recently rated:

Rated by 28

3.4 3.9 4.1 4.0 3.6

3.8

True Ventures

Certified

$$$$$ Palo Alto, US West

top rated funds:

Rated by 12

4.5 4.4 4.3 3.9 4.7

4.4

New Atlantic Ventures

Certified

$$$$$ Reston, US East

Rated by 20

4.0 3.8 4.2 4.2 4.0

4.1

Maples Investments

Certified

$$$$$ Menlo Park, US West

Rated by 12

4.2 4.1 4.1 3.6 4.0

4.0

Updata Partners

 

$$$$$ Red Bank, US East

Rated by 39

3.9 4.2 3.4 3.7 4.2

3.9

RRE Ventures

Certified

$$$$$ New York, US East

Rated by 55

3.9 3.9 3.8 3.5 4.0

3.8

First Round Capital

Certified

$$$$$ San Francisco, US West

Rated by 30

3.3 4.1 4.0 3.9 4.0

3.8

Leapfrog Ventures

Certified

$$$$$ Menlo Park, US West

Rated by 101

4.7 3.8 3.7 3.2 3.6

3.8

Sequoia Capital

Certified

$$$$$ Menlo Park, US West

Rated by 29

3.9 3.8 3.8 3.4 4.1

3.8

Altos Ventures

Certified

$$$$$ Menlo Park, US West

Rated by 14

3.8 3.4 4.0 3.7 3.8

3.8

Aberdare Ventures

 

$$$$$ San Francisco, US West

Rated by 28

3.4 3.9 4.1 4.0 3.6

3.8

True Ventures

Certified

$$$$$ Palo Alto, US West

Rated by 56

3.8 3.7 3.4 3.5 3.9

3.7

Trinity Ventures

Certified

$$$$$ Menlo Park, US West

Rated by 16

3.6 3.5 3.8 3.5 3.5

3.6

August Capital

 

$$$$$ Menlo Park, US West

Rated by 29

3.4 3.5 3.4 3.8 4.0

3.6

Clearstone Venture Partners

Certified

$$$$$ Santa Monica, US West

Rated by 15

3.3 3.1 3.8 3.5 3.9

3.5

DFJ Mercury

Certified

$$$$$ Houston, US Central

Rated by 20

3.5 3.6 3.5 3.2 3.4

3.5

Wellington Partners

Certified

$$$$$ Munich, Europe

Rated by 11

3.6 3.8 3.0 3.2 3.7

3.5

Mangrove Capital Partners

Certified

$$$$$ Luxembourg, Europe

Rated by 45

3.9 3.5 3.2 3.5 3.2

3.5

Menlo Ventures

 

$$$$$ Menlo Park, US West

Rated by 41

3.6 3.3 3.4 3.2 4.0

3.5

Bessemer Venture Partners

Certified

$$$$$ Larchmont, US East

Rated by 11

3.9 3.7 3.4 3.0 3.4

3.5

GRP Partners

Certified

$$$$$ Los Angeles, US West

Rated by 12

3.8 3.6 3.6 3.0 3.5

3.5

Meritage Funds

Certified

$$$$$ Denver, US West

Rated by 15

3.6 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5

3.5

Scale Venture Partners

Certified

$$$$$ Foster City, US West

Rated by 38

3.4 3.5 3.0 3.5 3.6

3.4

Polaris Venture Partners

 

$$$$$ Waltham, US East

Rated by 25

3.1 3.5 3.3 3.5 3.4

3.4

Opus Capital

 

$$$$$ Menlo Park, US West

Rated by 29

3.5 3.6 3.5 3.0 3.5

3.4

Union Square Ventures

 

$$$$$ New York, US East

Rated by 26

4.0 3.6 2.8 3.0 3.4

3.4

Index Ventures

Certified

$$$$$ Geneva, Europe

Rated by 38

4.1 3.4 3.1 3.0 3.3

3.4

Greylock Partners

Certified

$$$$$ San Mateo, US West

Rated by 38

3.7 3.3 3.3 3.2 3.3

3.4

Foundation Capital

Certified

$$$$$ Menlo Park, US West

Rated by 52

3.8 3.3 3.1 3.5 3.5

3.4

New Enterprise Associates

Certified

$$$$$ Menlo Park, US West

Rated by 45

3.5 3.5 3.0 3.1 3.3

3.3

Mayfield Fund

 

