recently rated:

Rated by 4

3.8 4.0 3.5 3.8 4.3

3.9

Total Technology Ventures

 

$$$$$ Atlanta, US East

top rated funds:

Rated by 15

3.8 3.7 4.1 4.1 4.0

3.9

Maples Investments

Certified

$$$$$ Menlo Park, US West

Rated by 33

3.9 4.2 3.5 3.8 4.3

3.9

RRE Ventures

Certified

$$$$$ New York, US East

Rated by 48

3.9 3.8 3.9 3.6 4.0

3.8

First Round Capital

Certified

$$$$$ San Francisco, US West

Rated by 22

3.3 4.1 3.9 3.9 3.8

3.8

Leapfrog Ventures

Certified

$$$$$ Menlo Park, US West

Rated by 25

3.9 3.7 3.8 3.3 4.1

3.8

Altos Ventures

Certified

$$$$$ Menlo Park, US West

Rated by 11

4.1 3.3 4.1 3.6 4.0

3.8

Aberdare Ventures

 

$$$$$ San Francisco, US West

Rated by 51

3.8 3.6 3.4 3.5 4.0

3.7

Trinity Ventures

Certified

$$$$$ Menlo Park, US West

Rated by 11

3.8 3.8 3.8 3.1 3.8

3.7

Meritage Funds

Certified

$$$$$ Denver, US West

Rated by 11

3.4 3.7 3.9 2.9 4.2

3.6

406 Ventures

Certified

$$$$$ Boston, US East

Rated by 14

3.8 3.6 3.4 3.6 3.8

3.6

Scale Venture Partners

Certified

$$$$$ Foster City, US West

Rated by 22

3.2 3.5 3.4 3.5 3.9

3.5

Opus Capital

 

$$$$$ Menlo Park, US West

Rated by 24

3.5 3.6 3.5 3.1 3.5

3.5

Union Square Ventures

 

$$$$$ New York, US East

Rated by 22

3.2 3.7 3.9 3.7 3.3

3.5

True Ventures

Certified

$$$$$ Palo Alto, US West

Rated by 39

3.6 3.4 3.4 3.2 4.0

3.5

Bessemer Venture Partners

Certified

$$$$$ Larchmont, US East

Rated by 18

3.9 2.9 3.1 3.9 3.3

3.4

The Founders Fund

Certified

$$$$$ San Francisco, US West

Rated by 12

3.8 3.7 3.0 2.8 3.6

3.4

Versant Ventures

 

$$$$$ Menlo Park, US West

Rated by 20

3.5 3.4 3.0 3.6 3.5

3.4

Sigma Partners

 

$$$$$ Menlo Park, US West

Rated by 42

3.6 3.5 3.0 3.1 3.4

3.3

Mayfield Fund

 

$$$$$ Menlo Park, US West

Rated by 11

3.9 3.1 3.5 2.8 3.1

3.3

Insight Venture Partners

 

$$$$$ New York, US East

Rated by 25

4.0 3.5 2.8 3.0 3.2

3.3

Index Ventures

Certified

$$$$$ Geneva, Europe

Rated by 12

3.3 3.3 3.5 3.1 3.2

3.3

August Capital

 

$$$$$ Menlo Park, US West

Rated by 26

3.7 3.3 2.9 3.3 3.0

3.3

Draper Fisher Jurvetson Gotham Ventures

Certified

$$$$$ New York, US East

Rated by 35

4.1 3.4 3.0 2.9 3.2

3.3

Greylock Partners

Certified

$$$$$ San Mateo, US West

Rated by 30

3.3 3.5 3.1 3.0 3.4

3.3

InterWest Partners

Certified

$$$$$ Menlo Park, US West

Rated by 10

3.1 3.4 3.3 3.2 2.9

3.2

Oak Investment Partners

 

$$$$$ Westport, US East

Rated by 14

3.3 3.2 3.1 3.0 3.2

3.2

Gemini Israel Funds

Certified

$$$$$ Herzliya, ME / Africa

Rated by 18

3.7 3.4 3.3 2.7 2.7

3.2

Morgenthaler Ventures

 

$$$$$ Menlo Park, US West

Rated by 31

2.8 3.1 3.5 3.3 3.4

3.2

Shasta Ventures

Certified

$$$$$ Menlo Park, US West

Rated by 18

3.4 3.3 3.4 2.4 3.2

3.2

Emergence Capital Partners

Certified

$$$$$ San Mateo, US West

Rated by 37

3.2 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.3

3.1

Spark Capital

 

$$$$$ Boston, US East

HomeConnectTermsAdviceOpenDiscussCoFound

Sign-upHelpFor VCsFor MediaFor AdsTop VCsBanned VCs

Entrepreneurs always talk about the pitch. A Mike Tyson knock out pitch can get you another meeting, but what about after the pitch? How about before? Hell, how about from the moment you step off your front porch to the second you return?. A 24/7 game face will drive you to the promise lands 3x faster than simply wielding the magic when you've got the mic. Here are 3 tips I've found to work wonders before, during, and after the pitch.

