2026 Check Sizes: Attribute, Do Not Average
Use Carta for 2026 software round sizes. Do not invent a typical first check per firm.
Carta Q4 2025 already had seed at $24 million post-money and Series A at $78.7 million (+37% year over year). In Carta's 2025 review, the AI premium on Series A valuation versus non-AI was 38%. Bottom 50% of US Carta startups that closed a round took 14% of the cash; the top 10% took about 50%.
CRV still sees competitive B2B SaaS Series A in a $2-5 million ARR band. Seed-to-A graduation is cohort-specific on Carta. Do not treat it as a single 2026 average.
Median time seed to A on Carta's Q2 2025 print was 616 days. Raise 18-24 months of runway, not a two-week process.
The one verified late-stage band in this set: Accel's Leaders Fund writes checks that average about $200 million. That is not a seed product.
Multi-Stage Venture Capital Firms
These eight multi-stage firms run seed through growth. The useful question is which product inside the firm matches your round.
1. Andreessen Horowitz
Best for sector-platform checks from seed through growth
Andreessen Horowitz raised over $15 billion in January 2026 across Growth ($6.75 billion), Apps ($1.7 billion), Infrastructure ($1.7 billion), American Dynamism ($1.176 billion), Bio + Health ($700 million), and other venture books. Ben Horowitz put that haul at over 18% of US VC dollars allocated in 2025. Use the firm's SEC Form ADV for current regulatory AUM rather than a third-party size table.
Treat a16z as several doors. The brand is not one inbound. Associates still source what lands on a GP desk, but the check and the board seat sit with a named partner.
Speedrun is a separate apply path (up to $1 million). Crunchbase counted at least 165 post-seed deals in 2025.
The platform (recruiting, marketing, policy, media) is useful if you want in-house ops, and a mismatch if you want a six-person partnership on your board. Pitch the sector GP who owns your category.
Pros
- Dedicated vertical funds, so the AI, crypto, bio, and American Dynamism conversations are different rooms
- Speedrun is a productized inbound when you have no warm intro
- Signaling value for the next round if you actually belong in the book
Cons
- Brand-level cold email is the default miss; the growth book is not your seed meeting
- Platform overhead is a poor fit for founders who want a tiny board
- Unpublished third-party "average check" tables for a16z are not reliable; skip them
Firm Basics
- AUM: Read the Form ADV
- Latest fund: $15B+ (9 Jan 2026)
- Approach: Sector GP, or apply via Speedrun
2. Sequoia Capital
Best for outlier companies from seed through IPO
Peak XV (India) and HongShan (China) are separate counterparties from US Sequoia. The US and Europe partnership still runs seed through IPO, including an evergreen that can hold past listing. The filing entity is Sequoia Capital Operations (ADV dated 17 July 2026).
The 2025-26 raise is two products. On 27 October 2025 Sequoia unveiled $750 million for early-stage / Series A plus a $200 million seed vehicle.
On 16 April 2026 it raised about $7 billion of expansion capital under Alfred Lin and Pat Grady. Seed is still seed, not volume.
Thesis copy now runs AI from models to applications. Approach is a warm intro to the category partner. Do not cold-email the brand.
Pros
- Seed through IPO continuity if you are the company they actually want
- Named expansion stewards (Lin / Grady) after the 2025 leadership change
- Separate seed vehicle, so "Sequoia does seed" is still true
Cons
- The $200 million seed book is picking "generational," not spraying
- Peak XV and HongShan are not this partnership; do not treat Asia as one email
- Firm marketing about NASDAQ share is not a fact you should repeat
Firm Basics
3. Accel
Best for enterprise, AI apps, and India or Europe doors
Accel still sells itself as first partner from inception through later phases. The US entity, Accel Management Co., files a Form ADV.
The 2026 headline is late-stage. On 15 April 2026 Accel raised $5 billion: a $4 billion Leaders Fund (about 20 checks averaging about $200 million) plus a $650 million sidecar. That is not a seed product.
Seed and Series A still live in the older partnership, with real doors in India and Europe.
Approach on thesis alignment in enterprise infrastructure, developer tools, and AI applications. If your round is a $4 million seed, Leaders Fund is the wrong room.
Pros
- Multi-geography partnership (Palo Alto, London, India) with local partners
- Documented late-stage check band (~$200 million Leaders averages)
- Continuity story from first check through later rounds, when you are in the book
Cons
- The $5 billion 2026 raise is a growth product; do not read it as seed dry powder
- Brand search will send seed founders to the wrong deck
- Less of a public inbound machine than a16z Speedrun
Firm Basics
- AUM: Form ADV (Accel Management Co.)
