Vc diversity-methodology-write-up-v final

1
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
AUM$$$Mil. Gender$Score Ethnic$Score Age$Score
(per$Venture Gender$Divrs. Gender$Score Ethnic$Divrs. Ethnic$Score Age Avg. Composite
Firm Headcount Source) Male Female %$Women Prob.$(Pg) (1GPg)*10 White Asian Black Hispanic Other Prob.$(Pr) (1GPr)*10 Avg. Score Score
Greater$Than$$1$Billion$AUM
– 1. Social*Capital 8 $*1,155 4 4 50.0% 43% 5.7 4 4 – – – 43% 5.7 38.5 8.8 6.74
– 2. Battery*Ventures 10 4,500 9 1 10.0% 80% 2.0 8 2 – – – 64% 3.6 42.1 9.8 5.10
– 3. GGV*Capital 4 2,705 4 – – 100% 0.0 3 1 – – – 50% 5.0 44.8 10.0 5.00
– 4. Trinity*Ventures 9 1,500 7 2 22.2% 61% 3.9 4 5 – – – 44% 5.6 51.3 5.5 4.99
– 5. Kleiner*Perkins*Caufield*&*Byers 10 4,600 7 3 30.0% 53% 4.7 7 3 – – – 53% 4.7 47.7 5.5 4.95
– 6. Greylock*Partners 11 3,016 10 1 9.1% 82% 1.8 7 4 – – – 49% 5.1 45.4 7.9 4.93
– 7. Accel*Partners 8 7,790 8 – – 100% 0.0 5 3 – – – 46% 5.4 39.5 8.8 4.71
– 8. Khosla*Ventures 8 2,263 8 – – 100% 0.0 3 5 – – – 46% 5.4 44.7 8.7 4.68
– 9. Google*Ventures 12 2,000 11 1 8.3% 83% 1.7 10 1 1 – – 68% 3.2 38.0 8.9 4.58
– 10.Bain*Capital*Ventures 11 3,000 11 – – 100% 0.0 6 4 – 1 – 38% 6.2 45.0 7.4 4.53
– 11.Lightspeed*Venture*Partners 13 3,135 13 – – 100% 0.0 6 7 – – – 46% 5.4 42.9 8.1 4.51
– 12.Charles*River*Ventures 9 1,500 8 1 11.1% 78% 2.2 7 1 – 1 – 58% 4.2 41.2 6.8 4.38
– 13.Scale*Venture*Partners 7 1,200 4 3 42.9% 43% 5.7 7 – – – – 100% 0.0 46.9 7.3 4.32
– 14.Softbank*Capital 10 2,596 8 2 20.0% 64% 3.6 8 2 – – – 64% 3.6 46.6 5.6 4.25
– 15.Venrock 9 2,450 8 1 11.1% 78% 2.2 8 1 – – – 78% 2.2 46.8 8.2 4.21
– 16.Canaan*Partners 12 3,500 9 3 25.0% 59% 4.1 10 2 – – – 70% 3.0 49.1 5.5 4.19
– 17.Norwest*Venture*Partners 13 5,000 12 1 7.7% 85% 1.5 9 3 – 1 – 50% 5.0 50.8 5.9 4.16
– 18.Draper*Fisher*Jurvetson 11 5,760 9 2 18.2% 67% 3.3 9 2 – – – 67% 3.3 49.7 5.6 4.04
– 19.Shasta*Ventures 6 1,025 6 – – 100% 0.0 4 2 – – – 47% 5.3 48.2 6.8 4.03
– 20.Foundation*Capital 9 2,782 9 – – 100% 0.0 6 3 – – – 50% 5.0 48.6 6.7 3.90
– 21.DCM*Ventures 4 2,800 4 – – 100% 0.0 3 1 – – – 50% 5.0 49.3 6.3 3.77
– 22.Benchmark 6 3,302 6 – – 100% 0.0 5 1 – – – 67% 3.3 44.5 7.9 3.76
– 23.NEA 30 16,442 28 2 6.7% 87% 1.3 24 6 – – – 67% 3.3 48.4 6.3 3.64
– 24.Institutional*Venture*Partners 8 5,400 8 – – 100% 0.0 6 2 – – – 57% 4.3 47.3 6.6 3.62
– 25.General*Catalyst*Partners 11 3,000 11 – – 100% 0.0 8 3 – – – 56% 4.4 45.6 6.5 3.62
– 26.Crosslink*Capital 6 1,600 6 – – 100% 0.0 4 2 – – – 47% 5.3 51.8 5.5 3.60
– 27.Spark*Capital 9 1,825 9 – – 100% 0.0 8 1 – – – 78% 2.2 42.4 8.5 3.58
– 28.Menlo*Ventures 11 2,000 10 1 9.1% 82% 1.8 9 2 – – – 67% 3.3 51.1 5.5 3.53
– 29.Tiger*Global*Management 3 10,000 3 – – 100% 0.0 3 – – – – 100% 0.0 37.7 10.0 3.33
– 30.Sequoia*Capital 14 4,470 14 – – 100% 0.0 12 2 – – – 74% 2.6 46.0 6.8 3.16
– 31.Founders*Fund 6 2,160 6 – – 100% 0.0 6 – – – – 100% 0.0 38.2 9.4 3.13
– 32.Mayfield*Fund 5 3,000 5 – – 100% 0.0 – 5 – – – 100% 0.0 43.4 9.3 3.10
– 33.FirstMark*Capital 14 2,200 14 – – 100% 0.0 13 1 – – – 86% 1.4 45.7 7.8 3.09