$$$$$ Menlo Park, US West

Rated by 15

3.8 3.2 3.6 3.0 3.1

3.3

Insight Venture Partners

 

$$$$$ New York, US East

HomeShowcaseTermsAdviceOpenDiscussCoFound

Sign-upHelpFor VCsFor MediaAdvertiseTop VCsBanned VCs

Firm Rating:

Firm Homepage:

i've personally seen three deals where sequoia slashed valuations drastically at the last minute, right before closing. pretty hardball folks. however, can't argue with their results or ability to pick winners.

At first, I was shocked to learn that Sequoia was part of a private equity consortium that bought First Republic Bank. Then, upon further thought, it's no surprise that top venture capitalists would start to abandon the venture capital model first...

-- http://bit.ly/1dwhWq

Has venture investing gotten that bad? I know that top venture funds have the authority to do all types of deals, including public market investments. It makes sense for VCs to try and make money however they can, so I get buying a publicly traded technology company or even taking some innovative traditional businesses private, like a newspaper with a good online division.

BUT, buying a bank? Where is the innovation?

Mike got his backside toasted a bit in the final moments of Kawasaki's Revenue Bootcamp today by a conference attendee. But he rose to the challenge, offering to read and respond to most any pitch emailed to him from the 200+ (predominately baby boomer) audience.

Mike was on the last panel of the conference with Paul Graham of yCombinator moderated by Guy. Early in the hour long discussion, both Mike and Paul admitted that one of the optimal characteristics of entrepreneurs they fund is youth, specifically those under 30 years old. They gave sound justifications, which probably rang hollow with the audience.

The confrontation stemmed from a final question an attendee asked that was blatantly dismissed by Moritz. The question seemed authentic enough. The attendee sought the panel's advice for "older" founders / entrepreneurs when approaching VC's for funding.

Paul didn't get a word in before Mike just flipped his response to a series of off-hand remarks and jokes. Guy tried to pursue, but Mike wasn't interested in dealing directly with the question, and that's when the fun started.

Someone in the audience challenged Mike to answer the question, and asked the audience to raise their hands if any were entrepreneurs over 30. Needless to say, at least 85% of the audience raised their hands. The whole auditorium erupted into applause when Mike was challenged by the provoker to "answer the question!"

To Mike's credit, he said he was willing to take on this challenge, and would consider and respond to any well articulated pitch that was emailed to him, no matter how old the founder was.

I know I'm up for this challenge. How about the rest of you?

Leading up to this final question, Guy had moderated an hour discussion with both Mike and Paul Graham of Ycombinator. Kawasaki was quick to note that both Sequoia and Ycombinator seemed to focus on young entrepreneurs, less than 30 years old. One of from the audience. where a "older founder"

Gents,
Has Sequoia ever done a successful funding in Australia? Many of the US companies we've followed have funding origins in the USA but we're finding it hard to find a serious backer locally.

Pitched several of their team members. It felt like they have seen it all.

from a successful group. They are quite full of themselves, but if you can get over that......take their money.

Sequoia has yet to really tap into Europe and head office in Menlo sent me over to the Israeli crew - but have resorted to contacting PA's to get through to pull at least a response... which is - it's holiday season, so you might have to wait. So basically trying to get some eyeballs on the pitch still.

Thanks to Sequoia for getting back to me (even when submission was via web). I would have appreciated a call (I guess I like hearing my rejection as opposed to reading it).

Sequoia Capital's investment strategy is very simple - the product/service has to serve a very large market. They can fix everything else (replace management, keep developing the product, etc.) but they can not fix the market. If you want to pitch them - make sure that your story shows a huge market for your offering.

Has any one worked with him before"

We were bounced around the firm for our initial pitch and landed on Joe Dobrenski. Lesson learned, only pitch a real player in the firm.

