White Paper I
What conventional screens may miss in venture capital.
In a historical study of 2,471 U.S. venture funds, emerging funds had a 7.21 percentage-point higher average IRR. White Paper I examines that difference and what it means for the way managers are assessed.
What Makes a Manager "Emerging"?
The paper uses a definition tied to characteristics that can limit access to institutional capital. It includes firm size, fund sequence, firm age and founding-team representation.
A fund qualifies as "emerging" if it meets any one of these criteria:
- Scale Constraints
- Managing less than $100M in AUM
- Limited Track Record
- Fund I, II, or III
- Organizational Youth
- Firm vintage under 5 years
- Overlooked Teams
- Women or structurally under-recognized GP teams
Higher average performance in the historical sample.
The study covers 2,471 U.S. venture funds with vintages from 2000–2024. The figures below are group averages for funds with the relevant data available. They describe historical performance, not the likely outcome of any particular fund.
Comparing average IRR
Colibri Institute, 2026 • Moncada, 2026
2,471 U.S.-based venture capital funds, 2000–2024. Original chart source
View the chart data
| Performance Metric | Emerging Managers | Established Managers |
|---|---|---|
| IRR (Annualized Return) | 17.15% | 9.94% |
Comparing average value multiples
Colibri Institute, 2026 • Moncada, 2026
2,471 U.S.-based venture capital funds, 2000–2024. Original chart source
View the chart data
| Performance Metric | Emerging Managers | Established Managers |
|---|---|---|
| TVPI (Total Value Multiple) | 2.05x | 1.71x |
| RVPI (Unrealized Value) | 1.19x | 1.01x |
| DPI (Cash Returned) | 0.89x | 0.77x |
What the gap tells us
The average IRR gap is 7.21 percentage points. Converting that difference into dollars would require assumptions about cash-flow timing and reinvestment. It is not a fixed dollar cost of excluding a manager.
Why This Matters
For Institutional Allocators
A threshold for assets under management, fund sequence or firm age can remove managers before their strategy is considered. These findings give allocators a reason to examine what their screens select for and what they may miss.
For Emerging Managers
The research provides context for conversations with LPs about emerging managers as a group. Your own strategy, team and evidence still need to stand on their merits.
For The Ecosystem
Access to capital and investment performance deserve to be examined separately. The paper offers evidence for a more informed discussion about how institutions find and assess emerging managers.
How portfolio choices relate to performance
Core Findings:
Different resources, different portfolios:
Emerging and established funds differed in average investment size, number of portfolio companies and stage focus. The study examines how those choices relate to performance within each group. Differences between groups do not, by themselves, establish why returns differ.
Portfolio Breadth Matters:
The association between portfolio company count and total value was more positive for emerging funds. This is a relationship in the study’s models, not a universal target for how many companies a fund should hold.
Check Size Discipline:
Average investment size had different relationships with IRR in the two groups: positive for established funds and more negative for emerging funds. The result does not establish a single ideal check size.
Look at operating readiness:
Governance, financial health and team dynamics are useful areas for diligence alongside fund size. This is a practical framework for asking questions, not a tested finding that one size of firm is operationally safer.
Read the findings on women GPs carefully:
Funds with women GPs had an approximately 1.6 percentage-point higher unadjusted average IRR, but that difference was not statistically reliable. Results varied by metric and model; the paper should not be read as establishing a uniform performance advantage.
Build relationships with evidence:
An emerging manager program can create space to learn about teams earlier. The research supports asking more informed questions; it does not establish a first-mover return advantage.
Diagnostics
Emerging Manager Program Diagnostic
Use this self-assessment to review the design and execution of an emerging manager program, including the screens it applies. It turns the research into questions for your team; it does not identify future outperformers.
Venture Capital Platform Diagnostic
Use this self-assessment to review your fund’s strategy, infrastructure, governance and fundraising readiness. It helps you identify areas to examine before a conversation with institutional investors.
Read the evidence and bring your questions.
About Colibrí Institute
Colibrí Institute studies how venture capital works, how it shapes who builds technology, and who benefits. We make our research open, inform capital and technology policy, and bring people together to put the evidence to use.
