Top Venture Capital Fund Performance Databases: 2026 Guide

Data sourced from Joe, the private fund performance platform powered by Dakota. Learn More | Request Access

Venture capital performance data has a problem that buyout data mostly doesn't: for years after a fund closes, its TVPI is almost entirely unrealized. A seed fund three years into its life can show a headline multiple that's 100% paper marks and 0% cash back, which makes the choice of benchmark — and how that benchmark handles early-stage, pre-realization funds — more consequential in venture than almost anywhere else in private markets.

Layer on top of that the same structural split that runs through every private markets data category: some platforms report a pooled, anonymized cohort median; others report the individual, named fund's own numbers; a few look through the fund to the portfolio companies driving it. This guide compares the databases most commonly used to evaluate venture capital fund performance in 2026, organized around that distinction.

How Venture Fund Performance Data Gets Built

• Pooled and anonymized. GPs or LPs report into a stage- and vintage-year cohort, and the platform publishes an aggregate — a median TVPI for a 2021-vintage seed fund, a top-quartile threshold for early-stage. Useful directionally, opaque about which funds make up the number.
• Individual and named. Performance is displayed at the level of a specific, named fund, so a user can see which fund actually produced a given Net IRR or TVPI and track a GP's series fund-over-fund.
• Deal-level look-through. Performance is decomposed into the underlying portfolio companies — helpful in venture specifically, since a fund's marks are only as good as its most recent unrealized valuations.

Top Venture Capital Fund Performance Databases

Joe (Powered by Dakota)

Joe takes the individual-and-named approach as its starting premise. It tracks Net IRR, TVPI, DPI, and RVPI on 18,000+ private funds, including venture capital vehicles spanning seed and pre-seed through early, late, and growth stage, plus multi-stage and fund-of-funds structures — reported at the level of the specific, named fund that produced them, not folded into a stage-and-vintage aggregate.

That distinction matters most in venture, where a stage-and-vintage cohort median can obscure exactly the thing a diligence question usually needs: how has this specific GP's fund series actually trended, fund over fund, as marks convert from RVPI into realized DPI. Every fund record connects to Dakota's GP and sponsor intelligence — 20,000+ investment firms — and the same allocator relationship graph that powers Dakota Marketplace, so a performance number sits next to firm context a pooled benchmark strips out. The dataset updates daily and is queryable through Claude, ChatGPT, and CoPilot connectors, alongside API and MCP access.

Where Cambridge Associates and Burgiss require institutional relationships and Preqin and PitchBook run enterprise, quote-only contracts, Joe is priced at $9,500/year for up to 5 users, published openly.

Best for: consultants, allocators, and GPs who need an individual, named VC fund's actual track record — not a pooled stage-and-vintage position — without an enterprise budget.

If your diligence question is about one specific fund or GP series rather than a cohort average, it helps to see the difference directly. Request access to Joe.

Preqin

Preqin's venture coverage sits inside its broader alternative-assets platform, with benchmarking segmented by stage focus, vintage, and geography alongside fundraising and investor data. It remains a pooled-and-anonymized model: strong for seeing where a fund sits in a stage-and-vintage cohort, limited for pulling an individual fund's own track record by name.

Preqin was acquired by BlackRock in 2024 for $3.2 billion (BlackRock, 2024), pairing its dataset with Aladdin and eFront.

Best for: benchmarking a VC fund against a broad, anonymized stage-and-vintage cohort.

PitchBook

PitchBook is arguably the most-used platform in venture specifically, because its company, financing round, and cap table data is unusually deep — a natural fit given how much venture diligence is really company diligence. Fund-level IRR and TVPI appear alongside that company data rather than as a standalone benchmarking product.

Its performance methodology mixes GP and LP-sourced data without the cash-flow verification that dedicated benchmarking providers apply, and pricing scales by seat and data module.

Best for: teams whose primary need is venture company and financing-round intelligence, with fund performance as a secondary layer.

Cambridge Associates

Cambridge Associates' venture capital index is one of the most widely cited benchmarks in the asset class, in large part because venture return dispersion is so wide that a credible index matters more than in steadier strategies. Institutional investment committees frequently use it as the line a manager is measured against.

It is a pooled-and-anonymized methodology — authoritative as a reference index, not built for looking up an individual, named fund.

Best for: investment committees that need a credible venture benchmark index for manager evaluation.

Burgiss

Burgiss applies the same LP cash-flow-derived rigor to venture that it does across private markets, which matters more in venture than elsewhere given how much of a young fund's reported value is unrealized: cash-flow-based data at least anchors part of the picture to money that's actually moved.

Like Cambridge Associates, the output is a verified pooled cohort, not an individual fund lookup.

Best for: institutional-grade, cash-flow-verified venture benchmarks.

CB Insights

CB Insights leans toward the deal-level look-through approach for venture specifically — mapping company-level funding rounds, valuations, and market maps, which lets a user reason about a fund's likely performance from what its portfolio companies have actually raised and at what valuation, rather than reading a fund's own reported multiple at face value.

Best for: analysts who want to sanity-check a venture fund's marks against its underlying companies' actual funding history.

Which Database Is Right for Your Team?

Most venture diligence needs more than one lens: a pooled benchmark to see where a fund sits directionally, and — especially given how unrealized a young venture fund's numbers usually are — an individual, named track record to see exactly what's behind that position. Joe is built for the second half of that question: the point where a stage-and-vintage median stops being able to tell you what one specific fund, or one specific GP's series, has actually done.

For more information on Joe, request access.