VC Diversity

October 2015

Methodology Write-up
The composite score for firms is shown here. The remainder of this document explains the methodology behind the ranking.
Ranking List, Grouped by $ AUM

Firm

Headcount

AUM$$$Mil.
(per$Venture
Source)

Gender$Score
Ethnic$Score
Gender$Divrs. Gender$Score
Ethnic$Divrs. Ethnic$Score
Prob.$(Pg)
(1GPg)*10
White Asian Black Hispanic Other Prob.$(Pr)
(1GPr)*10

Male Female %$Women

Age$Score
Age
Avg.
Avg. Score

Composite
Score

Greater$Than$$1$Billion$AUM
1. Social*Capital
2. Battery*Ventures
3. GGV*Capital
4. Trinity*Ventures
5. Kleiner*Perkins*Caufield*&*Byers
6. Greylock*Partners
7. Accel*Partners
8. Khosla*Ventures
9. Google*Ventures
10. Bain*Capital*Ventures
11. Lightspeed*Venture*Partners
12. Charles*River*Ventures
13. Scale*Venture*Partners
14. Softbank*Capital
15. Venrock
16. Canaan*Partners
17. Norwest*Venture*Partners
18. Draper*Fisher*Jurvetson
19. Shasta*Ventures
20. Foundation*Capital
21. DCM*Ventures
22. Benchmark
23. NEA
24. Institutional*Venture*Partners
25. General*Catalyst*Partners
26. Crosslink*Capital
27. Spark*Capital
28. Menlo*Ventures
29. Tiger*Global*Management
30. Sequoia*Capital
31. Founders*Fund
32. Mayfield*Fund
33. FirstMark*Capital
34. Redpoint*Ventures
35. Index*Ventures
36. Foundry*Group
37. Andreessen*Horowitz
38. US*Venture*Partners
39. Matrix*Partners
40. August*Capital
41. Tenaya*Capital
42. Bessemer*Venture*Partners
43. Meritech*Capital*Partners
44. Atlas*Life*Sciences
45. Madrona*Venture*Group
46. Bluerun*Ventures

8
10
4
9
10
11
8
8
12
11
13
9
7
10
9
12
13
11
6
9
4
6
30
8
11
6
9
11
3
14
6
5
14
13
3
4
16
6
9
7
5
13
6
5
6
2

$*1,155
4,500
2,705
1,500
4,600
3,016
7,790
2,263
2,000
3,000
3,135
1,500
1,200
2,596
2,450
3,500
5,000
5,760
1,025
2,782
2,800
3,302
16,442
5,400
3,000
1,600
1,825
2,000
10,000
4,470
2,160
3,000
2,200
3,800
3,733
1,128
4,289
1,225
5,050
1,300
1,487
5,600
2,064
2,545
1,300
1,065

4
9
4
7
7
10
8
8
11
11
13
8
4
8
8
9
12
9
6
9
4
6
28
8
11
6
9
10
3
14
6
5
14
13
3
4
15
5
9
7
5
13
6
5
6
2

4
1

2
3
1

1
3
2
1
3
1
2

1
1

50.0%
10.0%

22.2%
30.0%
9.1%

8.3%

11.1%
42.9%
20.0%
11.1%
25.0%
7.7%
18.2%

6.7%

9.1%

6.3%
16.7%

43%
80%
100%
61%
53%
82%
100%
100%
83%
100%
100%
78%
43%
64%
78%
59%
85%
67%
100%
100%
100%
100%
87%
100%
100%
100%
100%
82%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
88%
67%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%

5.7
2.0
0.0
3.9
4.7
1.8
0.0
0.0
1.7
0.0
0.0
2.2
5.7
3.6
2.2
4.1
1.5
3.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.3
3.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

4
8
3
4
7
7
5
3
10
6
6
7
7
8
8
10
9
9
4
6
3
5
24
6
8
4
8
9
3
12
6

13
11
3
4
15
6
8
6
5
13
6
5
6
2

4
2
1
5
3
4
3
5
1
4
7
1

2
1
2
3
2
2
3
1
1
6
2
3
2
1
2

5
1
2

43%
64%
50%
44%
53%
49%
46%
46%
68%
38%
46%
58%
100%
64%
78%
70%
50%
67%
47%
50%
50%
67%
67%
57%
56%
47%
78%
67%
100%
74%
100%
100%
86%
72%
100%
100%
88%
100%
78%
71%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%

5.7
3.6
5.0
5.6
4.7
5.1
5.4
5.4
3.2
6.2
5.4
4.2
0.0
3.6
2.2
3.0
5.0
3.3
5.3
5.0
5.0
3.3
3.3
4.3
4.4
5.3
2.2
3.3
0.0
2.6
0.0
0.0
1.4
2.8
0.0
0.0
1.3
0.0
2.2
2.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

38.5
42.1
44.8
51.3
47.7
45.4
39.5
44.7
38.0
45.0
42.9
41.2
46.9
46.6
46.8
49.1
50.8
49.7
48.2
48.6
49.3
44.5
48.4
47.3
45.6
51.8
42.4
51.1
37.7
46.0
38.2
43.4
45.7
46.3
42.0
46.0
50.0
50.3
49.2
51.0
47.0
45.0
45.8
51.0
53.8
53.0

8.8
9.8
10.0
5.5
5.5
7.9
8.8
8.7
8.9
7.4
8.1
6.8
7.3
5.6
8.2
5.5
5.9
5.6
6.8
6.7
6.3
7.9
6.3
6.6
6.5
5.5
8.5
5.5
10.0
6.8
9.4
9.3
7.8
6.3
8.9
8.5
6.1
4.9
6.0
4.9
7.3
7.0
6.3
6.1
5.4
3.9

$250$Million$to$$1$Billion
1. Y*Combinator
2. Formation*8
3. Upfront*Ventures
4. True*Ventures
5. Iconiq*Capital
6. Thrive*Capital
7. Emergence*Capital
8. Storm*Ventures
9. Greycroft*Partners
10. RRE*Ventures
11. First*Round*Capital
12. Pelion*Venture*Partners
13. Sutter*Hill*Ventures
14. Union*Square*Ventures

11
10
6
7
5
6
7
6
9
6
7
5
7
5

1,000
948
658
890
528
597
575
825
593
810
748
610
700
883

10
9
5
7
5
6
6
6
8
6
7
5
7
5

1
1
1

9.1%
10.0%
16.7%

14.3%

11.1%

82%
80%
67%
100%
100%
100%
71%
100%
78%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%

1.8
2.0
3.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.9
0.0
2.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

6
6
5
4
4
3
6
2
9
5
7
5
7
5

4
4

3
1
3

1
1

38%
47%
67%
43%
60%
40%
71%
27%
100%
67%
100%
100%
100%
100%

6.2
5.3
3.3
5.7
4.0
6.0
2.9
7.3
0.0
3.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

36.4
34.6
47.3
47.0
40.8
32.5
47.6
53.2
47.6
54.2
47.4
47.6
49.3
52.8

8.1
7.2
7.3
7.9
9.4
7.3
6.6
4.8
7.8
5.6
7.2
7.1
6.2
4.6

5.35
4.84
4.65
4.54
4.46
4.44
4.12
4.05
3.35
2.97
2.38
2.38
2.06
1.53

$250$Million$and$Less
1. Floodgate
2. Cowboy*Ventures
3. Felicis*Ventures
4. Aspect*Ventures
5. SoftTech*VC
6. Ribbit*Capital
7. Canvas*Venture*Fund
8. Lowercase*Capital
9. Accomplice*VC
10. SV*Angel
11. Blumberg*Capital

