The venture capital funnel highlights the natural selection process of the venture capital process. Three-fourths of companies are orphaned or die along the way.

Once you take venture capital, what can you expect? Below is what the data says life will look like.

But first some notes:

  • This report analyzes a cohort of tech companies that raised seed funding in 2009 and 2010, and follows them all the way through 11/19/2015. This is a sufficiently mature vintage for us to conduct this analysis on, i.e. these companies have had enough time to succeed, or fail.
  • Of note, Seed deals were on the whole less prominent in 2009-2010 than they are now. They’ve risen in popularity in the last few years with the explosion of micro VCs and the greater frequency of Seed deals by multi-stage funds. If we were to repeat this analysis a few years from now, the numbers could look very different.
The Q2 2016 Venture Pulse Report
KPMG and CB Insights' Q2 2016 VC report highlights the latest trends in venture capital funding globally.

Some of our findings:

  • Less than half (40%) of companies that raised a Seed or Seed VC round in 2009-2010 raised a second round of funding.
  • 225 (22%) of companies that raised a Seed in 2009-2010 exited through M&A or IPO within 6 rounds of funding (1 exited after the 6th round of funding, for a total of 226 companies)
  • 9 companies (0.9%) that raised a Seed round in 2009-2010 reached a value of $1B+ (either via exit or funding round) including Instagram, Uber, and Slack.
  • 77% of companies are either dead, the walking dead (bad outcomes), or became self-sustaining (a potentially good outcome for the company but probably not good for their investors). It is hard to know the exact breakdown for these companies as funding announcements get a significant amount of fanfare but cash flow positivity or profitability do not. Also, death of companies generally happens quietly in the middle of the night (although increasingly, startups are willing to share their failure post-mortems).

VC Funnel Graphic 2015

Looking at the breakdown by round, there are some more interesting findings:

  • The median Seed size disclosed was $500K for companies that raised their Seed in 2009-2010
  • 56% of companies that raise a follow-on round after their Seed are then able to raise a second follow-on round after that. In other words, it’s easier to raise a second post-Seed financing than the first post-Seed financing (as noted, only 40% of companies are able to raise a post-Seed round). However, as companies move into the middle and late stages, the proportion of companies that manage to raise follow-on capital decreases. For the 3rd follow-on round after Seed the percentage drops to 39%, and then to 38% for the 4th and so on.
  • In the later follow-on rounds, the gap between the average amount raised and median amount raised becomes much higher, indicating the presence of mega-roundsVC funnel stats

For entrepreneurs who’ve raised multiple rounds of financing or venture capital investors making the decision to invest in companies, how does the funnel above parallel your experiences? Look forward to your comments below.

All the underlying data for this venture capital funnel analysis comes from CB Insights venture capital database. Sign up below.

  • Steve_2014

    Why are acquisitions considered a loss according to this funnel? Acquisition is the goal for the vast majority of companies – most don’t WANT to be the next Facebook. Of course it is interesting research to challenge the accepted social narrative that it is most desirable to be the next unicorn (sure, the money is nice, but cashing out from a M&A isn’t bad either). It would be an interesting next step to see where the cash amounts fall in this funnel – therein defining winners not by the ability to attract multiple rounds of funds but to drive valuation of the company and exit with cash in hand. And the most interesting piece of research would be to see where the serial entrepreneurs emerge in this pipeline – and how much value they create over say 10 years.
    -steve

  • http://www.4044walnut.com Anand Sanwal

    Great point. But when raising VC, they are looking for the next Facebook (most of them at least). So from a VC perspective, the unicorns are what they’re interested in.

    But great point that many of the M&A that might have happened could be great outcomes for the teams behind these companies.

  • http://www.turnleaf.be Paul Van Cotthem

    It would be interesting to add an additional layer to the front-end of the funnel, namely “What percentage of all start-up companies make it to the stage where they get any VC-funding at all?”

    Does CB Insights have any figures about this?

  • ANAGARD, LLC

    I would encourage you to dig deeper into data to segment “self-sustaining” companies that do not seek or require VC funding. I would be very interested in seeing such analysis and would be willing to help you with such project.

    I am based in North Carolina and most startups and new businesses in South East region have to bootstrap their business and they grow slowly without getting external funding (excluding biotech segment) because of lack of venture capital funds in the region. That doesn’t mean that we don’t have a vibrant entrepreneurial community; yes, we do, with top engineering universities in Triangle, we have plenty of research that is just waiting to be commercialized. Because of that, it would be nice to see statistics related to companies that bootstrap their business and to encourage organic growth because venture funding is scarcely available outside Silicon Valley.

  • http://blog.gypsii.com Shane Lennon

    Have heard a number thrown around by a few VC teams/presenters of 90% of startups who aim for an A round never get it, i.e. only 10% get an A round. Never got an actual hard datapoint, nor a benchmark for how many companies, nor a clear definition of this wider group of startups and the time period it is measured over.

  • Raivo Laanemets

    I’m also interested in the stats of startups that manage growth with re-invested profits only (the initial development is done through bootstrapping with founder’s money) – are there any at all?. I’m working as a freelancer and most of my clients aim for this. During the last 5 years, all of such projects have failed at the point where money has ran out. Telling it to new clients has no effect, everyone replies “this project is going to be different”. And then it fails again.

  • Matthew S LaCrosse

    It would also be interesting to see the industry percentages of these companies.

  • Ricardo

    I think the point is that if you already got seed capital from VCs, you lost. You have to be in a spiral of growth where you can only repay your investor with an IPO. I don’t think any professional VC wants a private company that gives back some dividends.

  • Guillaume Meulle

    Very interesting to have some data on large scale ! I’m surprised the failure rate (Dead/self sustaining divided by the precedent cohort) is not decreasing and even is increasing after 3rd round (from 29% to 65%, even more than the failure rate after seed of 48%). Late stage investment is may be as risky as seed investment after all !