1. Smooth entry. VC's and angel's alike will judge you from the second the tip of your polished shoes crosses that door jam. Chin up, calm stride, and eye contact from the moment you have a line of sight. If you've done your research you'll know exactly what their hobbies are, portfolio consists of, and hopefully a mutual acquaintance you can reference off the bat. Don't hold it for longer than a minute. They want to see that your personable, but professionalism and punctuality are key. Make a point to note that you have another pitch later that day that starts 2.5 hours from now. They need to know that you're sought after, busy, and they aren't the only duck in the pond.

2. Practice your pitch in front of a mirror starting with the entry. Everyone looks foolish when they're putzing with the projector, so practice the pitch from the top with a computer and projector handy. It detracts from the great introduction you just made, and allows them to push their pencils and think about how badly they want to get home to watch Jack Bauer in 24. From the moment you've loaded the deck you should be on fire. Eyes lit, smile wide, and rotating eye contact the entire show. VC's and angels invest in entrepreneurs, not companies. They need to feel your fire, align with your mission, and ultimately know that you are the captain that can navigate their $ to $$$$$. Vary your tonality, conduct the tempo of the pitch, and ultimately you will command their attention and peak their interest. Mr. Smith has a great post on the 5 rules of pitching. I highly recommend it.

3. Do not, and I repeat, DO NOT leave right after questions. Get your business cards into their hands, have a quick chat, and get that 2nd meeting. How many VC's or angels can acutely assess how bad ass your opportunity is in one 10-20 minute pitch? Very few. If you didn't give them enough kick in the pitch, that's your fault and they'll simply want you out the door as quickly as possible. But if you did your job in the pitch, they've either got a "yes" in their head and you'll be invited back anyhow, or they have a "well we've got a ton of other deals to look at. This one's good, but I need more." More often than not it's the second one, and that's a result of the massive entrepreneurial talent here in the Valley.

A 24/7 Game Face can make the difference between getting the 2nd meeting and being shown the door. If you can't stand behind your vision with pride, confidence, and flare, no one else will, even if they'd like to.

Met with a partner that was completely unrelated to our field, from the first moment he was negative for each and every word we said (including the first slide with the title...), we asked us to rush our pitch after the first slide...and then attacked our assumptions (that have been validated by top players in the market) as we were talking nonsense, although it was clear he has no clue about our market at all.....later on he called to turn us down....

We approached a number of VC's in different locations for our financial technology pitch. Most were located in New York and Boston with a couple in California. While we may have found some of the north east folks a bit more knowledgeable in our particular area of fin tech, the TTV folks were bright and did their research. That said, and perhaps this is due to the fact that they are based in Atlanta, the standout characteristic of the firm was their lack of arrogance and the fact that, whether we agreed or disagreed, they were a pleasure do deal with. The one lesson I have learned during this process, is you will almost never get everything you want, I will say in this case, we still closed a deal that we were comfortable and satisfied with.

I've worked professionally (in a consulting and partnership role) with lots of folks from Benchmark - Rich Barton, Bill Gurley, Michael Eisenberg & Nirav Tolia, and always been impressed with their intelligence, professionalism and respectfulness. I think they're smart folks with a good brand name (and they do leverage that, though not in an insulting fashion).

I have not pitched to them formally nor have I taken funding from them, but have done work on several projects with Benchmark and would count them among the better relationships I've had in the professional VC world.

I've written very publicly about my experience with Ignition so far on our blog - http://is.gd/1jHiT - and I'll share the same thoughts here. We were pitched by Ignition to take investment, offered very good deal terms and put the money to use ($1.1 million, a relatively small amount). They've been great to work with - very friendly, accomodating, really care about us as people as well as the company. They've got a good network that's helped us, recruited some smart folks to assist around product direction and seem to genuinely value their entrepreneurs (at least, the other CEOs I've met from their portfolio companies).