2
2
4
2
3
3
5
2
7
5
2

224
97
245
150
155
224
175
30
200
100
240

1
1
3

3
3
4
2
7
5
2

1
1
1
2

50.0%
50.0%
25.0%
100.0%

20.0%

50%
100%
100%
100%
60%
100%
100%
100%
100%

10.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

1
1
2
1
2
2
4
2
7
5
2

1
1
2
1

33%

33%
33%
60%
100%
100%
100%
100%

10.0
10.0
6.7
10.0
6.7
6.7
4.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

42.5
39.0
38.8
48.0
40.3
39.7
51.6
36.0
45.4
37.8
52.0

9.3
9.2
10.0
7.6
9.6
9.2
5.7
8.8
6.9
5.7
4.8

9.78
9.74
7.22
5.87
5.41
5.30
4.58
2.95
2.29
1.91
1.61

505

41

7.5%

86%

1.4

425

110

65%

3.5

45.9

7.0

3.98

Total

546

$$166,467

6.74
5.10
5.00
4.99
4.95
4.93
4.71
4.68
4.58
4.53
4.51
4.38
4.32
4.25
4.21
4.19
4.16
4.04
4.03
3.90
3.77
3.76
3.64
3.62
3.62
3.60
3.58
3.53
3.33
3.16
3.13
3.10
3.09
3.05
2.98
2.84
2.85
2.74
2.73
2.59
2.43
2.33
2.09
2.02
1.79
1.29


Ranking List, Grouped by Headcount of Senior Investment Team Members

Firm

Headcount

AUM$$$Mil.
(per$Venture
Source)

Gender$Score
Gender$Divrs. Gender$Score
Prob.$(Pg)
(1GPg)*10

Male Female %$Women

Ethnic$Score
Ethnic$Divrs. Ethnic$Score
Prob.$(Pr)
(1GPr)*10

White Asian Black Hispanic Other

Age$Score
Age
Avg.
Avg. Score

Composite
Score

Greater$than$10$People
1. Y%Combinator
2. Greylock%Partners
3. Google%Ventures
4. Bain%Capital%Ventures
5. Lightspeed%Venture%Partners
6. Canaan%Partners
7. Norwest%Venture%Partners
8. Draper%Fisher%Jurvetson
9. NEA
10. General%Catalyst%Partners
11. Menlo%Ventures
12. Sequoia%Capital
13. FirstMark%Capital
14. Redpoint%Ventures
15. Andreessen%Horowitz
16. Bessemer%Venture%Partners

11
11
12
11
13
12
13
11
30
11
11
14
14
13
16
13

$%1,000
3,016
2,000
3,000
3,135
3,500
5,000
5,760
16,442
3,000
2,000
4,470
2,200
3,800
4,289
5,600

10
10
11
11
13
9
12
9
28
11
10
14
14
13
15
13

1
1
1

3
1
2
2

9.1%
9.1%
8.3%

25.0%
7.7%
18.2%
6.7%

9.1%

6.3%

82%
82%
83%
100%
100%
59%
85%
67%
87%
100%
82%
100%
100%
100%
88%
100%

1.8
1.8
1.7
0.0
0.0
4.1
1.5
3.3
1.3
0.0
1.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.3
0.0

6
7
10
6
6
10
9
9
24
8
9
12
13
11
15
13

4
4
1
4
7
2
3
2
6
3
2
2
1
2
1

38%
49%
68%
38%
46%
70%
50%
67%
67%
56%
67%
74%
86%
72%
88%
100%

6.2
5.1
3.2
6.2
5.4
3.0
5.0
3.3
3.3
4.4
3.3
2.6
1.4
2.8
1.3
0.0

36.4
45.4
38.0
45.0
42.9
49.1
50.8
49.7
48.4
45.6
51.1
46.0
45.7
46.3
50.0
45.0

8.1
7.9
8.9
7.4
8.1
5.5
5.9
5.6
6.3
6.5
5.5
6.8
7.8
6.3
6.1
7.0

5.35
4.93
4.58
4.53
4.51
4.19
4.16
4.04
3.64
3.62
3.53
3.16
3.09
3.05
2.85
2.33

6$to$10$People
1. Social%Capital
2. Battery%Ventures
3. Trinity%Ventures
4. Kleiner%Perkins%Caufield%&%Byers
5. Formation%8
6. Accel%Partners
7. Khosla%Ventures
8. Upfront%Ventures
9. True%Ventures
10. Scale%Venture%Partners
11. Thrive%Capital
12. Charles%River%Ventures
13. Softbank%Capital
14. Emergence%Capital
15. Storm%Ventures
16. Shasta%Ventures
17. Venrock
18. Foundation%Capital
19. Benchmark
20. Institutional%Venture%Partners
21. Crosslink%Capital
22. Spark%Capital
23. Greycroft%Partners
24. Founders%Fund
25. RRE%Ventures
26. US%Venture%Partners
27. Matrix%Partners
28. August%Capital
29. First%Round%Capital
30. Accomplice%VC
31. Meritech%Capital%Partners
32. Sutter%Hill%Ventures
33. Madrona%Venture%Group

8
10
9
10
10
8
8
6
7
7
6
9
10
7
6
6
9
9
6
8
6
9
9
6
6
6
9
7
7
7
6
7
6

1,155
4,500
1,500
4,600
948
7,790
2,263
658
890
1,200
597
1,500
2,596
575
825
1,025
2,450
2,782
3,302
5,400
1,600
1,825
593
2,160
810
1,225
5,050
1,300
748
200
2,064
700
1,300

4
9
7
7
9
8
8
5
7
4
6
8
8
6
6
6
8
9
6
8
6
9
8
6
6
5
9
7
7
7
6
7
6

4
1
2
3
1

1
2
1

50.0%
10.0%
22.2%
30.0%
10.0%

16.7%

42.9%

11.1%
20.0%
14.3%

11.1%

11.1%

16.7%

43%
80%
61%
53%
80%
100%
100%
67%
100%
43%
100%
78%
64%
71%
100%
100%
78%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
78%
100%
100%
67%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%

5.7
2.0
3.9
4.7
2.0
0.0
0.0
3.3
0.0
5.7
0.0
2.2
3.6
2.9
0.0
0.0
2.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.2
0.0
0.0
3.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

4
8
4
7
6
5
3
5
4
7
3
7
8
6
2
4
8
6
5
6
4
8
9
6
5
6
8
6
7
7
6
7
6

4
2
5
3
4
3
5

3
1
2

3
2
1
3
1
2
2
1

1
1

43%
64%
44%
53%
47%
46%
46%
67%
43%
100%
40%
58%
64%
71%
27%
47%
78%
50%
67%
57%
47%
78%
100%
100%
67%
100%
78%
71%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%

5.7
3.6
5.6
4.7
5.3
5.4
5.4
3.3
5.7
0.0
6.0
4.2
3.6
2.9
7.3
5.3
2.2
5.0
3.3
4.3
5.3
2.2
0.0
0.0
3.3
0.0
2.2
2.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

38.5
42.1
51.3
47.7
34.6
39.5
44.7
47.3
47.0
46.7
32.5
41.2
46.6
47.6
53.2
48.2
47.9
48.6
44.5
47.3
51.8
42.4
47.6
38.2
54.2
50.3
49.2
51.0
47.4
45.4
45.8
49.3
53.8

8.8
9.8
5.5
5.5
7.2
8.8
8.7
7.3
7.9
7.7
7.3
6.8
5.6
6.6
4.8
6.8
7.5
6.7
7.9
6.6
5.5
8.5
7.8
9.4
5.6
4.9
6.0
4.9
7.2
6.9
6.3
6.2
5.4

