recently rated:

Rated by 27

2.6 2.6 2.8 3.0 2.6

2.7

General Catalyst

 

$$$$$ Cambridge, US East

top rated funds:

Rated by 40

3.9 3.9 3.9 3.7 4.1

3.9

First Round Capital

Certified

$$$$$ San Francisco, US West

Rated by 29

3.9 4.2 3.4 3.8 4.3

3.9

RRE Ventures

Certified

$$$$$ New York, US East

Rated by 20

3.3 4.2 3.9 4.1 3.9

3.9

Leapfrog Ventures

Certified

$$$$$ Menlo Park, US West

Rated by 16

3.8 4.1 3.8 3.3 4.0

3.8

Wellington Partners

Certified

$$$$$ Munich, Europe

Rated by 87

4.7 3.8 3.7 3.2 3.5

3.8

Sequoia Capital

Certified

$$$$$ Menlo Park, US West

Rated by 24

3.9 3.7 3.8 3.2 3.9

3.7

Altos Ventures

Certified

$$$$$ Menlo Park, US West

Rated by 26

3.4 3.5 3.3 3.9 4.1

3.6

Clearstone Venture Partners

Certified

$$$$$ Santa Monica, US West

Rated by 45

3.8 3.5 3.3 3.4 3.9

3.6

Trinity Ventures

Certified

$$$$$ Menlo Park, US West

Rated by 19

3.2 3.8 4.0 3.7 3.4

3.6

True Ventures

Certified

$$$$$ Palo Alto, US West

Rated by 13

3.8 3.5 3.3 3.6 3.8

3.6

Scale Venture Partners

Certified

$$$$$ Foster City, US West

Rated by 19

3.2 3.5 3.4 3.7 3.7

3.5

Opus Capital

 

$$$$$ Menlo Park, US West

Rated by 20

3.5 3.6 3.6 3.1 3.5

3.5

Union Square Ventures

 

$$$$$ New York, US East

Rated by 15

3.9 3.5 3.6 3.2 3.3

3.5

Morgenthaler Ventures

 

$$$$$ Menlo Park, US West

Rated by 13

4.0 3.1 3.1 3.9 3.1

3.4

The Founders Fund

Certified

$$$$$ San Francisco, US West

Rated by 39

3.6 3.6 3.1 3.2 3.4

3.4

Mayfield Fund

 

$$$$$ Menlo Park, US West

Rated by 33

3.4 3.5 2.9 3.5 3.5

3.4

Polaris Venture Partners, L.P.

 

$$$$$ Waltham, US East

Rated by 32

3.4 3.2 3.0 3.3 3.8

3.4

Spark Capital

 

$$$$$ Boston, US East

Rated by 20

3.8 3.5 3.1 3.5 3.2

3.4

Draper Fisher Jurvetson Gotham Ventures

 

$$$$$ New York, US East

Rated by 11

3.9 3.7 2.8 2.7 3.6

3.4

Versant Ventures

 

$$$$$ Menlo Park, US West

Rated by 38

3.5 3.2 3.3 3.1 3.9

3.4

Bessemer Venture Partners

Certified

$$$$$ Larchmont, US East

Rated by 43

3.8 3.3 3.0 3.6 3.4

3.4

New Enterprise Associates

Certified

$$$$$ Menlo Park, US West

Rated by 38

3.7 2.9 3.2 3.5 3.2

3.3

Draper Fisher Jurvetson

Certified

$$$$$ Menlo Park, US West

Rated by 40

3.8 3.4 3.0 3.4 3.1

3.3

Menlo Ventures

 

$$$$$ Menlo Park, US West

Rated by 13

4.1 3.5 2.9 3.2 2.9

3.3

Norwest Venture Partners

Certified

$$$$$ Palo Alto, US West

Rated by 21

3.0 3.1 3.6 3.4 3.4

3.3

Levensohn Venture Partners, LLC

Certified

$$$$$ San Francisco, US West

Rated by 16

3.3 3.2 2.9 3.5 3.6

3.3

Sigma Partners

 

$$$$$ Menlo Park, US West

Rated by 33

4.1 3.3 2.9 3.0 3.3

3.3

Greylock Partners

Certified

$$$$$ San Mateo, US West

Rated by 26

3.4 3.5 3.0 3.0 3.5

3.3

InterWest Partners

Certified

$$$$$ Menlo Park, US West

Rated by 11

3.8 3.1 3.5 2.7 3.1

3.2

Insight Venture Partners

 

$$$$$ New York, US East

Rated by 24

3.9 3.5 2.7 2.9 3.1

3.2

Index Ventures

Certified

$$$$$ Geneva, Europe

HomeConnectTermsAdviceLettersDiscussLists

Sign-upFor VCsFor MediaFor AdsCEO JobsGet HelpTwitter

VISIT OUR SPONSOR: advertise here

Firm Rating:

Firm Homepage:

Intel Capital has its issues, specifically the feeling that anything they learn while attending your board meetings is taken right back to Intel and disseminated. They do not take board seats so they do not have any fiduciary responsibility per say.