– 34.Redpoint*Ventures 13 3,800 13 – – 100% 0.0 11 2 – – – 72% 2.8 46.3 6.3 3.05
– 35.Index*Ventures 3 3,733 3 – – 100% 0.0 3 – – – – 100% 0.0 42.0 8.9 2.98
– 36.Foundry*Group 4 1,128 4 – – 100% 0.0 4 – – – – 100% 0.0 46.0 8.5 2.84
– 37. Andreessen*Horowitz 16 4,289 15 1 6.3% 88% 1.3 15 1 – – – 88% 1.3 50.0 6.1 2.85
– 38.US*Venture*Partners 6 1,225 5 1 16.7% 67% 3.3 6 – – – – 100% 0.0 50.3 4.9 2.74
– 39.Matrix*Partners 9 5,050 9 – – 100% 0.0 8 – – 1 – 78% 2.2 49.2 6.0 2.73
– 40.August*Capital 7 1,300 7 – – 100% 0.0 6 1 – – – 71% 2.9 51.0 4.9 2.59
– 41.Tenaya*Capital 5 1,487 5 – – 100% 0.0 5 – – – – 100% 0.0 47.0 7.3 2.43
– 42.Bessemer*Venture*Partners 13 5,600 13 – – 100% 0.0 13 – – – – 100% 0.0 45.0 7.0 2.33
– 43.Meritech*Capital*Partners 6 2,064 6 – – 100% 0.0 6 – – – – 100% 0.0 45.8 6.3 2.09
– 44.Atlas*Life*Sciences 5 2,545 5 – – 100% 0.0 5 – – – – 100% 0.0 51.0 6.1 2.02
– 45.Madrona*Venture*Group 6 1,300 6 – – 100% 0.0 6 – – – – 100% 0.0 53.8 5.4 1.79
– 46.Bluerun*Ventures 2 1,065 2 – – 100% 0.0 2 – – – – 100% 0.0 53.0 3.9 1.29
$250$Million$to$$1$Billion
– 1. Y*Combinator 11 1,000 10 1 9.1% 82% 1.8 6 4 1 – – 38% 6.2 36.4 8.1 5.35
– 2. Formation*8 10 948 9 1 10.0% 80% 2.0 6 4 – – – 47% 5.3 34.6 7.2 4.84
– 3. Upfront*Ventures 6 658 5 1 16.7% 67% 3.3 5 – 1 – – 67% 3.3 47.3 7.3 4.65
– 4. True*Ventures 7 890 7 – – 100% 0.0 4 3 – – – 43% 5.7 47.0 7.9 4.54
– 5. Iconiq*Capital 5 528 5 – – 100% 0.0 4 1 – – – 60% 4.0 40.8 9.4 4.46
– 6. Thrive*Capital 6 597 6 – – 100% 0.0 3 3 – – – 40% 6.0 32.5 7.3 4.44
– 7. Emergence*Capital 7 575 6 1 14.3% 71% 2.9 6 – – 1 – 71% 2.9 47.6 6.6 4.12
– 8. Storm*Ventures 6 825 6 – – 100% 0.0 2 3 – 1 – 27% 7.3 53.2 4.8 4.05
– 9. Greycroft*Partners 9 593 8 1 11.1% 78% 2.2 9 – – – – 100% 0.0 47.6 7.8 3.35
– 10.RRE*Ventures 6 810 6 – – 100% 0.0 5 1 – – – 67% 3.3 54.2 5.6 2.97
– 11.First*Round*Capital 7 748 7 – – 100% 0.0 7 – – – – 100% 0.0 47.4 7.2 2.38
– 12.Pelion*Venture*Partners 5 610 5 – – 100% 0.0 5 – – – – 100% 0.0 47.6 7.1 2.38
– 13.Sutter*Hill*Ventures 7 700 7 – – 100% 0.0 7 – – – – 100% 0.0 49.3 6.2 2.06
– 14.Union*Square*Ventures 5 883 5 – – 100% 0.0 5 – – – – 100% 0.0 52.8 4.6 1.53
$250$Million$and$Less
– 1. Floodgate 2 224 1 1 50.0% – 10.0 1 1 – – – – 10.0 42.5 9.3 9.78
– 2. Cowboy*Ventures 2 97 1 1 50.0% – 10.0 1 1 – – – – 10.0 39.0 9.2 9.74
– 3. Felicis*Ventures 4 245 3 1 25.0% 50% 5.0 2 2 – – – 33% 6.7 38.8 10.0 7.22
– 4. Aspect*Ventures 2 150 – 2 100.0% 100% 0.0 1 1 – – – – 10.0 48.0 7.6 5.87
– 5. SoftTech*VC 3 155 3 – – 100% 0.0 2 – 1 – – 33% 6.7 40.3 9.6 5.41
– 6. Ribbit*Capital 3 224 3 – – 100% 0.0 2 – – 1 – 33% 6.7 39.7 9.2 5.30
– 7. Canvas*Venture*Fund 5 175 4 1 20.0% 60% 4.0 4 1 – – – 60% 4.0 51.6 5.7 4.58
– 8. Lowercase*Capital 2 30 2 – – 100% 0.0 2 – – – – 100% 0.0 36.0 8.8 2.95
– 9. Accomplice*VC 7 200 7 – – 100% 0.0 7 – – – – 100% 0.0 45.4 6.9 2.29
– 10.SV*Angel 5 100 5 – – 100% 0.0 5 – – – – 100% 0.0 37.8 5.7 1.91
– 11.Blumberg*Capital 2 240 2 – – 100% 0.0 2 – – – – 100% 0.0 52.0 4.8 1.61
Total 546 $$166,467 505 41 7.5% 86% 1.4 425 110 4 7 – 65% 3.5 45.9 7.0 3.98