6.74
5.10
4.99
4.95
4.84
4.71
4.68
4.65
4.54
4.48
4.44
4.38
4.25
4.12
4.05
4.03
3.99
3.90
3.76
3.62
3.60
3.58
3.35
3.13
2.97
2.74
2.73
2.59
2.38
2.29
2.09
2.06
1.79

5$or$Less$People
1. Floodgate
2. Cowboy%Ventures
3. Felicis%Ventures
4. Aspect%Ventures
5. SoftTech%VC
6. Ribbit%Capital
7. GGV%Capital
8. Canvas%Venture%Fund
9. Iconiq%Capital
10. DCM%Ventures
11. Tiger%Global%Management
12. Mayfield%Fund
13. Index%Ventures
14. Lowercase%Capital
15. Foundry%Group
16. Tenaya%Capital
17. Pelion%Venture%Partners
18. Atlas%Life%Sciences
19. SV%Angel
20. Blumberg%Capital
21. Union%Square%Ventures
22. Bluerun%Ventures

2
2
4
2
3
3
4
5
5
4
3
5
3
2
4
5
5
5
5
2
5
2

224
97
245
150
155
224
2,705
175
528
2,800
10,000
3,000
3,733
30
1,128
1,487
610
2,545
100
240
883
1,065

1
1
3

3
3
4
4
5
4
3
5
3
2
4
5
5
5
5
2
5
2

1
1
1
2

50.0%
50.0%
25.0%
100.0%

20.0%

50%
100%
100%
100%
100%
60%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%

10.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

1
1
2
1
2
2
3
4
4
3
3

3
2
4
5
5
5
5
2
5
2

1
1
2
1

1
1
1
1

33%

33%
33%
50%
60%
60%
50%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%

10.0
10.0
6.7
10.0
6.7
6.7
5.0
4.0
4.0
5.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

42.5
39.0
38.8
48.0
40.3
39.7
44.8
51.6
40.8
49.3
37.7
43.4
42.0
36.0
46.0
47.0
47.6
51.0
37.8
52.0
52.8
53.0

9.3
9.2
10.0
7.6
9.6
9.2
10.0
5.7
9.4
6.3
10.0
9.3
8.9
8.8
8.5
7.3
7.1
6.1
5.7
4.8
4.6
3.9

9.78
9.74
7.22
5.87
5.41
5.30
5.00
4.58
4.46
3.77
3.33
3.10
2.98
2.95
2.84
2.43
2.38
2.02
1.91
1.61
1.53
1.29

546

$$166,467

505

41

7.5%

86%

1.4

425

110

65%

3.5

45.9

7.0

3.98

Total


Ranking List Overall of Senior Investment Team Members

Firm

Overall$Scores
1. Floodgate
2. Cowboy.Ventures
3. Felicis.Ventures
4. Social.Capital
5. Aspect.Ventures
6. SoftTech.VC
7. Y.Combinator
8. Ribbit.Capital
9. Battery.Ventures
10. GGV.Capital
11. Trinity.Ventures
12. Kleiner.Perkins.Caufield.&.Byers
13. Greylock.Partners
14. Formation.8
15. Accel.Partners
16. Khosla.Ventures
17. Upfront.Ventures
18. Google.Ventures
19. Canvas.Venture.Fund
20. True.Ventures
21. Bain.Capital.Ventures
22. Lightspeed.Venture.Partners
23. Scale.Venture.Partners
24. Iconiq.Capital
25. Thrive.Capital
26. Charles.River.Ventures
27. Softbank.Capital
28. Canaan.Partners
29. Norwest.Venture.Partners
30. Emergence.Capital
31. Storm.Ventures
32. Draper.Fisher.Jurvetson
33. Shasta.Ventures
34. Venrock
35. Foundation.Capital
36. DCM.Ventures
37. Benchmark
38. NEA
39. Institutional.Venture.Partners
40. General.Catalyst.Partners
41. Crosslink.Capital
42. Spark.Capital
43. Menlo.Ventures
44. Greycroft.Partners
45. Tiger.Global.Management
46. Sequoia.Capital
47. Founders.Fund
48. Mayfield.Fund
49. FirstMark.Capital
50. Redpoint.Ventures
51. Index.Ventures
52. RRE.Ventures
53. Lowercase.Capital
54. Andreessen.Horowitz
55. Foundry.Group
56. US.Venture.Partners
57. Matrix.Partners
58. August.Capital
59. Tenaya.Capital
60. First.Round.Capital
61. Pelion.Venture.Partners
62. Bessemer.Venture.Partners
63. Accomplice.VC
64. Meritech.Capital.Partners
65. Sutter.Hill.Ventures
66. Atlas.Life.Sciences
67. SV.Angel
68. Madrona.Venture.Group
69. Blumberg.Capital
70. Union.Square.Ventures
71. Bluerun.Ventures
Total
%"of"total

Headcount

AUM$$$Mil.
(per$Venture
Source)

2
2
4
8
2
3
11
3
10
4
9
10
11
10
8
8
6
12
5
7
11
13
7
5
6
9
10
12
13
7
6
11
6
9
9
4
6
30
8
11
6
9
11
9
3
14
6
5
14
13
3
6
2
16
4
6
9
7
5
7
5
13
7
6
7
5
5
6
2
5
2

$.224
97
245
1,155
150
155
1,000
224
4,500
2,705
1,500
4,600
3,016
948
7,790
2,263
658
2,000
175
890
3,000
3,135
1,200
528
597
1,500
2,596
3,500
5,000
575
825
5,760
1,025
2,450
2,782
2,800
3,302
16,442
5,400
3,000
1,600
1,825
2,000
593
10,000
4,470
2,160
3,000
2,200
3,800
3,733
810
30
4,289
1,128
1,225
5,050
1,300
1,487
748
610
5,600
200
2,064
700
2,545
100
1,300
240
883
1,065

546

$$166,467

Male

Gender$Score
Gender$Divrs. Gender$Score
Prob.$(Pg)
(1GPg)*10

Female %$Women

Ethnic$Score
White

Asian

Black

Hispanic Other

Ethnic$Divrs. Ethnic$Score
Prob.$(Pr)
(1GPr)*10

Age$Score
Age
Avg.
Avg. Score

1
1
3
4

3
10
3
9
4
7
7
10
9
8
8
5
11
4
7
11
13
4
5
6
8
8
9
12
6
6
9
6
8
9
4
6
28
8
11
6
9
10
8
3
14
6
5
14
13
3
6
2
15
4
5
9
7
5
7
5
13
7
6
7
5
5
6
2
5
2

1
1
1
4
2

2
3
1
1

1
1
1

1
2
3
1
1

1
1

50.0%
50.0%
25.0%
50.0%
100.0%

9.1%

10.0%

22.2%
30.0%
9.1%
10.0%

16.7%
8.3%
20.0%

42.9%

11.1%
20.0%
25.0%
7.7%
14.3%

18.2%

11.1%

6.7%

9.1%
11.1%

6.3%

16.7%

50%
43%
100%
100%
82%
100%
80%
100%
61%
53%
82%
80%
100%
100%
67%
83%
60%
100%
100%
100%
43%
100%
100%
78%
64%
59%
85%
71%
100%
67%
100%
78%
100%
100%
100%
87%
100%
100%
100%
100%
82%
78%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
88%
100%
67%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%

10.0
10.0
5.0
5.7
0.0
0.0
1.8
0.0
2.0
0.0
3.9
4.7
1.8
2.0
0.0
0.0
3.3
1.7
4.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
5.7
0.0
0.0
2.2
3.6
4.1
1.5
2.9
0.0
3.3
0.0
2.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.8
2.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.3
0.0
3.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