On the very positive side, they provided more value to me as a CEO than the other VC firms because of their 'Intel Technology Days' where they arrange for the CEO to meet with and present to the Sr Exec management of key key companies. We had several key partnerships started in this way.

The pros outweigh the negatives.

The feeling is that they are throwing money around to see what sticks. I had a positive experience with the east coast rep, who was good about working with us as we pulled the deal together.
It was hands-off after that - no real value.

Caveat: I understand Intel has almost entirely rebuilt their VC team since we dealt with them last year. You should consider these comments in that context.

Generally speaking Intel was a waste of time. We had several calls and one in-person visit. They spent more time talking about scaling our software to their new quad-core CPU's than talking about how they could help our business strategically.

Ultimately we stopped talking with them as their questions and suggestions were illogical and seemed mired in negativity.

We had a solid referral into Intel Cap. It took three weeks for the assistant to get around to scheduling the meeting. Then she sends us an email the morning of the meeting canceling because she couldn't assemble the right people. Next meeting, three weeks out was canceled the night before. This time we had people flying back from biz dev trips because they had a whole team attending and wanted to meet all of us. Needless to say, while they said they wanted to reschedule we passed.

VISIT OUR SPONSOR: advertise here

I have worked with Intel Capital many times over the years through many start-ups. In the past, I found their terms difficult to work with and felt that I wasted a lot of time meeting with them. My impression of them has improved dramatically in the last year ot two. I have met with many Intel team members and they recently invested in one of my companies.

We were initially contacted by the fund from an acquaintance. After a 30 minute phone call we heard nothing for a month, after which they decided to meet with us. Showed up for what turned out to be a good meeting, thoughtful questions and demonstrated they understood our space. After the meeting silence again for another month .... then a phone call saying they can't find anyone "with the appetite to perform due diligence on us"!?! Nice guys but a complete waste of time. Yes is yes, no is no, but a long delay to tell us that is unforgivable.

I should say that I really like the people that we met at Intel Capital. They are very bright and pleasant to work with but ultimately it is the outcome of the experience that counts.

Overall, they simply made promises that they were in no position to keep. Sure, they are not the first VC to do this but it is very sad they feel that this behavior is OK. In talking with other VCs and executives I'm afraid to say that our experience wasn't uncommon.

IC usually invests with a leading VC. They don't usually lead. In our case, they made an exception and led our post-angel rounds. They did put some structure into the company (monthly board meetings and so on) but at a big operating cost (i.e. lot's of focus on preparing board meetings and not on the business).

Intel is a big name; but in my experience their capital arm is not on par with other perceived investors.

If you are an open source software entrepreneur and you don't talk to Pat Walsh at Intel Capital, you are doing yourself a disservice. He is not only one of the smartest and most well-connected guys in this space, but he is also one of the most upfront businesspeople you will encounter.

VISIT OUR SPONSOR: advertise here

A real mixed bag. Very difficult to negotiate with, lack of focus, and not very insightful about what it takes to operate a business. On the bright side, they can come through with great introductions. The challenge, if you decide to and are able to close the investment, is to manage them in the direction you need.

Intel has very particular deal requirements as a strategic investor. This will likely create more legal, administrative, and deal headaches, so the value better be worth it.

Intel has backed a few companies that I've worked with. I think they are good people (Sita Vasan is great), but the senior team seems unwilling to make earlier stage bets. Since they can probably add a lot of value in earlier stages, and B rounds will probably get filled out by bigger players, I think they should spend more time nurturing smaller players and less throwing their money in with everybody else. That being said, I'd recommend them because I think they are respected and well connected - VCs often try to tell you they're not a real fund but I think that's ridiculous. They have plenty of green and can help their portfolio companies, and have other motivations beyond instant profit which isn't always a bad thing.

Steeg saw our opportunity. He was very straightforward that it was not a focus of Intel, but he himself thought it was an interesting opportunity.

He then offered to make introductions. Too our suprise, he made several helpful introductions.

Initially I thought it was only our company, but another hardware startup like us experienced the same thing. They ask for your business plan and hear your pitch, and then you find out that they already committed to funding your competitor! Obviously, they were gathering intelligence for their portfolio company. The RIGHT THING would have been to disclose or decline the meeting.

VISIT OUR SPONSOR: advertise here

A lot of venture firms have negative things to say about Intel's ability to add value. I've not found this to be the case, they can and will help you. However, they have an approach that isn't well suited for early stage companies. Save them for the later rounds.

Intel can be awesome as backers IF, you are the right sort of investment, understand how they operate and what they are in it for, you treat them right and do not rely on them to do all the work This has certainly been my observation in Europe where, whilst historically they have had the sort of reputation that all large corporate venturers have had, they have a VERY loyal following on entrepreneurs. If you have not had VC backing before, you might not be the right sort of company for them.

Agree they can be helpful but it really depends on the individual you get. Do expect unusual terms, though. Ask them to explain their expectations up front to avoid surprises. As with any strategic investor, save them for a later round.

Intel, as an organization, works with everyone, so they have an amazing ability to help start-ups. They also have a large amount of capital to invest and many partners managing that capital. It all depends on who you get to be your representative...