While I have not prior experience with VC firms investing (this is my first company as founder/CEO), I'd definitely recommend Ignition to anyone looking and have done so for several friends, who've reported positive experiences as well (even just for chatting/pitches).

Michelle Goldberg is on our board, and to be very honest, I wish there were more people like her in the venture industry. Thoughtful, honest, upfront, but caring and emotionally sensitive as well. From the other VCs that I've met, I'd say that while these are not impossible qualities to find in a VC partner, they're rare, and valuable.

BusinessWeek article on Venture Capital has some interesting statistics:

http://tinyurl.com/l5ou9t

“Duke University just completed a survey of 549 entrepreneurs who had started successful companies in high-growth industries. We found that only 8% of first-time entrepreneurs took venture funding. For those on their fourth startup, the percentage was 22%. That still means nearly four out of five seasoned entrepreneurs didn't need VCs' money or advice to be successful. An Impediment to Innovation? The findings matched those in Kedrosky's paper. He analyzed Inc. magazine's list of the fastest-growing U.S. companies and found that only 16% of the 900 firms on the list took venture capital during the past decade.”

Good Guys. They are fair and work hard for their portfolio companies.

I am the Founder of NanoString Technologies, Inc. As laid out in previous comments here, I fought with the NanoString’s VCs over product strategy, for which I got fired for cause; but was able to save the company, nevertheless, by bringing the mismanagement issues to the attention of OVP’s LPs.

http://thefunded.com/funds/item/4884
http://thefunded.com/funds/item/4786

Of course, what happened at NanoString was not an isolated example of bad judgement by these VCs, as reflected in their poor performance. DFJ’s lack of returns was exposed in a scathing Forbes article a few months ago:

http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2009/011...

Meanwhile, OVP’s performance is absolutely laughable (that is, unless you are one of their LPs, in which case laughing is the last thing on your mind). To date they have only returned ~$20M of their $125M ‘99 fund, and only ~$23M of their $180M ‘01 fund.

Perhaps the most blatant example of incompetence is the investments made by OVP and DFJ in companies that defied the laws of physics. I have published a couple of simple but specific reports about two such companies: GreenFuel Technologies, Inc. (DFJ) and M2E Power Inc. (OVP), demonstrating with high-school level physics that these were completely unworkable ideas. The news now is that in the last month both of these companies (predictably) imploded.

Here are more details.

1. GreenFuel was an overhyped biofuel startup; its founder was named one of Time magazine 100 Most Important People for 2008:

http://bit.ly/18KzCU

They received the very prestigious Frost and Sullivan Award:

http://www.businesswire.com/portal/si...

as well other awards: (Platts Global Energy Award for Energy Emissions Project of the Year (2006); Red Herring 100 North America Award (2006); Fast 50 (2007); 20 Plenty Hot List ; Go Green Award)

Here’s a link to my report

http://www.nanostring.net/Algae/CaseS...

And the news about their inevitable blowup:

http://i-r-squared.blogspot.com/2009/...
http://earth2tech.com/2009/05/13/see-...
(some delicious comments at the bottom there)

2. M2E Power, Inc was hyped by OVP for their self-charging batteries for consumer electronics, (as well as for military applications).

http://www.businessweek.com/technolog...+news_top+news+index_technology

and was named innovation #2 for 2007 by CNET:
http://www.cnet.com.au/top-10-innovat...

Here’s a link to my report:
http://www.nanostring.net/M2E/M2E_Stu...

And the news by Reuters (last Friday) of the inevitable blowup :
http://www.reuters.com/article/earth2...

The lesson here is that the laws of physics do not care about the hype generated by VCs with overinflated egos. Science always wins.

How can you use this info? If you are in the OVP or DFJ portfolio and feel like they are messing up with your business, use this information to hint that they are not the ones to talk. If they don’t fall in-line, write to their LPs; even though the LPs do not have direct administrative power over the GPs, this should create enough pressure for them to do what is right for the business. But by any means: do not let these incompetent and ignorant money-losing machines have a say on how the business should be ran. I learned this the hard way.

(PS: While it is true that the bulk of the responsibility falls on the partners who drove these deals (Jennifer Fonstad for GreenFuel and Gerry Langeler for M2E), do not forget that most VC firms require consensus for a deal to take place, so the other partners are responsible, too.)