1
1
2
4
1
2
6
2
8
3
4
7
7
6
5
3
5
10
4
4
6
6
7
4
3
7
8
10
9
6
2
9
4
8
6
3
5
24
6
8
4
8
9
9
3
12
6

13
11
3
5
2
15
4
6
8
6
5
7
5
13
7
6
7
5
5
6
2
5
2

1
1
2
4
1

2
1
5
3
4
4
3
5

1
1
3
4
7

1
3
1
2
2
3

3
2
2
1
3
1
1
6
2
3
2
1
2

5
1
2

1
1

1
1

1
1
1

33%
43%

33%
38%
33%
64%
50%
44%
53%
49%
47%
46%
46%
67%
68%
60%
43%
38%
46%
100%
60%
40%
58%
64%
70%
50%
71%
27%
67%
47%
78%
50%
50%
67%
67%
57%
56%
47%
78%
67%
100%
100%
74%
100%
100%
86%
72%
100%
67%
100%
88%
100%
100%
78%
71%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%

10.0
10.0
6.7
5.7
10.0
6.7
6.2
6.7
3.6
5.0
5.6
4.7
5.1
5.3
5.4
5.4
3.3
3.2
4.0
5.7
6.2
5.4
0.0
4.0
6.0
4.2
3.6
3.0
5.0
2.9
7.3
3.3
5.3
2.2
5.0
5.0
3.3
3.3
4.3
4.4
5.3
2.2
3.3
0.0
0.0
2.6
0.0
0.0
1.4
2.8
0.0
3.3
0.0
1.3
0.0
0.0
2.2
2.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

42.5
39.0
38.8
38.5
48.0
40.3
36.4
39.7
42.1
44.8
51.3
47.7
45.4
34.6
39.5
44.7
47.3
38.0
51.6
47.0
45.0
42.9
46.7
40.8
32.5
41.2
46.6
49.1
50.8
47.6
53.2
49.7
48.2
47.9
48.6
49.3
44.5
48.4
47.3
45.6
51.8
42.4
51.1
47.6
37.7
46.0
38.2
43.4
45.7
46.3
42.0
54.2
36.0
50.0
46.0
50.3
49.2
51.0
47.0
47.4
47.6
45.0
45.4
45.8
49.3
51.0
37.8
53.8
52.0
52.8
53.0

9.3
9.2
10.0
8.8
7.6
9.6
8.1
9.2
9.8
10.0
5.5
5.5
7.9
7.2
8.8
8.7
7.3
8.9
5.7
7.9
7.4
8.1
7.7
9.4
7.3
6.8
5.6
5.5
5.9
6.6
4.8
5.6
6.8
7.5
6.7
6.3
7.9
6.3
6.6
6.5
5.5
8.5
5.5
7.8
10.0
6.8
9.4
9.3
7.8
6.3
8.9
5.6
8.8
6.1
8.5
4.9
6.0
4.9
7.3
7.2
7.1
7.0
6.9
6.3
6.2
6.1
5.7
5.4
4.8
4.6
3.9

505
92.5%

41
7.5%

7.5%

86%

1.4

425
77.8%

110
20.1%

4
0.7%

7
1.3%

65%

3.5

45.9

7.0

Composite
Score

9.78
9.74
7.22
6.74
5.87
5.41
5.35
5.30
5.10
5.00
4.99
4.95
4.93
4.84
4.71
4.68
4.65
4.58
4.58
4.54
4.53
4.51
4.48
4.46
4.44
4.38
4.25
4.19
4.16
4.12
4.05
4.04
4.03
3.99
3.90
3.77
3.76
3.64
3.62
3.62
3.60
3.58
3.53
3.35
3.33
3.16
3.13
3.10
3.09
3.05
2.98
2.97
2.95
2.85
2.84
2.74
2.73
2.59
2.43
2.38
2.38
2.33
2.29
2.09
2.06
2.02
1.91
1.79
1.61
1.53
1.29

3.98


This methodology walk-through addresses the following areas:
(i)
Firm selection
(ii)
People selection
(iii)
Demographic variable estimation
(iv)
Ranking methodology
(v)
Appendix: Supplementary schedules are included at the end
I. Firm Selection
To compose a study of VC demographics, we wanted to select a representative number of funds with the following
characteristics:
(i)
Firms based in the US: We are focusing on the diversity decisions of US firms, so international firms were
excluded
(ii)
Traditional technology VC firms: We are focused on VC firms that invest mainly in technology-related startups;
notably this excludes biomedical / life science-focused VC firms or firms (though we include life sciences team
members if within a broader fund); we oriented around firms that have a Series A / Series B practice but
included any investors in growth stage products if broken out (e.g. DFJ, Sequoia)
(iii)
Largest Firms: Using a combination of VentureSource and Mattermark, we force-ranked VC firms by AUM
and only looked at funds above $275M of AUM we wanted to capture the firms which on a $ capital basis
represented a sizable portion of the market.
(iv)
Active Firms: We did not include any firms that are less active which we estimated as either not having raised a
new fund in the last 5 years or that were not building their portfolio with new investments; this was based on
public signals or VentureSource
(v)
High Mindshare: We included certain firms that commanded a high mindshare score from Mattermark to the
extent they werent already included (e.g. if below $275M AUM)
This resulted in a list of 71 firms representing over $160B in AUM, per VentureSource (see p. 1). We consider this a starting
point and can add additional peer firms as time goes on.
II. People Selection
For each of the firms, we wanted to measure the diversity of the investment team leadership. We are defining investment
team leadership as anyone holding the title of General Partner, Partner, Managing Director, and any other variation of the
senior investment titles on the investment team. We also include active Venture Partners and Board Partners to the extent
they are actively involved on the investment team. For A16Z, KPCB, Sequoia and Y-Combinator who designate all their
team members as Partner, we approximated the leadership team based on tenure, experience, leading deals and taking
board seats.
We do not include any junior investment team members (e.g. Associates, Vice Presidents or Principals) or other teams
(operating or growth teams, finance team, or other non-investment team functions). We also excluded people based in
international offices of US VC firms as we are focusing on team diversity within the US.
This gave us a list of 546 investment team leaders across the 71 firms.
There are a few reasons to focus on investment team leaders:
(i)
Leaders drive the direction of the firm: These individuals most directly make decisions that affect the direction
of the firm, have investment-decision power and represent the firm on boards
(ii)
Total would paint a different picture: People have already caught on that the few women hired in VC tend to be
hired in non-senior positions and/or non-investment team roles1; Appendix 1 has our results on this disparity
(iii)
Data is stable and consistent: Firms more consistently disclose the leaders on the website versus other team
members, so data availability is an issue for a total view. In addition, turnover is significantly higher at the
junior level, even on the investment team, as firms have different policies (e.g. 2-year programs).
III. Demographic Variable Estimation
For each of the individuals, we measured the following:
(i)
Gender
(ii)
Race / Ethnicity: We used the same definitions as the 2010 US census, which the large public tech firms also
follow in their diversity monitoring. Categories are the following:

1 CNBC (http://www.cnbc.com/2015/03/27/waiting-for-pao-verdict-where-are-women-at-top-vc-funds.html);
Fortune (http://fortune.com/2014/02/06/venture-capitals-stunning-lack-of-female-decision-makers/)

(iii)

a. White refers to a person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or
North Africa
b. Black or African American refers to a person having origins in any of the Black racial groups of Africa
c. Asian refers to a person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, or
the Indian subcontinent
d. Hispanic refers to people who identify their origin as Hispanic, Latino or Spanish
e. Other includes Native Hawaiian, Other Pacific Islander, American Indian or Alaskan Native
Age: We calculated age based on publicly available date-of-birth information. In instances where the date-ofbirth wasnt available, we estimated age with LinkedIn by taking high school graduation year minus 18 or
college graduation year minus 22 and used 6/30 as the month/day. NOTE: We were only able to find a data
point for age for 532 individuals (97% of total).