Joe was a nice enough guy (I suppose), but a complete waste of our time. He was really really really late and then hurried us along. No eye contact or attempt to engage in a meaningful discussion. Bolted for the door after 20 minutes.

If anyone sells Dale Carnegie classes... please call on Sequoia Capital and sell them the basic intro course on how to win friends and influence people.

Lots of meetings resulting in a suggestion to refocus the business on just a few current customers. Why would I need venture funding for that"

The Partner that we were scheduled to meet with (through a referral) was 30+ minutes late. He rushed us through almost every pitch slide in our presentation. As he hurried out of the room after 25 minutes he kept saying, "Let's stay in touch. Let's stay in touch".

Really bad form

Worked with Sequoia (both Israel and US). Sequoia is here to make money for their investors and partners. These are the white sharks of Sand Hill road and whomever doesn't know it should! Swimming with sharks can be both rewarding and dangerous.

If you are looking for someone to help you find a market for your technology, they are probably not it.

If however you:
1. Are an execution maven
-or-
2. Have deep pockets to help you keep a lid on dilution

There is no better partner out there.

In the spirit of feedback, I emailed Roelof Botha out of the blue, after reading an article on him from Forbes a few months back. Even though he passed on taking next steps right now for investment, he was a complete gentleman, and got back to me on an incredibly timely basis. He gave me a look, and we emailed back and forth.

At the end of the day, that's all you can ask for. I think sometimes both sides forget we are all on the same team, and one is nothing without the other. Having been on our side, I think Roelof relates better than others, and I have respect for him.

Was initially pleasantly surprised to be scheduled for a full 1.5 hours for our pitch, a luxurious time frame...however, was not at all surprised (despite rumors that there had been a crack down in this area) to find that the scheduled time did not match reality. We began 30 minutes later than scheduled, due to the late arrival of the Sequoia partner.

I was trying to get a pitch meeting with Sequoia for our Series A round. It took about a month for them to get back to me, given that people were out on vacations. They declined a meeting, saying that they generally don't invest in early stage companies outside the Bay area.

Most of the partners at Sequoia are top-drawer. But a sour apple in the barrel can make it a harder decision for seasoned entrepreneurs to choose Sequoia.

I heard all of the shark and bully comments about Sequoia, and the source is usually other VC firms. I accept that they may not be founder-friendly. Still, for all their fame, Sequioa was accessible and when partners (Leone and Gandhi) said to stay in touch, they meant it, and indeed we did. Mark Dempster is the way to get in the door and he will offer a sense of the firm's interest, but not presume anything. We were not funded but pitching this firm boosted confidence. Making an impression and connection here means you can do it anywhere so for that reason I would not put Sequoia last in your queue.

Sequoia Capital has been very willing to help our company before we even agreed on a termsheet - they helped close prospective employees, did legwork to help figure out user growth, and continuously offered product feedback. After closing remained very active/helpful investors, which can be extremely beneficial if you are a young entrepreneur without a lot of experience.

Contrary to a lot of other reports, I found Sequoia to be very humble - attitude throughout the process was "you are our customers, and we are only as good as our next investment."

Getting funding was very painless. We agreed on terms ~48 hours after our pitch and closed everything ~2 weeks later. Deal was expensive but fair.

TIPS ON GETTING FUNDED:

- get angels who are good friends with Sequoia
- build a product and have some users/customers before pitching
- obsessively focus on execution
- they prefer youth and passion to business experience, so come pitch in jeans and tshirt!

Ask any questions in comments below

Sequoia is a "TAM" (Total Addressable Market) investor. Unfortunately, they view as expendable the founders and employees who take huge personal risk to help them address these markets. As an entrepreneur, I think they are the stereotype of the VC to be avoided.

To sum up:

"Knock knock."
"Who's there""
"Sequoia Capital""
"Sequoia Capital wh--"
"HIT YOUR NUMBERS!"

Having said that, they are extremely bright guys, and because they are so powerful it's easy for them to bring in their buddies for additional rounds. And to state the utterly obvious, I would love to be a Sequoia LP.