2
Ranking List, Grouped by Headcount of Senior Investment Team Members
Greater$than$10$People
– 1. Y%Combinator 11 $%1,000 10 1 9.1% 82% 1.8 6 4 1 – – 38% 6.2 36.4 8.1 5.35
– 2. Greylock%Partners 11 3,016 10 1 9.1% 82% 1.8 7 4 – – – 49% 5.1 45.4 7.9 4.93
– 3. Google%Ventures 12 2,000 11 1 8.3% 83% 1.7 10 1 1 – – 68% 3.2 38.0 8.9 4.58
– 4. Bain%Capital%Ventures 11 3,000 11 – – 100% 0.0 6 4 – 1 – 38% 6.2 45.0 7.4 4.53
– 5. Lightspeed%Venture%Partners 13 3,135 13 – – 100% 0.0 6 7 – – – 46% 5.4 42.9 8.1 4.51
– 6. Canaan%Partners 12 3,500 9 3 25.0% 59% 4.1 10 2 – – – 70% 3.0 49.1 5.5 4.19
– 7. Norwest%Venture%Partners 13 5,000 12 1 7.7% 85% 1.5 9 3 – 1 – 50% 5.0 50.8 5.9 4.16
– 8. Draper%Fisher%Jurvetson 11 5,760 9 2 18.2% 67% 3.3 9 2 – – – 67% 3.3 49.7 5.6 4.04
– 9. NEA 30 16,442 28 2 6.7% 87% 1.3 24 6 – – – 67% 3.3 48.4 6.3 3.64
– 10.General%Catalyst%Partners 11 3,000 11 – – 100% 0.0 8 3 – – – 56% 4.4 45.6 6.5 3.62
– 11.Menlo%Ventures 11 2,000 10 1 9.1% 82% 1.8 9 2 – – – 67% 3.3 51.1 5.5 3.53
– 12.Sequoia%Capital 14 4,470 14 – – 100% 0.0 12 2 – – – 74% 2.6 46.0 6.8 3.16
– 13.FirstMark%Capital 14 2,200 14 – – 100% 0.0 13 1 – – – 86% 1.4 45.7 7.8 3.09
– 14.Redpoint%Ventures 13 3,800 13 – – 100% 0.0 11 2 – – – 72% 2.8 46.3 6.3 3.05
– 15.Andreessen%Horowitz 16 4,289 15 1 6.3% 88% 1.3 15 1 – – – 88% 1.3 50.0 6.1 2.85
– 16.Bessemer%Venture%Partners 13 5,600 13 – – 100% 0.0 13 – – – – 100% 0.0 45.0 7.0 2.33
6$to$10$People
– 1. Social%Capital 8 1,155 4 4 50.0% 43% 5.7 4 4 – – – 43% 5.7 38.5 8.8 6.74
– 2. Battery%Ventures 10 4,500 9 1 10.0% 80% 2.0 8 2 – – – 64% 3.6 42.1 9.8 5.10
– 3. Trinity%Ventures 9 1,500 7 2 22.2% 61% 3.9 4 5 – – – 44% 5.6 51.3 5.5 4.99
– 4. Kleiner%Perkins%Caufield%&%Byers 10 4,600 7 3 30.0% 53% 4.7 7 3 – – – 53% 4.7 47.7 5.5 4.95
– 5. Formation%8 10 948 9 1 10.0% 80% 2.0 6 4 – – – 47% 5.3 34.6 7.2 4.84
– 6. Accel%Partners 8 7,790 8 – – 100% 0.0 5 3 – – – 46% 5.4 39.5 8.8 4.71
– 7. Khosla%Ventures 8 2,263 8 – – 100% 0.0 3 5 – – – 46% 5.4 44.7 8.7 4.68
– 8. Upfront%Ventures 6 658 5 1 16.7% 67% 3.3 5 – 1 – – 67% 3.3 47.3 7.3 4.65
– 9. True%Ventures 7 890 7 – – 100% 0.0 4 3 – – – 43% 5.7 47.0 7.9 4.54
– 10.Scale%Venture%Partners 7 1,200 4 3 42.9% 43% 5.7 7 – – – – 100% 0.0 46.7 7.7 4.48
– 11.Thrive%Capital 6 597 6 – – 100% 0.0 3 3 – – – 40% 6.0 32.5 7.3 4.44
– 12.Charles%River%Ventures 9 1,500 8 1 11.1% 78% 2.2 7 1 – 1 – 58% 4.2 41.2 6.8 4.38
– 13.Softbank%Capital 10 2,596 8 2 20.0% 64% 3.6 8 2 – – – 64% 3.6 46.6 5.6 4.25
– 14.Emergence%Capital 7 575 6 1 14.3% 71% 2.9 6 – – 1 – 71% 2.9 47.6 6.6 4.12
– 15.Storm%Ventures 6 825 6 – – 100% 0.0 2 3 – 1 – 27% 7.3 53.2 4.8 4.05
– 16.Shasta%Ventures 6 1,025 6 – – 100% 0.0 4 2 – – – 47% 5.3 48.2 6.8 4.03
– 17.Venrock 9 2,450 8 1 11.1% 78% 2.2 8 1 – – – 78% 2.2 47.9 7.5 3.99
– 18.Foundation%Capital 9 2,782 9 – – 100% 0.0 6 3 – – – 50% 5.0 48.6 6.7 3.90
– 19.Benchmark 6 3,302 6 – – 100% 0.0 5 1 – – – 67% 3.3 44.5 7.9 3.76
– 20.Institutional%Venture%Partners 8 5,400 8 – – 100% 0.0 6 2 – – – 57% 4.3 47.3 6.6 3.62
– 21.Crosslink%Capital 6 1,600 6 – – 100% 0.0 4 2 – – – 47% 5.3 51.8 5.5 3.60
– 22.Spark%Capital 9 1,825 9 – – 100% 0.0 8 1 – – – 78% 2.2 42.4 8.5 3.58
– 23.Greycroft%Partners 9 593 8 1 11.1% 78% 2.2 9 – – – – 100% 0.0 47.6 7.8 3.35
– 24.Founders%Fund 6 2,160 6 – – 100% 0.0 6 – – – – 100% 0.0 38.2 9.4 3.13
– 25.RRE%Ventures 6 810 6 – – 100% 0.0 5 1 – – – 67% 3.3 54.2 5.6 2.97
– 26.US%Venture%Partners 6 1,225 5 1 16.7% 67% 3.3 6 – – – – 100% 0.0 50.3 4.9 2.74
– 27.Matrix%Partners 9 5,050 9 – – 100% 0.0 8 – – 1 – 78% 2.2 49.2 6.0 2.73
– 28.August%Capital 7 1,300 7 – – 100% 0.0 6 1 – – – 71% 2.9 51.0 4.9 2.59
– 29.First%Round%Capital 7 748 7 – – 100% 0.0 7 – – – – 100% 0.0 47.4 7.2 2.38
– 30.Accomplice%VC 7 200 7 – – 100% 0.0 7 – – – – 100% 0.0 45.4 6.9 2.29
– 31. Meritech%Capital%Partners 6 2,064 6 – – 100% 0.0 6 – – – – 100% 0.0 45.8 6.3 2.09
– 32.Sutter%Hill%Ventures 7 700 7 – – 100% 0.0 7 – – – – 100% 0.0 49.3 6.2 2.06
– 33.Madrona%Venture%Group 6 1,300 6 – – 100% 0.0 6 – – – – 100% 0.0 53.8 5.4 1.79
5$or$Less$People
– 1. Floodgate 2 224 1 1 50.0% – 10.0 1 1 – – – – 10.0 42.5 9.3 9.78
– 2. Cowboy%Ventures 2 97 1 1 50.0% – 10.0 1 1 – – – – 10.0 39.0 9.2 9.74
– 3. Felicis%Ventures 4 245 3 1 25.0% 50% 5.0 2 2 – – – 33% 6.7 38.8 10.0 7.22
– 4. Aspect%Ventures 2 150 – 2 100.0% 100% 0.0 1 1 – – – – 10.0 48.0 7.6 5.87
– 5. SoftTech%VC 3 155 3 – – 100% 0.0 2 – 1 – – 33% 6.7 40.3 9.6 5.41
– 6. Ribbit%Capital 3 224 3 – – 100% 0.0 2 – – 1 – 33% 6.7 39.7 9.2 5.30
– 7. GGV%Capital 4 2,705 4 – – 100% 0.0 3 1 – – – 50% 5.0 44.8 10.0 5.00
– 8. Canvas%Venture%Fund 5 175 4 1 20.0% 60% 4.0 4 1 – – – 60% 4.0 51.6 5.7 4.58
– 9. Iconiq%Capital 5 528 5 – – 100% 0.0 4 1 – – – 60% 4.0 40.8 9.4 4.46
– 10.DCM%Ventures 4 2,800 4 – – 100% 0.0 3 1 – – – 50% 5.0 49.3 6.3 3.77
– 11.Tiger%Global%Management 3 10,000 3 – – 100% 0.0 3 – – – – 100% 0.0 37.7 10.0 3.33
– 12.Mayfield%Fund 5 3,000 5 – – 100% 0.0 – 5 – – – 100% 0.0 43.4 9.3 3.10
– 13.Index%Ventures 3 3,733 3 – – 100% 0.0 3 – – – – 100% 0.0 42.0 8.9 2.98
– 14.Lowercase%Capital 2 30 2 – – 100% 0.0 2 – – – – 100% 0.0 36.0 8.8 2.95
– 15.Foundry%Group 4 1,128 4 – – 100% 0.0 4 – – – – 100% 0.0 46.0 8.5 2.84
– 16.Tenaya%Capital 5 1,487 5 – – 100% 0.0 5 – – – – 100% 0.0 47.0 7.3 2.43
– 17.Pelion%Venture%Partners 5 610 5 – – 100% 0.0 5 – – – – 100% 0.0 47.6 7.1 2.38
– 18.Atlas%Life%Sciences 5 2,545 5 – – 100% 0.0 5 – – – – 100% 0.0 51.0 6.1 2.02
– 19.SV%Angel 5 100 5 – – 100% 0.0 5 – – – – 100% 0.0 37.8 5.7 1.91
– 20.Blumberg%Capital 2 240 2 – – 100% 0.0 2 – – – – 100% 0.0 52.0 4.8 1.61
– 21.Union%Square%Ventures 5 883 5 – – 100% 0.0 5 – – – – 100% 0.0 52.8 4.6 1.53
– 22.Bluerun%Ventures 2 1,065 2 – – 100% 0.0 2 – – – – 100% 0.0 53.0 3.9 1.29
Total 546 $$166,467 505 41 7.5% 86% 1.4 425 110 4 7 – 65% 3.5 45.9 7.0 3.98