IV. Ranking Methodology

The ranking methodology combines 3 variables:
(i)
A gender diversity score
(ii)
A race diversity score
(iii)
An age score
For the gender diversity score and the ethnic diversity score, we use a diversity index based on probability to measure the
degree of concentration when individuals are classified into types. Simply stated, we create a diversity score based on the
probability that two investment team leaders taken at random from a VC firm will represent the same type. This approach
uses the same principal as the Simpson index (ecology) and Herfindahl index (economics)2 and has already been used in
population diversity studies3.
Gender Diversity Score
The gender diversity score is calculated using the probability that any two individuals selected at random will be the same
gender. This is calculated as follows:
" =

1
1 + 1
( 1)

Pg = probability that two people randomly selected are the same (i.e. randomly select two men or two women)
N = total senior investment team members at a firm
M = number of men
W = number of women
Therefore, for a firm with 2 men and 2 women, the probability of randomly picking two people that are the same is:
1
" =
2 2 1 + 2 2 1 = 33.3%
4(4 1)
The gender score is simply 1 this calculated probability, multiplied by 10 (for a scale of 0 to 10), or in the above example,
6.7.
= 1 " 10
The benefit of this methodology is that absolute diversity (i.e. agnostic to gender) is valued. In other words, a firm with only
men will receive a probability of picking 2 people at random that are the same of 100% which would translate into a gender
score of 0, but a firm with only women would also receive a gender score of 0. The higher the score, the better the diversity
profile.
Ethnic Diversity Score
The ethnicity score is based on the same principle as the gender score, only expanded to all the racial/ethnic categories:
White, Asian, Black, Latino/Hispanic, Other.
B =

1
1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1
( 1)

2 Diversity Index: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diversity_index#Simpson_index
3 USAToday: http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/census/county-by-county-diversity.htm


Pr = probability that two people randomly selected are the same (e.g. randomly select two While individuals)
N = total senior investment team members
W = number of White individuals
A = number of Asian individuals
B = number of Black individuals
H = number of Latino/Hispanic individuals
O = number of individuals with racial/ethnic category of Other
In this case, the ethnic diversity score is also 1 this calculated probability, multiplied by 10 (for a scale of 0 to 10).
= 1 " 10
Below is an example of the Ethnic Diversity Score across a hypothetical 10 person firm with varying allocations.
W
2
4
6
8
10

A
2
2
2
2
0

B
2
2
2
0
0

H
2
2
0
0
0

O
2
0
0
0
0

N
10
10
10
10
10

Pr
11%
20%
38%
64%
100%

Score
8.9
8.0
6.2
3.6
0

Note that while the 1st orientation has a perfectly equal balance, there is always some chance that the two randomly selected
individuals will be the same (resulting in a score of 8.9 instead of intuitively a perfect score); this is not an issue because for
similarly-sized firms, the score will still be better than the less diverse firms with similar headcount. For this reason we have
attempted to create sub-lists based on size (discussed below).
Age Score
The Age Score assigns a value to each senior investment team member based on his/her age.
To figure out what ages receive a perfect score, we looked at how old partners who did the best deals were when they
invested in those deals Series A or Series B, the earliest venture rounds where product-market fit is not readily apparent. To
do this, we looked at VentureSources list of top venture outcomes (defined as largest exits via M&A or IPO of VC-backed
companies) and compiled a list of all the partners who led the rounds in the corresponding Series A and/or B of these
outcomes. The results can be seen in the cumulative distribution function (CDF) below and the table with deals used can be
seen in Appendix 3.

CDF of Ages @ Series A/B of Best Deals

100.0%
90.0%
80.0%

80%: 46 yrs

70.0%
60.0%

Median: 41

50.0%

40.0%
30.0%
20.0%

20%: 35 yrs

10.0%

22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

Looking at this chart, 60% of the Series As and Bs of the largest exists were done by partners between the age of 35 and 46
(20% and 80%, respectively).


For the age score, we assigned any individual with the age between 35 and 46 to a perfect score of 10. Before 35 (to a
minimum of 22) and after 46 (to a maximum of 65) a decreased score was given. In order to give more future credit to
those younger than 35, we decreased the scores below 35 linearly and after 46 exponentially (i.e. a score 1 year outside the
alley on the low end, 34, will be higher than the score 1 year outside the alley on the high end, 47). A firms age score is
simply the average of the age scores of the individuals.

10.0

Score Ascribed to Each Age

8.0
6.0
4.0

2.0

22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

The argument for considering age is that younger partners are:

(i)
More likely to be connected to newer technology
(ii)
More likely to be connected to younger founders
(iii)
More likely to be hungrier in their career
Note that this is purely conjecture to explain the data.
Composite Score: The Composite Score is the simple average between the Gender Diversity Score, Ethnic Diversity Score
and the Age Score. Calculating the composite score this way reflects the position that gender, ethnicity and age are equally
relevant variables in evaluating a funds future relevance.
Ultimately when comparing firms, we also grouped firms of similar size together and considered two approaches to do so,
presented on the first two pages of this document:
(i)
By AUM:
a. Funds up to $250M AUM
b. Funds from $251M to $1.0B AUM
c. Funds with greater than $1.0B AUM
(ii)
By Headcount of senior investment team members:
a. Funds with 5 people or less
b. Funds with 6-10 people
c. Funds with over 10 people
We submitted data points to firms in a request for comment to allow firms the ability to fact check the information.


Appendix 1: Investment Team Leadership vs. Full Team
The first three bars are based on data collected:
(i)
Senior Investment Team: Representation of main data collected. Includes General Partners, Partners, Managing
Directors, Venture Partners etc. on the investment team
(ii)
Junior Investment Team: Other members of the investment team such as Principals, VPs, Associates, Analysts,
Advisers, etc.
(iii)
Non-investment team: Generally includes operational / support roles such as finance, legal, etc.
NOTE: Categories (ii) and (iii) have an issue of data availability (i.e. not all firms show their finance team) and should be
considered more directional.
Regarding gender, it is clear that women are hired more frequently into the junior ranks but do not have the same presence on
the senior team. Further, many more women exist outside of the team. The US population estimates for 2020 is shown on
the far right both the VC community and the tech industry is far from the 50/50 split.
Regarding race, the senior investment team in venture capital is 78% white which is less diverse than the large tech
companies and significantly worse than the US population estimates for 2020.

Gender Distribution
8%

11%

20%

92%

51%
89%

80%

Senior Investment Team

23%

40%

77%

60%

Junior Investment Team

49%

Non-Investment Team
% Men

Y-Combinator (W'14)

1%

20%

78%

Senior Investment Team

2%

2%

13%

1%

86%

Non-Investment Team
% Asian

Black

3%

2%

70%

63%

Junior Investment Team

0%
21%

32%

% White

1%

US in 2020

% Women

Race/Ethnic Distribution
1%

Large Tech Avg. (Leaders)

Hispanic

Large Tech Avg. (Leaders)

3%

19%
12%
6%

60%

US in 2020

Other / 2+


An updated scatter-plot of % women and % minorities can be found below. The vast majority of funds are below where the
US will be, and the magnitude of the disparity is largest when looking at representation of women vs. the US (i.e. firms are
very far away from 50%).

