Methodology

What we saw, and how we know

1,343 rounds read in the last 30 days, from 334 publications

Most investor databases print what funds say about themselves. We print what we watched them do, with the source beside it, and we measure the size of our own blind spot rather than let you assume there isn't one.

Latest rounds read

  1. ArticleGoogle News search7 Nov
  2. ExtractedPositron AISeries C · $875M
  3. MatchedDuplicates folded, investors linkedOne record, every source kept
  4. PublishedOn the rounds streamWith the link to the article
  1. ArticleTech.eu6 Nov
  2. ExtractedTEKEVERSeries D · $580M
  3. MatchedDuplicates folded, investors linkedOne record, every source kept
  4. PublishedOn the rounds streamWith the link to the article
  1. ArticleGEF Capital Partners5 Nov
  2. ExtractedYuluSeries C · $93M
  3. MatchedDuplicates folded, investors linkedOne record, every source kept
  4. PublishedOn the rounds streamWith the link to the article
  1. ArticleGoogle News search5 Nov
  2. ExtractedMorphoSeed · $175M
  3. MatchedDuplicates folded, investors linkedOne record, every source kept
  4. PublishedOn the rounds streamWith the link to the article
  1. ArticleGEF Capital Partners5 Nov
  2. ExtractedArya.agSeries D · $81M
  3. MatchedDuplicates folded, investors linkedOne record, every source kept
  4. PublishedOn the rounds streamWith the link to the article
  1. ArticleGEF Capital Partners5 Nov
  2. ExtractedKimbalSeries B · $22M
  3. MatchedDuplicates folded, investors linkedOne record, every source kept
  4. PublishedOn the rounds streamWith the link to the article

Investors398,536184,157 firms and 214,379 people$95.4T under management
Rounds226,723$4.9T raised
Filings268,337$3.2T sold in filed raises
Cheques414,192linked to a named investor
Exits21,460$5T across 5,305 priced

1 · The evidence ladder

Not every fact is equally strong, so we never mix them

Every round and every claim carries the kind of evidence behind it, and pages say which. A filing outranks an article, an article outranks a list, and what a firm says about itself is kept apart from what we saw.

Filed12,215

Rounds matched to the company's own filing with the SEC, so the amount and date come from the regulator.

Reported96,658

Rounds read from a named publication, with the company, stage, amount, date and every named investor, and the link kept.

Listed12,698

Rounds from public funding lists. Lower confidence, shown as listed, never as observed.

Historical117,346

Rounds before 2016 from older exports. Marked on every page, counted only in all-time totals.

Claimed263,386

Portfolio companies firms list on their own websites. Their word, kept separate, never turned into a round.

2 · Where it comes from

Public sources, read every night

The press

334publications reported a round we hold in the last 90 days

Funding news is read every morning. Each article about a raise is read automatically for the company, stage, amount, date and every named investor. When several outlets report the same round it becomes one record with several sources, so a fund that made one investment never looks like it made four.

Regulators

SEC Form D filings (company rounds, funds raising funds, and the people named on them), Form ADV advisers, 13F holdings, the IRS register of foundations and endowments, Companies House filings and share allotments in the UK, and the global legal entity register.

Firms themselves

Every investor website we hold is fetched and read: what the firm is, its team page, its portfolio page and its news feed. 158,168 websites checked.

Open data

Founding years, countries, founders and parent companies from Wikidata, by website, filling only empty fields; photos from Wikimedia Commons.

Lists

Purchased, public and supplied lists are leads, not facts. Each firm on them is checked against its own website, which regularly contradicts the list it came from.

Facts on records with their source written beside them

Investor lists, each checked369,230
Firms' own websites307,091
Website details187,778
Wikidata148,082
Country from the web address131,467
Companies' own websites115,334
Companies House43,538
SEC adviser filings30,175
Web search, checked by hand2,241
Funds' own news309
Employers named in filings308

3 · The publications

Who reported the rounds we hold

1FinSMEs9,390
2TechCrunch2,770
3Firms' own news pages1,604
4Ventureburn1,299
5TechStartups1,015
6China Money Network775
7Google News search621
8AlleyWatch598
9LatamList498
10Startup Daily391
11Crunchbase News319
12The SaaS News315
And 1,417 more publications9,346

Some outlets block automated reading. We do not work around that, so their rounds reach us only when another publication also covers them.

4 · What we miss

We measure our blind spot instead of guessing it

Take two publications covering the same country. If one reported 500 rounds, another 400, and 100 are the same round, each is catching a knowable share of the whole. It is the arithmetic used to count wildlife. Measured per country, because outlets specialise by region.

500in outlet A
400in outlet B
100in both
≈ 2,000in all: 500 × 400 ÷ 100
52%United States2,044 of about 3,913
65%United Kingdom236 of about 364
57%France102 of about 180

Share of the rounds the press itself reports that we hold. Rounds never announced (most family-office, LP and private-credit activity) are invisible to everyone, us included.

The harder measure

What US companies told the regulator, Apr 2009 to Oct 2026

34.2% of 54,125 technology and health raises over $1M filed with the SEC are rounds we can point at (18,495).

Far worse than the press figure, and the more truthful of the two: most raises are never written about anywhere. It is why a fund's absence from our record is never evidence it is inactive.

5 · Rules we apply

Three judgements, made the same way every time

Before we call a fund dormant

  • At least four cheques observed before, so its deals do get announced
  • Nothing seen for more than eighteen months
  • Its website is dead or parked

All three, or we say nothing. Family offices, LPs, private credit and others that rarely announce are never marked dormant at all.

Before we trust a website

  • Live 63.6%
  • Dead 17.9%
  • Errors 8.9%
  • Redirects elsewhere 4.3%
  • Blocks reading 4.0%
  • Parked domain 1.3%

A website that never mentions the firm it is attached to is treated as wrong: nothing read from it is published.

Before we fill a blank

We don't.

An unknown is printed as unknown, and a figure we did not observe is not printed at all. No estimates dressed as data.

6 · What we will not do

Publish contact data. No emails, no phone numbers.

Resell lists as they shipped. Every list is checked first.

Work around blocks. A site that says no is not read.

See the record this describes

Every round with its source,
every investor judged by what they funded.

Questions about the method

Why is a fund I know missing, or showing no recent rounds?

Most likely because its deals were never announced anywhere we read. Our measured coverage is about half of what the press reports, and the press misses most of what is filed. Absence in our record is never evidence a fund is inactive.

Do you publish contact details?

No email addresses and no phone numbers, ever. We publish the names of people named in rounds, filings and firms' own team pages, linked to the firm, and nothing that would let anyone rebuild a contact list.

What is a historical round?

A round from before 2016, from older public exports. We keep 117,346 of them for context and all-time totals, mark them "Historical record" on every page, and leave them out of every headline count of rounds observed.

Something is wrong. How do I get it fixed?

Use the corrections page. It is free, needs no account and is not conditional on claiming a profile. A firm's request to remove its own record is honoured; an accurate, sourced record of an announced deal is not removed.

Every figure on this page is read from the live database when the page is built, not written by hand.