captk:

Agree with a lot of these. A few comments:

I heard NEA has had some problems as of late - raised a huge fund that exceeded their ability to deploy it effectively, and as a results their returns have been terrible.

Never heard of Sevin Rosen...and found this about them returning capital: http://venturebeat.com/2006/10/07/venture-shocker-sevin-rosen-returns-c…

I also think Summit and TCV arguably could be moved off this list, not because they're not great firms, but because they have really moved up market more into growth equity. Austin Ventures as well to a degree, Polaris and Battery also.

I would vote DFJ up into the "A" bucket. Bessemer, Greylock and Venrock are also all very impressive, would probably move them up the list.

Surprised Union Square Ventures didn't make the cut.

All very impressive firms though, a good list.

• Capt K

Great insight, Capt K. What about Or a firm like Highland Capital Partners? Or newer firms, such as Bain Capital Ventures (founded in 2001)? How are their reputations / performance?

As an aside, here's a TechCrunch post on the "Top 100 Networked VCs" discussing the correlation between contacts and performance: http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/06/27/the-top-100-networked-venture-capi…

ideating:

This sort of prestige shit doesn't quite work in VC. As captk said, Union Square isn't on the list and it's arguably the best VC shop in NYC.

The industry is fundamentally different from IBD or PE, no matter how badly insecure college juniors may want to rank them. Size, compensation and history are all not as relevant as they may be in other industries.

I'd strongly disagree with this statement, even though I admittedly have no first-hand experience in the industry. However, having read read the academic paper mentioned in the TechCrunch post above (Hochberg, Ljungqvist, and Lu), I think that the evidence points to exactly the opposite.

"Prestige" or "reputation" or "contacts" or "networks" or "relationships" or "connections" or whatever you want to call it may be in fact more important in VC than in the above industries, even PE. As the authors conclude:

"Controlling for known determinants of VC investment performance, we find that VC funds whose parent firms enjoy more influential network positions realize significantly better performance, as measured by the proportion of portfolio investments that are successfully exited through an IPO or a sale to another company. Similarly, the portfolio companies of better-networked VC firms are significantly more likely to survive to subsequent rounds of financing and to eventual exit. The magnitude of these effects is economically large, and is robust to a wide range of specifications.”

And yes, while success is not measured by IRR but by % of successful exits, Gompers and Lerner, among others, indicate the validity of viewing a successful exit as a final signal of an investment's success.

Finally, as the OP mentioned, the list above was compiled by a former Wharton professor, now at Yale SOM, not an insecure college junior. And also, this type of analysis would not only be taken by prospective future VC analyst/associates, but also LPs. After all, Metrick's initial list is calculated with the primary quantitative criteria of performance numbers and carried interest, not "prestige," whatever that may mean.

tubs:

TCV is not VC

Sure they are. They do VC, growth equity, and buyout. They even call themselves a "leading private equity and venture capital firm focused on growth technology companies," for crying out loud.

PEHUB - i recommend you subscribe. email you on weekly deal flow, job opps, etc.

qwertykeyboard:

^^ All true enough. Their mix now is definitely away from "venture" deals now, but they did do a Series A for Tiny prints and a Series E for HomeAway, both in 2000. But hey, the line's pretty blurry these days.

Really, you're reaching back almost 10 years? And trying to count a series E as VC? Sorry qwerty, but there so no way TCV could be classified as VC. They're squarely growth equity along with TA, Spectrum, NEA, Oak, etc.

Imperial Financier:

Any thoughts about them?

Insight is a great firm, and they've been crushing it lately (several big exits). They're also creeping up that ladder toward growth equity as well though.

2007Analyst:

Why is there so much sourcing at the junior level at TA, Summit if they are primarily growth equity?

Seems like the pool is sufficiently narrow at that point with precedent rounds to mitigate some of that

The "holy grail" of this space, so to speak, is proprietary deal flow, as some see it. By finding diamonds in the rough that nobody else sees, you give yourself a competitive advantage. The sourcing at the jr. level builds up huge proprietary databases that the firm is then able to leverage.

Accel, Intel, IDG, Sequoia... dude, the list is, like. A hundred names long. What are you looking for?

Generally, in terms of "reputation": Accel, Sequoia, Greylock, and Benchmark are regarded as the top brands right now. Plenty of other firms too though... Andreessen Horowitz is hot, Redpoint, of course KPCB (though the performance of their last several funds has certainly knocked them down a notch). There are a lot of smaller funds ($100-$300M range) that are up and coming and I can quickly jot down a list of those if you are interested.

Rho Ventures is a big one, but yes there are hundreds, if not a thousand.

It depends how you define top tier...

...most people just see which companies they've invested in... are they headline names? But this can be misleading, just because they invested in FaceBook, Google and Twitter doesn't mean they are leaders in VC and are generating solid returns. Since much of the VC model is prefictaed on the portfolio, you can't simply look at a few landmark investments and say its a solid firm.

I'd probably focus more on the founder-level people at the firm and the history of the firm itself.

I really don't think there are 100 top VCs... in terms of early-ish stage focus (with a couple exceptions) on the west coast, the biggest names are Sequoia, Accel, Benchmark, Greylock, KPCB, Andreessen Horowitz, Redpoint, DFJ, NEA, Institutional Venture Partners... maybe Khosla since they keep popping up everywhere but I dunno. out east, Bessemer, Battery, Union Square, General Catalyst, and probably First Round, Highland, Insight, Matrix (at least formerly). for corporate VCs, Google Ventures and Intel Capital are generally by far the two most active players. I'm probably forgetting a few in general but this is a pretty good list

The best VC firms have the best VCs - these rankings are pretty much reflected in the Midas List. http://www.forbes.com/midas/

I'm personally a huge fan of Founders Fund, in addition to the names already listed above (A16Z, Sequoia, NEA, Greylock, etc.)

Seems like VC is so fragmented (with some very reputable firms that have been mentioned already), so it's hard to come up with a definitive short list like there is with the "Big 4" accounting firms, or the "Big 3" consulting firms, or the BB banks.

KP, Sequoia, Accel, Greylock, Benchmark are generally regarded as the Top 5 of the past decade, but it's not as clear cut as MBB in consulting

.