100%

Aspect

90%

US 2020:
39% Minorities

80%
70%

US 2020:
51% Women

% Women

60%
50%

Floodgate,
Cowboy,
Social Capital

Scale

40%

KPCB

30%

Felicis

Canaan

Tech Giants

20%

Trinity

10%

Khosla Storm

Mayfield

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

% Minority


Appendix 2: US and Tech Giant Comps
The US Census data broken out is shown below.
Designation
White alone (non-Hispanic)
Black or African American alone
American Indian / Alaskan Native alone
Asian alone
Native Hawaiian and other pacific islander alone
Two or more
Hispanic or Latino

Our
Classification
White
Black
Other / 2+
Asian
Other / 2+
Other / 2+
Hispanic

2020

White
Asian
Black
Hispanic
Other / 2+
Total

2013
62.6%
13.2%
1.2%
5.3%
0.2%
2.4%
15.1%

Stats
199,400
41,594
2,432
19,255
595
7,678
63,551

%s
59.6%
12.4%
0.7%
5.8%
0.2%
2.3%
19.0%

100.0%

334,505

100.0%

62.6%
5.3%
13.2%
15.1%
3.8%
100.0%

59.6%
5.8%
12.4%
19.0%
3.2%
100.0%

44%

41%

US Ethnic Score

Male
Female

155.7
160.8
316.5
US Gender Score

165,036
169,467
334,503

49%
51%
100%

50%

50%

The array of corresponding statistics for the leadership of large tech firms is below:
Gender
28%

25%

25%

23%

23%

23%

22%

17%

11%

72%

75%

75%

77%

77%

77%

78%

83%

89%

92%

AAPL

LNKD

AMZN

YHOO

FB

Tech AVG

GOOG

MSFT

YC Founder s
(W'14)

Senior VCs

% Men

8%

% Women

Ethnicity
37%

35%

29%

30%

29%

28%

27%

22%

22%

63%

65%

71%

70%

71%

72%

73%

78%

78%

AAPL

LNKD

MSFT

Tech AVG

AMZN

GOOG

FB

YHOO

% White

YC Founder s
(W'14)

Senior VCs

% Minority

10


Appendix 3: Best Venture Outcomes
The following table shows the data used to calculate the distribution of ages of the partners who led the Series A / Series B
rounds of the best US-based deals. Highlighted rows indicate deals for which we could not find the partner, firms or dates, or
the company became insolvent shortly after exitof these top 100 deals, 50 deals were used.

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.

Name
Facebook
Google
WhatsApp
Twitter
Corvis
Groupon
Continental Cablevision
Zynga
MetroPCS
Cerent
Webvan
LendingClub
Workday
Fitbit
LinkedIn
Clearwire
Chromatis Networks
Siara Systems
GoPro
ONI Systems
Sirocco Systems
Palo Alto Networks
Arista Networks
Hyperion Solutions
Vonage
First Republic Bank
Xros
Nest Labs
Oplink Communications
Pandora Media
DoubleClick
Transmeta
NorthPoint Communications
Sycamore Networks
Qtera
zulily
International Power Technology
Veeva Systems
Handspring
Cygnus Solutions
FireEye
ServiceNow
TriZetto Group
StorageNetworks
CoSine Communications
Wayfair
Beats Electronics LLC
National Computer Systems
HomeAway
GT Solar International
CIENA
Fanch Communications
Magma Copper
Akamai Technologies
Avanex
eToys
Ikaria
LS Power Group
Tritel
Priceline.com
Tableau Software
FreeMarkets
Juno Therapeutics
Intergraph Corp.
Tellium

Round Type
IPO
IPO
Acquisition
IPO
IPO
IPO
Acquisition
IPO
IPO
Acquisition
IPO
IPO
IPO
IPO
IPO
IPO
Acquisition
Acquisition
IPO
IPO
Acquisition
IPO
IPO
Acquisition
IPO
IPO
Acquisition
Acquisition
IPO
IPO
Acquisition
IPO
IPO
IPO
Acquisition
IPO
Acquisition
IPO
IPO
Acquisition
IPO
IPO
Acquisition
IPO
IPO
IPO
Acquisition
Acquisition
IPO
IPO
IPO
Acquisition
IPO
IPO
IPO
IPO
Acquisition
Acquisition
IPO
IPO
IPO
IPO
IPO
Acquisition
IPO

66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
73.
74.
75.
76.
77.
78.
79.
80.
81.
82.
83.
84.
85.
86.
87.
88.
89.
90.
91.
92.
93.
94.
95.
96.
97.
98.
99.
100.

MP3.com
Splunk
Oculus VR
Fusion-io
Etsy
Telecorp PCS
Box
Websense
Tradex Technologies
Nimble Storage
Broadband Access Systems
Juniper Networks
Green Dot Corp.
Onvia.com
AutoTrader.com
Niku
NetZero
Legent
VA Linux Systems
KiOR
Alios BioPharma
NetSuite
Demand Media
Rackspace Hosting
AXT
Liberty Dialysis LLC
Castlight Health
Bindley Western Industries
KAR Auction Services
Reliant Pharmaceuticals
YouTube
aQuantive
Avici Systems
OnDeck Capital
Bright Horizons Family Solutions

IPO
IPO
Acquisition
IPO
IPO
IPO
IPO
Acquisition
Acquisition
IPO
Acquisition
IPO
IPO
IPO
Acquisition
IPO
IPO
Acquisition
IPO
IPO
Acquisition
IPO
IPO
IPO
IPO
Acquisition
IPO
Acquisition
IPO
Acquisition
Acquisition
IPO
IPO
IPO
IPO

Invested
6,840
1,202
1,820
1,139
700
1,000
863
375
755
637
448
217
600

214
200
197
226
531
105

247
96
273
360
284
140
194
200
304
162
243
230
305

160
500
115

234
216
166

237
160
155
173
265
135
346
213
204
213
184
175

168
163
168
192
160
132
150
161
77
159
25
178
300

126
217
200
222

Post-Valuation
Closed Date
104,178
5/18/2012
24,640
8/19/2004
19,000
10/6/2014
15,650
11/7/2013
14,168
7/28/2000
13,384
11/4/2011
11,800
12/22/1996
9,044
12/16/2011
8,489
4/19/2007
6,900
11/1/1999
6,426
11/4/1999
6,302
12/11/2014
5,411
10/12/2012
5,122
6/18/2015
5,053
5/19/2011
4,925
3/8/2007
4,756
6/28/2000
4,500
3/8/2000
3,696
6/24/2014
3,639
6/1/2000
3,487
9/7/2000
3,406
7/20/2012
3,348
6/5/2014
3,300
3/1/2007
3,290
5/24/2006
3,270
12/9/2010
3,227
6/1/2000
3,200
2/7/2014
3,177
10/4/2000
3,145
6/15/2011
3,100
3/12/2008
3,036
11/7/2000
3,031
5/5/1999
3,029
10/21/1999
3,004
1/28/2000
3,000
11/15/2013
3,000
12/31/1991
2,971
10/16/2013
2,919
6/21/2000
2,875
1/7/2000
2,849
9/20/2013
2,830
6/29/2012
2,700
11/3/2014
2,676
6/30/2000
2,659
9/26/2000
2,553
10/2/2014
2,500
8/1/2014
2,500
7/31/2000
2,469
6/29/2011
2,457
7/24/2008
2,410
2/7/1997
2,400
11/1/1999
2,400
1/4/1996
2,378
10/28/1999
2,375
2/4/2000
2,334
5/19/1999
2,300
4/17/2015
2,300
4/2/2007
2,296
12/13/1999
2,277
3/30/1999
2,274
5/17/2013
2,177
12/9/1999
2,131
12/19/2014
2,125
10/28/2010
2,121
5/17/2001
2,004
2,001
2,000
1,990
1,987
1,966
1,902
1,900
1,860
1,836
1,835
1,816
1,816
1,806
1,800
1,790
1,782
1,780
1,755
1,754
1,750
1,727
1,720
1,716
1,716
1,700
1,675
1,670
1,660
1,650
1,650
1,632
1,617
1,612
1,605