- Latest fund: $5B late-stage (15 Apr 2026)
- Approach: Thesis fit with the partner who owns your category and geography
4. Lightspeed Venture Partners
Best for conviction-led multi-stage, including AI infrastructure
Stage range on Lightspeed's site runs seed to Series F. The firm registered as an investment adviser in 2025 (SEC approved 28 April 2025). Read the ADV for current AUM rather than a third-party size table.
The live homepage signal in August 2026 is a deepening Anthropic Series F, not a seed manifesto. India and China are different partnerships.
Pitch depth and a point of view. A spray check is the miss.
Confirm the partner's current envelope before you treat Lightspeed as a seed door.
Pros
- True multi-stage balance sheet if the partner is in your category
- Public AI-infrastructure conviction (Anthropic on the homepage)
- Separate geographic partnerships, so India is a real door rather than a satellite
Cons
- No 2026 flagship close on a primary page in this research set; do not invent one
- Seed founders will over-read a multi-stage ADV figure
- China / India are not the Menlo Park email
Firm Basics
- AUM: Form ADV (registered 2025)
- Latest fund: Not a verified 2026 headline close in primary sources used here
- Approach: Conviction pitch to the partner on your sector
5. General Catalyst
Best for applied AI and health-system bets
General Catalyst describes itself as applied AI plus "health assurance." In 2025 its HATCo vehicle closed a $515 million acquisition of Summa Health: GC as a strategic acquirer, not only a minority investor. Read the Form ADV for current regulatory AUM.
Activity rankings are not a seed-specialist label. Confirm the partner's current check envelope before you treat GC as a seed door.
Healthcare founders should expect the hospital-system overlay: a feature if you are building into care delivery, a complication if you wanted a clean minority check and no operator parent.
Pros
- Applied AI plus a health-system balance sheet most venture firms do not have
- Multi-stage capital if the partner is actually writing your stage
- High 2025 activity, so the firm is in market
Cons
- Reported ~$10 billion raise / listing chatter is not a closed fund; do not assert it
- Seed fit is partner-specific, not brand-level
- HATCo overlay is a conflict to diligence if you sell to health systems
Firm Basics
- AUM: Form ADV
- Latest fund: No verified 2026 close in the primary set
- Approach: Named partner; healthcare founders diligence HATCo
6. Bessemer Venture Partners
Best for cloud and vertical SaaS from Series A to C
Bessemer has been in venture since 1974. The public product founders actually use is the pattern library: Atlas roadmaps and the Cloud 100. Read the firm's Form ADV for current regulatory AUM.
Lead Series A through C in cloud and vertical SaaS is the core book. BVP Forge is a PE-style vehicle. Label it; do not mix it with the venture partnership when you are raising a minority round.
Approach if you want published benchmarks and every-stage capital in SaaS. The firm is a weak match for pre-product science.
Pros
- Public SaaS pattern library (Atlas, Cloud 100) you can reverse-map before the meeting
- Lead-A-to-C franchise in cloud, which matches Carta Series A/B medians
- Continuity capital without jumping to a new brand at Series B
Cons
- Forge is a buyout-adjacent product; do not confuse it with the venture book
- Not the first call for defense, bio, or pre-seed science
- The venture book looks small next to a16z unless you needed a $100 million growth check
Firm Basics
- AUM: Form ADV
- Stage: Lead cloud / vertical SaaS A-C
- Approach: Pattern fit against Atlas; named partner in your vertical
7. Kleiner Perkins
Best for a small partnership with growth continuity
Kleiner Perkins (founded 1972) does not publish a current AUM on its homepage. Do not invent one. What is verified: on 24 March 2026 the firm announced $3.5 billion across KP22 ($1 billion early-stage) and $2.5 billion of growth (Select IV / Flex).
The investment partnership is a lean five-partner room. Rippling's $25 million Series A was, at the time, KP's largest early check.
Approach is relationship-heavy. An early check with growth continuity is the product.
The product is a small senior room, not an a16z-style platform.
Pros
- Documented 2026 raise split between early and growth
- Five investment partners, so you know who sits in the room
- Continuity from early check into the growth vehicles
Cons
- Do not invent an AUM from a third-party size table
- Small partnership means limited bandwidth and a high bar
- Not a public inbound machine
Firm Basics
- AUM: Do not invent one from a third-party size table
- Latest fund: $3.5B (24 Mar 2026)
- Approach: Relationship with one of the five investment partners
8. NEA
Best for tech and healthcare from idea to IPO
NEA (founded 1977) sells idea-to-IPO coverage across technology and healthcare. It has historically cited more than 270 portfolio-company IPOs (that 2023 release is a self-report, not a 2026 filing). Read the Form ADV for current AUM.