3
Ranking List Overall of Senior Investment Team Members
Overall$Scores
– 1. Floodgate 2 $.224 1 1 50.0% – 10.0 1 1 – – – – 10.0 42.5 9.3 9.78
– 2. Cowboy.Ventures 2 97 1 1 50.0% – 10.0 1 1 – – – – 10.0 39.0 9.2 9.74
– 3. Felicis.Ventures 4 245 3 1 25.0% 50% 5.0 2 2 – – – 33% 6.7 38.8 10.0 7.22
– 4. Social.Capital 8 1,155 4 4 50.0% 43% 5.7 4 4 – – – 43% 5.7 38.5 8.8 6.74
– 5. Aspect.Ventures 2 150 – 2 100.0% 100% 0.0 1 1 – – – – 10.0 48.0 7.6 5.87
– 6. SoftTech.VC 3 155 3 – – 100% 0.0 2 – 1 – – 33% 6.7 40.3 9.6 5.41
– 7. Y.Combinator 11 1,000 10 1 9.1% 82% 1.8 6 4 1 – – 38% 6.2 36.4 8.1 5.35
– 8. Ribbit.Capital 3 224 3 – – 100% 0.0 2 – – 1 – 33% 6.7 39.7 9.2 5.30
– 9. Battery.Ventures 10 4,500 9 1 10.0% 80% 2.0 8 2 – – – 64% 3.6 42.1 9.8 5.10
– 10. GGV.Capital 4 2,705 4 – – 100% 0.0 3 1 – – – 50% 5.0 44.8 10.0 5.00
– 11. Trinity.Ventures 9 1,500 7 2 22.2% 61% 3.9 4 5 – – – 44% 5.6 51.3 5.5 4.99
– 12. Kleiner.Perkins.Caufield.&.Byers 10 4,600 7 3 30.0% 53% 4.7 7 3 – – – 53% 4.7 47.7 5.5 4.95
– 13. Greylock.Partners 11 3,016 10 1 9.1% 82% 1.8 7 4 – – – 49% 5.1 45.4 7.9 4.93
– 14. Formation.8 10 948 9 1 10.0% 80% 2.0 6 4 – – – 47% 5.3 34.6 7.2 4.84
– 15. Accel.Partners 8 7,790 8 – – 100% 0.0 5 3 – – – 46% 5.4 39.5 8.8 4.71
– 16. Khosla.Ventures 8 2,263 8 – – 100% 0.0 3 5 – – – 46% 5.4 44.7 8.7 4.68
– 17. Upfront.Ventures 6 658 5 1 16.7% 67% 3.3 5 – 1 – – 67% 3.3 47.3 7.3 4.65
– 18. Google.Ventures 12 2,000 11 1 8.3% 83% 1.7 10 1 1 – – 68% 3.2 38.0 8.9 4.58
– 19. Canvas.Venture.Fund 5 175 4 1 20.0% 60% 4.0 4 1 – – – 60% 4.0 51.6 5.7 4.58
– 20. True.Ventures 7 890 7 – – 100% 0.0 4 3 – – – 43% 5.7 47.0 7.9 4.54
– 21. Bain.Capital.Ventures 11 3,000 11 – – 100% 0.0 6 4 – 1 – 38% 6.2 45.0 7.4 4.53
– 22. Lightspeed.Venture.Partners 13 3,135 13 – – 100% 0.0 6 7 – – – 46% 5.4 42.9 8.1 4.51
– 23. Scale.Venture.Partners 7 1,200 4 3 42.9% 43% 5.7 7 – – – – 100% 0.0 46.7 7.7 4.48
– 24. Iconiq.Capital 5 528 5 – – 100% 0.0 4 1 – – – 60% 4.0 40.8 9.4 4.46
– 25. Thrive.Capital 6 597 6 – – 100% 0.0 3 3 – – – 40% 6.0 32.5 7.3 4.44
– 26. Charles.River.Ventures 9 1,500 8 1 11.1% 78% 2.2 7 1 – 1 – 58% 4.2 41.2 6.8 4.38
– 27. Softbank.Capital 10 2,596 8 2 20.0% 64% 3.6 8 2 – – – 64% 3.6 46.6 5.6 4.25
– 28. Canaan.Partners 12 3,500 9 3 25.0% 59% 4.1 10 2 – – – 70% 3.0 49.1 5.5 4.19
– 29. Norwest.Venture.Partners 13 5,000 12 1 7.7% 85% 1.5 9 3 – 1 – 50% 5.0 50.8 5.9 4.16
– 30. Emergence.Capital 7 575 6 1 14.3% 71% 2.9 6 – – 1 – 71% 2.9 47.6 6.6 4.12
– 31. Storm.Ventures 6 825 6 – – 100% 0.0 2 3 – 1 – 27% 7.3 53.2 4.8 4.05
– 32. Draper.Fisher.Jurvetson 11 5,760 9 2 18.2% 67% 3.3 9 2 – – – 67% 3.3 49.7 5.6 4.04
– 33. Shasta.Ventures 6 1,025 6 – – 100% 0.0 4 2 – – – 47% 5.3 48.2 6.8 4.03
– 34. Venrock 9 2,450 8 1 11.1% 78% 2.2 8 1 – – – 78% 2.2 47.9 7.5 3.99
– 35. Foundation.Capital 9 2,782 9 – – 100% 0.0 6 3 – – – 50% 5.0 48.6 6.7 3.90
– 36. DCM.Ventures 4 2,800 4 – – 100% 0.0 3 1 – – – 50% 5.0 49.3 6.3 3.77
– 37. Benchmark 6 3,302 6 – – 100% 0.0 5 1 – – – 67% 3.3 44.5 7.9 3.76
– 38. NEA 30 16,442 28 2 6.7% 87% 1.3 24 6 – – – 67% 3.3 48.4 6.3 3.64
– 39. Institutional.Venture.Partners 8 5,400 8 – – 100% 0.0 6 2 – – – 57% 4.3 47.3 6.6 3.62
– 40. General.Catalyst.Partners 11 3,000 11 – – 100% 0.0 8 3 – – – 56% 4.4 45.6 6.5 3.62
– 41. Crosslink.Capital 6 1,600 6 – – 100% 0.0 4 2 – – – 47% 5.3 51.8 5.5 3.60
– 42. Spark.Capital 9 1,825 9 – – 100% 0.0 8 1 – – – 78% 2.2 42.4 8.5 3.58
– 43. Menlo.Ventures 11 2,000 10 1 9.1% 82% 1.8 9 2 – – – 67% 3.3 51.1 5.5 3.53
– 44. Greycroft.Partners 9 593 8 1 11.1% 78% 2.2 9 – – – – 100% 0.0 47.6 7.8 3.35
– 45. Tiger.Global.Management 3 10,000 3 – – 100% 0.0 3 – – – – 100% 0.0 37.7 10.0 3.33
– 46. Sequoia.Capital 14 4,470 14 – – 100% 0.0 12 2 – – – 74% 2.6 46.0 6.8 3.16
– 47. Founders.Fund 6 2,160 6 – – 100% 0.0 6 – – – – 100% 0.0 38.2 9.4 3.13
– 48. Mayfield.Fund 5 3,000 5 – – 100% 0.0 – 5 – – – 100% 0.0 43.4 9.3 3.10
– 49. FirstMark.Capital 14 2,200 14 – – 100% 0.0 13 1 – – – 86% 1.4 45.7 7.8 3.09
– 50. Redpoint.Ventures 13 3,800 13 – – 100% 0.0 11 2 – – – 72% 2.8 46.3 6.3 3.05
– 51. Index.Ventures 3 3,733 3 – – 100% 0.0 3 – – – – 100% 0.0 42.0 8.9 2.98
– 52. RRE.Ventures 6 810 6 – – 100% 0.0 5 1 – – – 67% 3.3 54.2 5.6 2.97
– 53. Lowercase.Capital 2 30 2 – – 100% 0.0 2 – – – – 100% 0.0 36.0 8.8 2.95
– 54. Andreessen.Horowitz 16 4,289 15 1 6.3% 88% 1.3 15 1 – – – 88% 1.3 50.0 6.1 2.85
– 55. Foundry.Group 4 1,128 4 – – 100% 0.0 4 – – – – 100% 0.0 46.0 8.5 2.84
– 56. US.Venture.Partners 6 1,225 5 1 16.7% 67% 3.3 6 – – – – 100% 0.0 50.3 4.9 2.74
– 57. Matrix.Partners 9 5,050 9 – – 100% 0.0 8 – – 1 – 78% 2.2 49.2 6.0 2.73
– 58. August.Capital 7 1,300 7 – – 100% 0.0 6 1 – – – 71% 2.9 51.0 4.9 2.59
– 59. Tenaya.Capital 5 1,487 5 – – 100% 0.0 5 – – – – 100% 0.0 47.0 7.3 2.43
– 60. First.Round.Capital 7 748 7 – – 100% 0.0 7 – – – – 100% 0.0 47.4 7.2 2.38
– 61. Pelion.Venture.Partners 5 610 5 – – 100% 0.0 5 – – – – 100% 0.0 47.6 7.1 2.38
– 62. Bessemer.Venture.Partners 13 5,600 13 – – 100% 0.0 13 – – – – 100% 0.0 45.0 7.0 2.33
– 63. Accomplice.VC 7 200 7 – – 100% 0.0 7 – – – – 100% 0.0 45.4 6.9 2.29
– 64. Meritech.Capital.Partners 6 2,064 6 – – 100% 0.0 6 – – – – 100% 0.0 45.8 6.3 2.09
– 65. Sutter.Hill.Ventures 7 700 7 – – 100% 0.0 7 – – – – 100% 0.0 49.3 6.2 2.06
– 66. Atlas.Life.Sciences 5 2,545 5 – – 100% 0.0 5 – – – – 100% 0.0 51.0 6.1 2.02
– 67. SV.Angel 5 100 5 – – 100% 0.0 5 – – – – 100% 0.0 37.8 5.7 1.91
– 68. Madrona.Venture.Group 6 1,300 6 – – 100% 0.0 6 – – – – 100% 0.0 53.8 5.4 1.79
– 69. Blumberg.Capital 2 240 2 – – 100% 0.0 2 – – – – 100% 0.0 52.0 4.8 1.61
– 70. Union.Square.Ventures 5 883 5 – – 100% 0.0 5 – – – – 100% 0.0 52.8 4.6 1.53
– 71. Bluerun.Ventures 2 1,065 2 – – 100% 0.0 2 – – – – 100% 0.0 53.0 3.9 1.29
Total 546 $$166,467 505 41 7.5% 86% 1.4 425 110 4 7 – 65% 3.5 45.9 7.0 3.98
%"of"total 92.5% 7.5% 77.8% 20.1% 0.7% 1.3% –