7/21/1999
4/19/2012
7/21/2014
6/9/2011
4/16/2015
11/22/1999
1/23/2015
6/1/2015
3/8/2000
12/13/2013
9/29/2000
6/24/1999
7/22/2010
3/1/2000
1/3/2014
2/29/2000
9/23/1999
5/25/1995
12/9/1999
6/24/2011
11/7/2014
12/20/2007
1/26/2011
8/8/2008
5/20/1998
2/28/2012
3/14/2014
12/5/2000
12/11/2009
12/19/2007
11/13/2006
2/29/2000
7/28/2000
12/17/2014
1/25/2013

Series A Date
5/1/2005
6/7/1999
4/8/2011
7/1/2007
n/a
1/1/2008
n/a
1/15/2008
10/1/1994
n/a
n/a
8/23/2007
12/6/2006
10/10/2008
11/1/2003
6/1/2004
10/1/1998
11/15/1998
5/5/2011
12/1/1997
4/27/1999
1/1/2006
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
1/15/1999
9/21/2010
n/a
1/1/2000
6/10/1997
n/a
n/a
n/a
8/12/1998
12/17/2009
n/a
n/a
n/a
2/15/1997
1/1/2005
7/5/2005
n/a
n/a
n/a
6/21/2011
n/a
n/a
1/1/2005
n/a
4/1/1994
n/a
n/a
12/14/1998
6/29/1998
n/a
9/26/2005
n/a
n/a
n/a
1/1/2004
n/a
12/3/2013
n/a
n/a

Series B Date
4/1/2006
n/a
n/a
5/1/2008
n/a
12/1/2009
n/a
7/18/2008
n/a
4/1/1997
n/a
3/19/2009
n/a
9/10/2010
10/1/2004
n/a
9/27/1999
4/20/1999
n/a
3/1/1998
4/27/1999
6/25/2007
n/a
n/a
11/24/2003
n/a
8/15/1999
8/1/2011
n/a
n/a
2/20/1998
n/a
n/a
n/a
4/19/1999
8/4/2010
n/a
6/5/2008
n/a
n/a
8/23/2006
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
1/1/2006
n/a
12/1/1994
n/a
n/a
4/30/1999
3/25/1999
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
8/5/2014
n/a
n/a

n/a
12/1/2004
6/17/2013
3/31/2008
11/1/2006
n/a
10/1/2006
n/a
n/a
12/21/2007
7/1/1998
6/11/1996
1/1/2003
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
8/1/2009
n/a
n/a
n/a
11/1/2005
n/a
5/1/1997
1/1/2006
n/a

n/a
1/1/2006
12/12/2013
4/7/2009
1/1/2007
n/a
1/23/2008
n/a
3/1/1998
12/24/2008
n/a
8/5/1996
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
3/27/2000
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
1/1/2007
n/a

11


1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
73.
74.
75.
76.
77.
78.
79.
80.
81.
82.
83.
84.
85.
86.
87.
88.
89.
90.
91.
92.
93.
94.
95.
96.
97.
98.
99.
100.
101.
102.
103.
104.
105.
106.
107.
108.
109.
110.
111.
112.
113.
114.
115.
116.
117.
118.
119.
120.
121.
122.
123.
124.
125.
126.
127.
128.
129.
130.
131.
132.

Name
Jim Breyer
Reid Hoffman
Peter Thiel
David Sze
Paul Madera
Ron Conway
John Doerr
Michael Moritz
Jim Goetz
Brian Pokorny
Ron Conway
George Z achary
Fred Wilson
Chris Sacca
Marc Andreessen
Mike Maples Jr.
Steve Anderson
Bijan Sabet
Joi Ito
Harry Weller
Kevin Efrusy
Fred Wilson
Andy Russell
Rich Levandov
Brad Feld
Peter Thiel
Reid Hoffman
Brian Pokorny
John Doerr
Sandy Miller
Vinod Khosla
Dan Ciporin
Jeff Crowe
Rebecca Lynn
Jeff Clavier
Jon Callaghan
Brad Feld
Aydin Senkut
Mark Kvamme
Josh Kopelman
David Sze
Dave Flanagan
Seth Neiman
Vinod Khosla
Promod Haque
Michael Marks
Ned Gilhuly
John Ball
Chris Rust
Lip-Bu Tan
Kevin Compton
Jon Feiber
Felda Hardymon
Roger Evans
Barry Eggers
Jim Goetz
Asheem Chandna
Harry Weller
Thomas Bredt
Randy Komisar
Rob Coneybeer
Bill Maris
Peter Nieh
Larry Kubal
Doug Barry
Larry Marcus
Dave Strohm
Deepak Kamra
Ray Rothrock
Todd Dagres
Todd Brooks
Jason Stoffer
Eric Carlborg
Gus Tai
Gordon Ritter
Dave Strohm
John Johnston
Matthew Howard
Gaurav Garg
Joe Horowitz
Paul Barber
Alex Finkelstein
Neeraj Agrawal
Michael Kumin
Ian Lane
Phil Siegel
Jeff Brody
Todd Chaffee
John Moragne
Berry Cash
David Cowan
Scott Tobin
Todd Chaffee
Andrew Schwab
Robert Nelsen
Bryan Roberts
Forest Baskett, PhD
Robert Nelsen
Bong Koh
David Hornik
Thomas Neustaetter
Antonio Rodriguez
Santo Politi
Joe Lonsdale
Brian Singerman
Chris Dixon
Scott Sandell
Chris Schaepe
Blake Modersitzki
Fred Wilson
Josh Stein
Winston Fu
Steve Jurvetson
Ping Li
Jim Goetz
Barry Eggers
Andrew Marcuvitz
Vinod Khosla
Seth Neiman
Andy Rachleff
Geoff Yang
Peter Barris
Michael Moritz
Douglas Leone
George Still
Bryan Roberts
Roelof Botha
Jim Swartz
Matt Gorin
Matt Harris
David Weiden
James Robinson III