NEA is a multi-stage generalist, not a seed specialist. Healthcare and enterprise growth are the dense parts of the book. A rumored NEA 19 target is not a verified close, so do not treat a target as dry powder.
Approach as a long-duration partner if your category sits in those two dense books. Skip NEA as a "pre-seed brand" just because the website still says idea-stage.
Pros
- Dual tech + healthcare franchise at institutional scale
- Idea-to-IPO self-description matches founders who want one firm across funding stages
- Multi-stage scale is large enough to follow on
Cons
- Generalist multi-stage, so seed is not the center of gravity
- A rumored next-fund target is not a verified close
- Less of a public personality than a16z or Founders Fund
Firm Basics
- AUM: Form ADV
- Stage: Multi-stage; healthcare and enterprise growth are the dense books
- Approach: Named partner in tech or healthcare; do not treat the brand as a seed mill
Early-Stage Concentrated Partnerships
These six partnerships still lead early. The meeting is with a specific partner, and ownership is the product.
9. Benchmark
Best for concentrated Series A with a large ownership stake
Benchmark (founded 1995) still runs equal general partners, no junior investment staff, and typical ~20% stakes. On 3 June 2026 it raised $2 billion: a $750 million 12th flagship plus a first-ever $1.25 billion growth fund. The flagship had sat near $425 million for two decades.
The growth fund is the 2026 concession to AI capital intensity. It is not a seed product. The firm has not invested in Anthropic, OpenAI, or other foundation-model labs; fund size is the constraint.
Approach is an intro to a specific GP (Peter Fenton, Eric Vishria, Sarah Tavel, Ev Randle). Cold email to the blank homepage will fail. They lead and take a large stake.
Pros
- Still the cleanest widely cited Series A signal among US brands
- Equal-GP structure: the person in the meeting is the decision
- Documented 2026 raise, so the partnership is in market
Cons
- Growth fund is new and not the product seed founders should pitch
- No junior staff means no associate funnel; you need a real intro
- Foundation-model labs are outside the check
Firm Basics
- AUM: Do not invent one from a third-party size table
- Latest fund: $2B (Jun 2026)
- Approach: Intro to a named equal GP; expect a lead and a large stake
10. Founders Fund
Best for defense, frontier, and hard-tech theses
Founders Fund (founded 2005) is an exempt reporting adviser. Marketing AUM prints and private-fund GAV often diverge by tens of billions. GAV is not a quality ranking.
The public thesis is still "what would you build if you could start over?": defense, satellites, frontier. Trae Stephens is the defense door.
Founders Fund is not a SaaS seed mill. Public intake is thin by design.
Pitch a hard problem with a technical founder. A conventional B2B growth round is the wrong room.
Pros
- Live defense and frontier franchise when most multi-stage books are AI-app heavy
- ADV GAV is large enough to follow on into growth
- Thesis is readable on the homepage; you can self-select out
Cons
- Marketing AUM and ADV GAV diverge by tens of billions; ignore vanity rank
- Thin public inbound; warm intro or a thesis that is already on their map
- Poor fit for standard SaaS seed
Firm Basics
- AUM: Form ADV (ERA)
- Stage: Multi-stage, thesis-first
- Approach: Thesis-first; Trae Stephens for defense
11. Khosla Ventures
Best for technical, contrarian science and climate
Khosla Ventures (founded 2004) prefers brutal honesty to hypocritical politeness, and patience on science: AI, climate, bio, fusion. Read the Form ADV for current AUM.
Khosla's own LinkedIn frames Commonwealth Fusion Systems as a 2019 bet "when almost no other fund would touch fusion." Treat announced science outcomes as firm-claimed. The useful signal is willingness to sit in an unpopular category for years.
Approach as technical or contrarian seed. Do not pitch a conventional SaaS growth round as the primary product.
Pros
- Documented appetite for multi-year science (fusion, climate, bio)
- The book is large enough to follow a science company past seed
- Public posture (honesty over politeness) is a filter you can use before the meeting
Cons
- Not the right lead for a standard SaaS Series B
- First-check lore around OpenAI is widely reported; verify before you repeat a dollar figure
- Personality-driven partnership: fit with the named partners matters more than the logo
Firm Basics
- AUM: Form ADV
- Stage: Early, science-heavy
- Approach: Technical / contrarian seed; not a SaaS growth mill
12. Greylock Partners
Best for first-check enterprise and consumer software
Greylock (founded 1965) does not publish a current AUM on its homepage. Do not invent one.
Greylock's Fund 17 announcement said more than 80% of investments in the prior fund were pre-seed, seed, or Series A. Treat that as a self-reported stage mix, not a filing. The current homepage line is "the map is blank again": an AI-reset thesis, not a growth manifesto.