4
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 weren’t 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/)

5
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
(iii) Age: We calculated age based on publicly available date-of-birth information. In instances where the date-of-
birth wasn’t 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:
𝑃" =

1
𝑁(𝑁 − 1)
× 𝑀 𝑀 − 1 + 𝑊 𝑊 − 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:
𝑃" =

1
4(4 − 1)
× 2 2 − 1 + 2 2 − 1 = 33.3%
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.
𝐺𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑟
𝐷 𝑖𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑦
𝑆 𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑒 = 1 − 𝑃" ×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.
𝑃B =

1
𝑁(𝑁 − 1)
× 𝑊 𝑊 − 1 + 𝐴 𝐴 − 1 + 𝐵 𝐵 − 1 + 𝐻 𝐻 − 1 + 𝑂 𝑂 − 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

6
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).
𝐸𝑡ℎ𝑛𝑖𝑐
𝐷 𝑖𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑦
𝑆 𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑒 = 1 − 𝑃" ×10
Below is an example of the Ethnic Diversity Score across a hypothetical 10 person firm with varying allocations.
W A B H O N Pr Score
2 2 2 2 2 10 11% 8.9
4 2 2 2 0 10 20% 8.0
6 2 2 0 0 10 38% 6.2
8 2 0 0 0 10 64% 3.6
10 0 0 0 0 10 100% 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 VentureSource’s 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.
Looking at this chart, 60% of the Series A’s and B’s of the largest exists were done by partners between the age of 35 and 46
(20% and 80%, respectively).
–
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
100.0%
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
CDF
of
Ages
@
Series
A/B
of
Best
Deals
20%:
35
yrs
80%:
46
yrs
Median:
41

7
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 firm’s age score is
simply the average of the age scores of the individuals.
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 fund’s 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.
–
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
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
Score
Ascribed
to
Each
Age

8
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.
92%

80%

60%

89%

77%

49%

8%

20%

40%

11%

23%

51%

Senior
Investment
Team Junior
Investment
Team Non-‐Investment
Team Y-‐Combinator
(W'14) Large
Tech
Avg.
(Leaders) US
in
2020
Gender
Distribution
%
Men %
Women
78%

63%

86%

70%

60%

20%

32%

13%

21%

6%

1%
2%
1%
2%

12%

1%
2%
1%
3%

19%

0%

3%

Senior
Investment
Team Junior
Investment
Team Non-‐Investment
Team Large
Tech
Avg.
(Leaders) US
in
2020
Race/Ethnic
Distribution
%
White %
Asian Black Hispanic Other
/
2+

9
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%).
–
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
– 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
% Women
% Minority
Felicis
Trinity
Mayfield
KPCB
Floodgate,
Cowboy,
Social Capital
Khosla
Scale
Canaan
US 2020:
51% Women
US 2020:
39% Minorities
Storm
Aspect
Tech Giants

10
Appendix 2: US and Tech Giant Comps
The US Census data broken out is shown below.
The array of corresponding statistics for the leadership of large tech firms is below:
Our 2020
Designation Classification 2013 Stats %s
White
alone

(non-‐Hispanic) White 62.6% 199,400 59.6%
Black
or
African
American
alone Black 13.2% 41,594 12.4%
American
Indian
/
Alaskan
Native
alone Other
/
2+ 1.2% 2,432 0.7%
Asian
alone Asian 5.3% 19,255 5.8%
Native
Hawaiian
and
other
pacific
islander
alone Other
/
2+ 0.2% 595 0.2%
Two
or
more Other
/
2+ 2.4% 7,678 2.3%
Hispanic
or
Latino Hispanic 15.1% 63,551 19.0%
100.0% 334,505 100.0%
White 62.6% 59.6%
Asian 5.3% 5.8%
Black 13.2% 12.4%
Hispanic 15.1% 19.0%
Other
/
2+ 3.8% 3.2%
Total 100.0% 100.0%
US
Ethnic
Score 44% 41%
Male 155.7 165,036 49%
Female 160.8 169,467 51%
316.5 334,503 100%
US
Gender
Score 50% 50%
72% 75% 75% 77% 77% 77% 78% 83% 89% 92%
28% 25% 25% 23% 23% 23% 22% 17% 11%
8%
AAPL LNKD AMZN YHOO FB Tech AVG GOOG MSFT YC Founders
(W'14)
Senior VCs
Gender
% Men % Women
63% 65% 71% 70% 71% 72% 73% 78% 78%
37% 35% 29% 30% 29% 28% 27% 22% 22%
AAPL LNKD MSFT Tech AVG AMZN GOOG FB YHOO YC Founders
(W'14)
Senior VCs
Ethnicity
% White % Minority

