This document compares data from CrunchBase and MoneyTree on venture capital investments. While CrunchBase includes more deal types like accelerator investments, its data is highly correlated with MoneyTree at the state and metro level, making it suitable for aggregate analysis of geographic trends. MoneyTree specifically tracks cash-for-equity investments from professional venture capital firms and excludes other types. Both data sources have limitations for comprehensiveness and firm-level analysis but can be used to analyze relative investment variances across regions.

1. © 2014 Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation
1
Comparing CrunchBase
and MoneyTree Data
Yas Motoyama, Ph.D.
Director
Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation

2. © 2014 Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation
2
Structure of Crunch Base Data
• People data
• Organization data
o Company (General, Investment, Acquisition)
o Group
o Investor
o School
• Focusing on investment data
o Needs to declare investing entity
o Needs to have a profile of investing entity
o All information on investing entity filled

3. © 2014 Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation
3
• My interest: Geographic distribution
• My question: Is invested money correlated with
innovative activities or entrepreneurship activities?
o High-tech industry clusters
o University research
o Government research funding
o Patents
o Startup, high-growth firms rates
• My analysis: Relative variance between regions

4. © 2014 Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation
4
Type Deal %
angel 72 1.5%
private_equity 119 2.4%
seed 1,562 31.8%
venture 2,694 54.8%
other 396 8.1%
undisclosed 72 1.5%
PE+Seed+Venture 4,375 89.0%
Grand Total 4,915 100.0%
• CB investment/funding types (2014)
NOTE: “other” includes 1) convertible note, 2) debt financing, 3) grant, 4) non-equity assistance, 5)
post IPO debt, 6) post IPO equity, 7) product crowdfunding, and 8) secondary market

5. © 2014 Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation
5
Comparing CB and MoneyTree (MT)
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
4,500
5,000
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
CB deal MT deal CB invt MT invt
Note: Invt = Invested amount ($ mil) in left axis

6. © 2014 Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation
6
Why Different?
CB includes
• Accelerator investment
• Public/semi-public venture funds investment
• Non-profit support organizations’ investment/awards
• And what else?

7. © 2014 Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation
7
• MoneyTree Report
o “Report is the only industry-endorsed research of its kind. The MoneyTree™
Report is the definitive source of information . . .”
o “measures cash-for-equity investments by the professional venture capital
community in private emerging companies in the US.”
o “from a quarterly survey of venture capital practitioners conducted by
Thomson Reuters. Information is augmented by other research techniques
including other public and private sources.”
o “excludes debt, buyouts, recapitalizations, secondary purchases, IPOs,
investments in public companies, investment for acquisition”
o “Angel, incubator and similar investments” “are not included”
• But includes Ben Franklin Tech Partners, 500 Startups,
Maryland Dept. of Business & Econ Devt, Michigan & Oregon
Angel Funds, Sand Hill Angels, Wisconsin Invt Board, etc.

8. © 2014 Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation
8
Correlation Between CB and MT
• State level
o 0.99 for all states since 2008
o 0.92-0.98 for states excluding California
• Metro level
o 0.995 for all metros, 2013 Q3-2015 Q2
o 0.956 for metros excluding California

9. © 2014 Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation
9
Histogram at Metro Level
Pink = CB
Blue = PwC
Purple = Both
• 2013 Q3-2015 Q2

10. © 2014 Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation
10
Tentative Conclusions
• Not for comprehensiveness
• Not for firm-level analysis
• But for aggregate analysis, such as geography
• But for relative variance
• Assuming VC and overall investment correlate
• Some other issues:
• Entry lag time: easily up to 2 years
• Anything else?