Fund
Accel Partners
Greylock Partners
Founders Fund
Greylock Partners
Meritech Capital Partners
SV Angel
Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers
Sequoia Capital
Sequoia Capital
SV Angel
SV Angel
Charles River Ventures
Union Square Ventures
Lowercase Capital
Andreessen Horowitz
Floodgate
Baseline Ventures
Spark Capital
MIT Media Lab
NEA
Accel Partners
Union Square Ventures
Pilot Group
Avalon Ventures
Foundry Group
Founders Fund
Greylock Partners
SV Angel
Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers
Institutional Venture Partners
Khosla Ventures
Canaan Partners
Norwest Venture Partners
Canvas Venture Fund
SoftTech VC
True Ventures
Foundry Group
Felicis Ventures
Sequoia Capital
First Round Capital
Greylock Partners
Intel Capital
Crosspoint
Khosla Ventures
Norwest Venture Partners
Riverwood Capital
Sageview Capital
Steamboat Ventures
Cyphort
Walden International
Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers
Mohr Davidow
Bessemer Venture Partners
Greylock Partners
Lightspeed Venture Partners
Sequoia Capital
Greylock Partners
NEA
Menlo Ventures
Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers
Shasta Ventures
Google Ventures
Lightspeed Venture Partners
Labrador Ventures
Selby Ventures
Walden International
Greylock Partners
Canaan Partners
Venrock
Spark Capital
Mayfield Fund
Maveron
August Capital
Trinity Ventures
Emergence Capital
Greylock Partners
August Capital
Norwest Venture Partners
Sequoia Capital
Icon Ventures
JMI Equity
Spark Capital
Battery Ventures
Great Hill Partners
HarvourVest
Austin Ventures
Redpoint Ventures
Institutional Venture Partners
Trident Capital
InterWest
Bessemer Venture Partners
Battery Ventures
Institutional Venture Partners
5am Ventures
ARCH Venture Partners
Venrock
NEA
ARCH Venture Partners
Venrock
August Capital
JK&B Capital
Matrix Partners
Spark Capital
Formation 8
Founders Fund
Andreessen Horowitz
NEA
Lightspeed Venture Partners
Pelion Venture Partners
Union Square Ventures
Draper Fisher Jurvetson
US Venture Partners
Draper Fisher Jurvetson
Accel Partners
Sequoia Capital
Lightspeed Venture Partners
Matrix Partners
Khosla Ventures
Crosspoint
Benchmark Capital
Redpoint Ventures
NEA
Sequoia Capital
Sequoia Capital
Norwest Venture Partners
Venrock
Sequoia Capital
Accel Partners
Contour Venture Partners
Bain Capital Ventures
Khosla Ventures
RRE Ventures

Investment
Facebook
Facebook
Facebook
Facebook
Facebook
Facebook
Google
Google
WhatsApp
Twitter
Twitter
Twitter
Twitter
Twitter
Twitter
Twitter
Twitter
Twitter
Twitter
Groupon
Groupon
Zynga
Zynga
Zynga
Zynga
Zynga
Zynga
Zynga
Zynga
Zynga
Cerent
LendingClub
LendingClub
LendingClub
FitBit
FitBit
FitBit
Fitbit
LinkedIn
LinkedIn
LinkedIn
Clearwire
Chromatis Networks
Siara Systems
Siara Systems
GoPro
GoPro
GoPro
GoPro
GoPro
ONI Systems
ONI Systems
Sirocco Systems
Sirocco Systems
Sirocco Systems
Palo Alto Networks
Palo Alto Networks
Vonage
XROS
Nest Labs
Nest Labs
Nest Labs
Nest Labs
Pandora Media
Pandora Media
Pandora Media
DoubleClick
DoubleClick
DoubleClick
Qtera
Qtera
Zulily
Zulily
Zulily
Veeva Systems
Cygnus Solutions
Cygnus Solutions
FireEye
FireEye
FireEye
ServiceNow
Wayfair
Wayfair
Wayfair
Wayfair
HomeAway
HomeAway
HomeAway
HomeAway
CIENA
CIENA
Akamai Technologies
Akamai Technologies
Ikaria
Ikaria
Ikaria
Tableau Software
Juno Therapeutics
Juno Therapeutics
Splunk
Splunk
Oculus VR
Oculus VR
Oculus VR
Oculus VR
Oculus VR
Fusion-io
Fusion-io
Fusion-io
Etsy
Box
Box
TradeX Technologies
Nimble Storage
Nimble Storage
Nimble Storage
Broadband Access Systems
Juniper Networks
Juniper Networks
Juniper Networks
Juniper Networks
Juniper Networks
Green Dot Corp.
Rackspace Hosting
Rackspace Hosting
Castlight Health
Youtube
Avici Systems
OnDeck Capital
OnDeck Capital
OnDeck Capital
OnDeck Capital

Series
Series A
Series A
Series B
Series B
Series B
Series B
Series A
Series A
Series A
Series A
Series A
Series A
Series A
Series A
Series A
Series A
Series A
Series B
Series B
Series A
Series B
Series A
Series A
Series A
Series A
Series A
Series A
Series A
Series B
Series B
Series B
Series A
Series A
Series B
Series A
Series A
Series B
Series B
Series A
Series A
Series B
Series A
Series A
Series A
Series A
Series A
Series A
Series A
Series A
Series A
Series A
Series A
Series A
Series A
Series A
Series A
Series A
Series B
Series A
Series A
Series A
Series B
Series B
Series A
Series A
Series A
Series A
Series A
Series A
Series A
Series B
Series A
Series B
Series B
Series B
Series A
Series A
Series A
Series A
Series B
Series A
Series A
Series A
Series A
Series A
Series A
Series A
Series B
Series B
Series A
Series B
Series A
Series A
Series A
Series A
Series A
Series A
Series A
Series A-2
Series A
Series B
Series A
Series A
Series A
Series A
Series B
Series A
Series B
Series B
Series A
Series A
Series B
Series B
Series A
Series A
Series B
Series A
Series A
Series B
Series B
Series B
Series B
Series A
Series B
Series B
Series A
Series A
Series A
Series A
Series A
Series B
Series B

Deal Date Age @ Deal

5/1/05
43
5/1/05
37
4/1/06
38
4/1/06
43
4/1/06
49
4/1/06
55
6/7/99
47
6/7/99
44
4/8/11
45
7/1/07
26
7/1/07
56
7/1/07
40
7/1/07
45
7/1/07
31
7/1/07
36
7/1/07
38
7/1/07
37
5/1/08
38
5/1/08
41
1/1/08
37
12/1/09
36
1/15/08
46
1/15/08
36
1/15/08
1/15/08
42
1/15/08
40
1/15/08
40
1/15/08
27
7/18/08
57
7/18/08
58
4/1/97
42
8/23/07
48
8/23/07
49
3/19/09
36
10/10/08
40
10/10/08
39
9/10/10
44
9/10/10
39
11/1/03
42
11/1/03
32
10/1/04
41
6/1/04
34
10/1/98
44
11/15/98
43
11/15/98
50
5/5/11
59
5/5/11
50
5/5/11
47
5/5/11
45
5/5/11
51
12/1/97
39
12/1/97
40
4/27/99
51
4/27/99
49
4/27/99
35
1/1/06
40
1/1/06
41
11/24/03
33
1/15/99
57
9/21/10
54
9/21/10
40
8/1/11
35
8/1/11
45
1/1/00
47
1/1/00
36
1/1/00
48
6/10/97
48
6/10/97
40
6/10/97
39
8/12/98
37
4/19/99
38
12/17/09
32
8/4/10
45
8/4/10
44
6/5/08
43
2/15/97
48
2/15/97
41
1/1/05
40
1/1/05
38
8/23/06
7/5/05
42
6/21/11
34
6/21/11
38
6/21/11
37
6/21/11
33
1/1/05
39
1/1/05
43
1/1/06
45
1/1/06
45
4/1/94
52
12/1/94
28
12/14/98
27
12/14/98
38
9/26/05
33
9/26/05
41
9/26/05
37
1/1/04
60
12/3/13
50
12/3/13
40
12/1/04
36
1/1/06
53
6/17/13
38
6/17/13
46
6/17/13
30
6/17/13
34
12/12/13
40
3/31/08
43
4/7/09
43
4/7/09
39
11/1/06
45
10/1/06
32
1/23/08
41
3/1/98
30
12/21/07
35
12/21/07
42
12/24/08
45
7/1/98
6/11/96
41
8/5/96
42
8/5/96
37
8/5/96
36
8/5/96
43
1/1/03
48
3/27/00
41
3/27/00
41
8/1/09
41
11/1/05
33
5/1/97
1/1/06
1/1/06
33
1/1/07
34
1/1/07
71

We have a total of 127 datapoints across the 50 of the largest exits

above for which we have the actual or estimated age of the partner at
the time of the Series A or B.

12