11
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 exit—of these top 100 deals, 50 deals were used.
Name Round Type Invested Post-Valuation Closed Date Series A Date Series B Date
1. Facebook IPO 6,840 104,178 5/18/2012 5/1/2005 4/1/2006
2. Google IPO 1,202 24,640 8/19/2004 6/7/1999 n/a
3. WhatsApp Acquisition 19,000 10/6/2014 4/8/2011 n/a
4. Twitter IPO 1,820 15,650 11/7/2013 7/1/2007 5/1/2008
5. Corvis IPO 1,139 14,168 7/28/2000 n/a n/a
6. Groupon IPO 700 13,384 11/4/2011 1/1/2008 12/1/2009
7. Continental Cablevision Acquisition 11,800 12/22/1996 n/a n/a
8. Zynga IPO 1,000 9,044 12/16/2011 1/15/2008 7/18/2008
9. MetroPCS IPO 863 8,489 4/19/2007 10/1/1994 n/a
10. Cerent Acquisition 6,900 11/1/1999 n/a 4/1/1997
11. Webvan IPO 375 6,426 11/4/1999 n/a n/a
12. LendingClub IPO 755 6,302 12/11/2014 8/23/2007 3/19/2009
13. Workday IPO 637 5,411 10/12/2012 12/6/2006 n/a
14. Fitbit IPO 448 5,122 6/18/2015 10/10/2008 9/10/2010
15. LinkedIn IPO 217 5,053 5/19/2011 11/1/2003 10/1/2004
16. Clearwire IPO 600 4,925 3/8/2007 6/1/2004 n/a
17. Chromatis Networks Acquisition 4,756 6/28/2000 10/1/1998 9/27/1999
18. Siara Systems Acquisition 4,500 3/8/2000 11/15/1998 4/20/1999
19. GoPro IPO 214 3,696 6/24/2014 5/5/2011 n/a
20. ONI Systems IPO 200 3,639 6/1/2000 12/1/1997 3/1/1998
21. Sirocco Systems Acquisition 3,487 9/7/2000 4/27/1999 4/27/1999
22. Palo Alto Networks IPO 197 3,406 7/20/2012 1/1/2006 6/25/2007
23. Arista Networks IPO 226 3,348 6/5/2014 n/a n/a
24. Hyperion Solutions Acquisition 3,300 3/1/2007 n/a n/a
25. Vonage IPO 531 3,290 5/24/2006 n/a 11/24/2003
26. First Republic Bank IPO 105 3,270 12/9/2010 n/a n/a
27. Xros Acquisition 3,227 6/1/2000 1/15/1999 8/15/1999
28. Nest Labs Acquisition 3,200 2/7/2014 9/21/2010 8/1/2011
29. Oplink Communications IPO 247 3,177 10/4/2000 n/a n/a
30. Pandora Media IPO 96 3,145 6/15/2011 1/1/2000 n/a
31. DoubleClick Acquisition 3,100 3/12/2008 6/10/1997 2/20/1998
32. Transmeta IPO 273 3,036 11/7/2000 n/a n/a
33. NorthPoint Communications IPO 360 3,031 5/5/1999 n/a n/a
34. Sycamore Networks IPO 284 3,029 10/21/1999 n/a n/a
35. Qtera Acquisition 3,004 1/28/2000 8/12/1998 4/19/1999
36. zulily IPO 140 3,000 11/15/2013 12/17/2009 8/4/2010
37. International Power Technology Acquisition 3,000 12/31/1991 n/a n/a
38. Veeva Systems IPO 194 2,971 10/16/2013 n/a 6/5/2008
39. Handspring IPO 200 2,919 6/21/2000 n/a n/a
40. Cygnus Solutions Acquisition 2,875 1/7/2000 2/15/1997 n/a
41. FireEye IPO 304 2,849 9/20/2013 1/1/2005 8/23/2006
42. ServiceNow IPO 162 2,830 6/29/2012 7/5/2005 n/a
43. TriZetto Group Acquisition 2,700 11/3/2014 n/a n/a
44. StorageNetworks IPO 243 2,676 6/30/2000 n/a n/a
45. CoSine Communications IPO 230 2,659 9/26/2000 n/a n/a
46. Wayfair IPO 305 2,553 10/2/2014 6/21/2011 n/a
47. Beats Electronics LLC Acquisition 2,500 8/1/2014 n/a n/a
48. National Computer Systems Acquisition 2,500 7/31/2000 n/a n/a
49. HomeAway IPO 160 2,469 6/29/2011 1/1/2005 1/1/2006
50. GT Solar International IPO 500 2,457 7/24/2008 n/a n/a
51. CIENA IPO 115 2,410 2/7/1997 4/1/1994 12/1/1994
52. Fanch Communications Acquisition 2,400 11/1/1999 n/a n/a
53. Magma Copper IPO 2,400 1/4/1996 n/a n/a
54. Akamai Technologies IPO 234 2,378 10/28/1999 12/14/1998 4/30/1999
55. Avanex IPO 216 2,375 2/4/2000 6/29/1998 3/25/1999
56. eToys IPO 166 2,334 5/19/1999 n/a n/a
57. Ikaria Acquisition 2,300 4/17/2015 9/26/2005 n/a
58. LS Power Group Acquisition 2,300 4/2/2007 n/a n/a
59. Tritel IPO 237 2,296 12/13/1999 n/a n/a
60. Priceline.com IPO 160 2,277 3/30/1999 n/a n/a
61. Tableau Software IPO 155 2,274 5/17/2013 1/1/2004 n/a
62. FreeMarkets IPO 173 2,177 12/9/1999 n/a n/a
63. Juno Therapeutics IPO 265 2,131 12/19/2014 12/3/2013 8/5/2014
64. Intergraph Corp. Acquisition 2,125 10/28/2010 n/a n/a
65. Tellium IPO 135 2,121 5/17/2001 n/a n/a
66. MP3.com IPO 346 2,004 7/21/1999 n/a n/a
67. Splunk IPO 213 2,001 4/19/2012 12/1/2004 1/1/2006
68. Oculus VR Acquisition 2,000 7/21/2014 6/17/2013 12/12/2013
69. Fusion-io IPO 204 1,990 6/9/2011 3/31/2008 4/7/2009
70. Etsy IPO 213 1,987 4/16/2015 11/1/2006 1/1/2007
71. Telecorp PCS IPO 184 1,966 11/22/1999 n/a n/a
72. Box IPO 175 1,902 1/23/2015 10/1/2006 1/23/2008
73. Websense Acquisition 1,900 6/1/2015 n/a n/a
74. Tradex Technologies Acquisition 1,860 3/8/2000 n/a 3/1/1998
75. Nimble Storage IPO 168 1,836 12/13/2013 12/21/2007 12/24/2008
76. Broadband Access Systems Acquisition 1,835 9/29/2000 7/1/1998 n/a
77. Juniper Networks IPO 163 1,816 6/24/1999 6/11/1996 8/5/1996
78. Green Dot Corp. IPO 1,816 7/22/2010 1/1/2003 n/a
79. Onvia.com IPO 168 1,806 3/1/2000 n/a n/a
80. AutoTrader.com Acquisition 1,800 1/3/2014 n/a n/a
81. Niku IPO 192 1,790 2/29/2000 n/a n/a
82. NetZero IPO 160 1,782 9/23/1999 n/a n/a
83. Legent Acquisition 1,780 5/25/1995 n/a n/a
84. VA Linux Systems IPO 132 1,755 12/9/1999 n/a n/a
85. KiOR IPO 150 1,754 6/24/2011 n/a n/a
86. Alios BioPharma Acquisition 1,750 11/7/2014 n/a n/a
87. NetSuite IPO 161 1,727 12/20/2007 n/a n/a
88. Demand Media IPO 77 1,720 1/26/2011 n/a n/a
89. Rackspace Hosting IPO 159 1,716 8/8/2008 n/a 3/27/2000
90. AXT IPO 25 1,716 5/20/1998 n/a n/a
91. Liberty Dialysis LLC Acquisition 1,700 2/28/2012 n/a n/a
92. Castlight Health IPO 178 1,675 3/14/2014 8/1/2009 n/a
93. Bindley Western Industries Acquisition 1,670 12/5/2000 n/a n/a
94. KAR Auction Services IPO 300 1,660 12/11/2009 n/a n/a
95. Reliant Pharmaceuticals Acquisition 1,650 12/19/2007 n/a n/a
96. YouTube Acquisition 1,650 11/13/2006 11/1/2005 n/a
97. aQuantive IPO 126 1,632 2/29/2000 n/a n/a
98. Avici Systems IPO 217 1,617 7/28/2000 5/1/1997 n/a
99. OnDeck Capital IPO 200 1,612 12/17/2014 1/1/2006 1/1/2007
100. Bright Horizons Family Solutions IPO 222 1,605 1/25/2013 n/a n/a

