all those who contributed including Almi Invest, Cleantech for Europe, Cleantech Scandinavia, European Investment Fund (EIF), EIFO, Innovate UK, Tesi, and Dealroom.co. 👇 Read the full report in the link in the comments