12
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.
Name Fund Investment Series Deal
Date Age
@
Deal
1. Jim
Breyer Accel
Partners Facebook Series
A 5/1/05 43
2. Reid
Hoffman Greylock
A 5/1/05 37
3. Peter
Thiel Founders
Fund Facebook Series
B 4/1/06 38
4. David
Sze Greylock
B 4/1/06 43
5. Paul
Madera Meritech
Capital
B 4/1/06 49
6. Ron
Conway SV
Angel Facebook Series
B 4/1/06 55
7. John
Doerr Kleiner
Perkins
Caufield
&
Byers Google Series
A 6/7/99 47
8. Michael
Moritz Sequoia
Capital Google Series
A 6/7/99 44
9. Jim
Goetz Sequoia
Capital WhatsApp Series
A 4/8/11 45
10. Brian
Pokorny SV
Angel Twitter Series
A 7/1/07 26
11. Ron
Conway SV
Angel Twitter Series
A 7/1/07 56
12. George
Zachary Charles
River
Ventures Twitter Series
A 7/1/07 40
13. Fred
Wilson Union
Square
A 7/1/07 45
14. Chris
Sacca Lowercase
Capital Twitter Series
A 7/1/07 31
15. Marc
Andreessen Andreessen
Horowitz Twitter Series
A 7/1/07 36
16. Mike
Maples
Jr. Floodgate Twitter Series
A 7/1/07 38
17. Steve
Anderson Baseline
A 7/1/07 37
18. Bijan
Sabet Spark
Capital Twitter Series
B 5/1/08 38
19. Joi
Ito MIT
Media
Lab Twitter Series
B 5/1/08 41
20. Harry
Weller NEA Groupon Series
A 1/1/08 37
21. Kevin
Efrusy Accel
Partners Groupon Series
B 12/1/09 36
22. Fred
Wilson Union
Square
Ventures Zynga Series
A 1/15/08 46
23. Andy
Russell Pilot
Group Zynga Series
A 1/15/08 36
24. Rich
Levandov Avalon
Ventures Zynga Series
A 1/15/08
25. Brad
Feld Foundry
Group Zynga Series
A 1/15/08 42
26. Peter
Thiel Founders
Fund Zynga Series
A 1/15/08 40
27. Reid
Hoffman Greylock
Partners Zynga Series
A 1/15/08 40
28. Brian
Pokorny SV
Angel Zynga Series
A 1/15/08 27
29. John
Doerr Kleiner
Perkins
Caufield
&
Byers Zynga Series
B 7/18/08 57
30. Sandy
Miller Institutional
Venture
Partners Zynga Series
B 7/18/08 58
31. Vinod
Khosla Khosla
Ventures Cerent Series
B 4/1/97 42
32. Dan
Ciporin Canaan
Partners LendingClub Series
A 8/23/07 48
33. Jeff
Crowe Norwest
Venture
Partners LendingClub Series
A 8/23/07 49
34. Rebecca
Lynn Canvas
Venture
Fund LendingClub Series
B 3/19/09 36
35. Jeff
Clavier SoftTech
VC FitBit Series
A 10/10/08 40
36. Jon
Callaghan True
Ventures FitBit Series
A 10/10/08 39
37. Brad
Feld Foundry
Group FitBit Series
B 9/10/10 44
38. Aydin
Senkut Felicis
Ventures Fitbit Series
B 9/10/10 39
39. Mark
Kvamme Sequoia
Capital LinkedIn Series
A 11/1/03 42
40. Josh
Kopelman First
Round
Capital LinkedIn Series
A 11/1/03 32
41. David
Sze Greylock
Partners LinkedIn Series
B 10/1/04 41
42. Dave
Flanagan Intel
Capital Clearwire Series
A 6/1/04 34
43. Seth
Neiman Crosspoint Chromatis
Networks Series
A 10/1/98 44
44. Vinod
Khosla Khosla
Ventures Siara
Systems Series
A 11/15/98 43
45. Promod
Haque Norwest
Venture
Partners Siara
Systems Series
A 11/15/98 50
46. Michael
Marks Riverwood
Capital GoPro Series
A 5/5/11 59
47. Ned
Gilhuly Sageview
Capital GoPro Series
A 5/5/11 50
48. John
Ball Steamboat
Ventures GoPro Series
A 5/5/11 47
49. Chris
Rust Cyphort GoPro Series
A 5/5/11 45
50. Lip-‐Bu
Tan Walden
International GoPro Series
A 5/5/11 51
51. Kevin
Compton Kleiner
Perkins
Caufield
&
Byers ONI
Systems Series
A 12/1/97 39
52. Jon
Feiber Mohr
Davidow ONI
Systems Series
A 12/1/97 40
53. Felda
Hardymon Bessemer
Venture
Partners Sirocco
Systems Series
A 4/27/99 51
54. Roger
Evans Greylock
Partners Sirocco
Systems Series
A 4/27/99 49
55. Barry
Eggers Lightspeed
Venture
Partners Sirocco
Systems Series
A 4/27/99 35
56. Jim
Goetz Sequoia
Capital Palo
Alto
Networks Series
A 1/1/06 40
57. Asheem
Chandna Greylock
Partners Palo
Alto
Networks Series
A 1/1/06 41
58. Harry
Weller NEA Vonage Series
B 11/24/03 33
59. Thomas
Bredt Menlo
Ventures XROS Series
A 1/15/99 57
60. Randy
Komisar Kleiner
Perkins
Caufield
&
Byers Nest
Labs Series
A 9/21/10 54
61. Rob
Coneybeer Shasta
Ventures Nest
Labs Series
A 9/21/10 40
62. Bill
Maris Google
Ventures Nest
Labs Series
B 8/1/11 35
63. Peter
Nieh Lightspeed
Venture
Partners Nest
Labs Series
B 8/1/11 45
64. Larry
Kubal Labrador
Ventures Pandora
Media Series
A 1/1/00 47
65. Doug
Barry Selby
Ventures Pandora
Media Series
A 1/1/00 36
66. Larry
Marcus Walden
International Pandora
Media Series
A 1/1/00 48
67. Dave
Strohm Greylock
Partners DoubleClick Series
A 6/10/97 48
68. Deepak
Kamra Canaan
Partners DoubleClick Series
A 6/10/97 40
69. Ray
Rothrock Venrock DoubleClick Series
A 6/10/97 39
70. Todd
Dagres Spark
Capital Qtera Series
A 8/12/98 37
71. Todd
Brooks Mayfield
Fund Qtera Series
B 4/19/99 38
72. Jason
Stoffer Maveron Zulily Series
A 12/17/09 32
73. Eric
Carlborg August
Capital Zulily Series
B 8/4/10 45
74. Gus
Tai Trinity
Ventures Zulily Series
B 8/4/10 44
75. Gordon
Ritter Emergence
Capital Veeva
Systems Series
B 6/5/08 43
76. Dave
Strohm Greylock
Partners Cygnus
Solutions Series
A 2/15/97 48
77. John
Johnston August
Capital Cygnus
Solutions Series
A 2/15/97 41
78. Matthew
Howard Norwest
Venture
Partners FireEye Series
A 1/1/05 40
79. Gaurav
Garg Sequoia
Capital FireEye Series
A 1/1/05 38
80. Joe
Horowitz Icon
Ventures FireEye Series
B 8/23/06
81. Paul
Barber JMI
Equity ServiceNow Series
A 7/5/05 42
82. Alex
Finkelstein Spark
Capital Wayfair Series
A 6/21/11 34
83. Neeraj
Agrawal Battery
Ventures Wayfair Series
A 6/21/11 38
84. Michael
Kumin Great
Hill
Partners Wayfair Series
A 6/21/11 37
85. Ian
Lane HarvourVest Wayfair Series
A 6/21/11 33
86. Phil
Siegel Austin
Ventures HomeAway Series
A 1/1/05 39
87. Jeff
Brody Redpoint
Ventures HomeAway Series
A 1/1/05 43
88. Todd
Chaffee Institutional
Venture
Partners HomeAway Series
B 1/1/06 45
89. John
Moragne Trident
Capital HomeAway Series
B 1/1/06 45
90. Berry
Cash InterWest CIENA Series
A 4/1/94 52
91. David
Cowan Bessemer
Venture
Partners CIENA Series
B 12/1/94 28
92. Scott
Tobin Battery
Ventures Akamai
Technologies Series
A 12/14/98 27
93. Todd
Chaffee Institutional
Venture
Partners Akamai
Technologies Series
A 12/14/98 38
94. Andrew
Schwab 5am
Ventures Ikaria Series
A 9/26/05 33
95. Robert
Nelsen ARCH
Venture
Partners Ikaria Series
A 9/26/05 41
96. Bryan
Roberts Venrock Ikaria Series
A 9/26/05 37
97. Forest
Baskett,
PhD NEA Tableau
Software Series
A 1/1/04 60
98. Robert
Nelsen ARCH
Venture
Partners Juno
Therapeutics Series
A 12/3/13 50
99. Bong
Koh Venrock Juno
Therapeutics Series
A-‐2 12/3/13 40
100. David
Hornik August
Capital Splunk Series
A 12/1/04 36
101. Thomas
Neustaetter JK&B
Capital Splunk Series
B 1/1/06 53
102. Antonio
Rodriguez Matrix
Partners Oculus
VR Series
A 6/17/13 38
103. Santo
Politi Spark
Capital Oculus
VR Series
A 6/17/13 46
104. Joe
Lonsdale Formation
8 Oculus
VR Series
A 6/17/13 30
105. Brian
Singerman Founders
Fund Oculus
VR Series
A 6/17/13 34
106. Chris
Dixon Andreessen
Horowitz Oculus
VR Series
B 12/12/13 40
107. Scott
Sandell NEA Fusion-‐io Series
A 3/31/08 43
108. Chris
Schaepe Lightspeed
Venture
Partners Fusion-‐io Series
B 4/7/09 43
109. Blake
Modersitzki Pelion
Venture
Partners Fusion-‐io Series
B 4/7/09 39
110. Fred
Wilson Union
Square
Ventures Etsy Series
A 11/1/06 45
111. Josh
Stein Draper
Fisher
Jurvetson Box Series
A 10/1/06 32
112. Winston
Fu US
Venture
Partners Box Series
B 1/23/08 41
113. Steve
Jurvetson Draper
Fisher
Jurvetson TradeX
Technologies Series
B 3/1/98 30
114. Ping
Li Accel
Partners Nimble
Storage Series
A 12/21/07 35
115. Jim
Goetz Sequoia
Capital Nimble
Storage Series
A 12/21/07 42
116. Barry
Eggers Lightspeed
Venture
Partners Nimble
Storage Series
B 12/24/08 45
117. Andrew
Marcuvitz Matrix
Partners Broadband
Access
Systems Series
A 7/1/98
118. Vinod
Khosla Khosla
Ventures Juniper
Networks Series
A 6/11/96 41
119. Seth
Neiman Crosspoint Juniper
Networks Series
B 8/5/96 42
120. Andy
Rachleff Benchmark
Capital Juniper
Networks Series
B 8/5/96 37
121. Geoff
Yang Redpoint
Ventures Juniper
Networks Series
B 8/5/96 36
122. Peter
Barris NEA Juniper
Networks Series
B 8/5/96 43
123. Michael
Moritz Sequoia
Capital Green
Dot
Corp. Series
A 1/1/03 48
124. Douglas
Leone Sequoia
Capital Rackspace
Hosting Series
B 3/27/00 41
125. George
Still Norwest
Venture
Partners Rackspace
Hosting Series
B 3/27/00 41
126. Bryan
Roberts Venrock Castlight
Health Series
A 8/1/09 41
127. Roelof
Botha Sequoia
Capital Youtube Series
A 11/1/05 33
128. Jim
Swartz Accel
Partners Avici
Systems Series
A 5/1/97
129. Matt
Gorin Contour
Venture
Partners OnDeck
Capital Series
A 1/1/06
130. Matt
Harris Bain
Capital
Ventures OnDeck
Capital Series
A 1/1/06 33
131. David
Weiden Khosla
Ventures OnDeck
Capital Series
B 1/1/07 34
132. James
Robinson
III RRE
Ventures OnDeck
Capital Series
B 1/1/07 71

Vc diversity-methodology-write-up-v final

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Vc diversity-methodology-write-up-v final

Similar to Vc diversity-methodology-write-up-v final (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Vc diversity-methodology-write-up-v final