Approach a category-defining team to a small senior partnership. Pitch a growth round here and you have the wrong firm.
Greylock is one of the few remaining brand-name first-check doors that is not an accelerator.
Pros
- First-check positioning is rare among brand names; confirm the partner's current envelope
- Enterprise and consumer software history without a growth-fund overlay you have to decode
- Small senior partnership, so the meeting is the decision
Cons
- Do not invent an AUM from a third-party size table
- Not a growth check
- Blank-map AI thesis means a generic SaaS deck will bounce
Firm Basics
- AUM: Do not invent one from a third-party size table
- Stage: First check, pre-seed through Series A
- Approach: Category-defining team; small senior partnership
13. First Round Capital
Best for the first institutional pre-seed or seed check
First Round (founded 2004) is pre-seed and seed only. The site still frames checks "when all they have is an imagine if." First Round's own Who We Back page puts the average initial check at $3.5 million, with rounds from $100,000 to $20 million. Treat third-party $1-7 million / 10-15% ownership ranges as secondary, not a First Round filing.
Post-close, First Round coaches founders into the multi-stage layer. That is the product. Do not pitch a $40 million Series A here as lead.
Former-founder partners are the texture. Approach as the first institutional check among brand names, then use the network for the A.
Pros
- Stage discipline: seed only, so you are not competing with the growth book
- Post-close coaching into multi-stage firms is the actual service
- Brand-name first check without accelerator equity
Cons
- Cannot lead your Series A
- You will still need a different firm at A; plan that on Carta's long seed-to-A clock, not a two-week process
Firm Basics
- AUM: Seed specialist; do not invent a size-table figure
- Stage: Pre-seed / seed only
- Approach: First institutional check; former-founder partners
14. Index Ventures
Best for transatlantic companies from seed through growth
In July 2026 Index (founded 1996) said $3.5 billion across seed, venture, and growth. The filing entity is Index Ventures SA, an exempt reporting adviser.
The line on the LinkedIn post is relationship craft: find people early and stay. Founder-character story matters. US-Europe ambitions are the geographic filter.
Approach if your company is actually transatlantic. A purely US local SaaS with no Europe plan is a weaker Index meeting.
Pros
- Documented 2026 capital across seed, venture, and growth
- Real transatlantic partnership, not a tourist Europe desk
- Character-first filter is readable before you take the meeting
Cons
- Use the ADV and the firm's own fund announcement, not a third-party AUM table
- Concentrated; this is not a spray platform
- US-only stories compete at a disadvantage
Firm Basics
- AUM: Form ADV (ERA)
- Latest fund: $3.5B across seed / venture / growth (Jul 2026)
- Approach: Founder-character story plus a US-Europe plan
Growth and Late-Stage Firms
Do not seed-pitch these two. The AUM is real. The door is ScaleUp or concentrated growth.
15. Insight Partners
Best for software ScaleUp after product-market fit
Insight (founded 1995, New York) says over $90 billion of regulatory AUM as of 31 December 2025. This is software ScaleUp: Series A through IPO, with an operating team built for sales-engine scale (Wiz, monday.com, SentinelOne).
Seed founders: skip. The brand will still show up in "top VC" lists because of AUM. The product is GTM scale after you already have a software engine.
Fund XIII closed at $12.5 billion in January 2025, down from Fund XII at more than $20 billion. That is concentration, not disappearance.
Pros
- Dedicated software growth operating team
- Over $90 billion of regulatory AUM is follow-on firepower
- Clear stage filter: ScaleUp, not seed
Cons
- Useless as a seed door; AUM rank will waste your time if you ignore stage
- Fund XIII ($12.5B) is smaller than XII ($20B)
- Late-stage software is crowded with crossover names; Insight is VC, Tiger is not the same meeting
Firm Basics
- AUM: Over $90B regulatory AUM (31 Dec 2025)
- Stage: Growth / late software
- Approach: GTM-scale story; do not seed-pitch
16. Thrive Capital
Best for a few high-conviction growth bets per year
Thrive (founded 2009, New York) keeps an intentionally blank homepage. Concentrated multi-stage: few high-conviction bets per year (OpenAI, Wiz), not a public intake machine. The Form ADV is dated 6 July 2026.
Warm intro only. There is no Speedrun equivalent. If you need a productized inbound, this is the wrong firm.
Treat Thrive as a growth / high-conviction door, not a seed spray.
Pros
- Concentrated book; a Thrive check is a signal, not a logo farm
- The ADV book supports large follow-ons
- Blank homepage is an honest filter: if you cannot get an intro, you are not in process
Cons
- No public inbound
- Not a seed mill
- Firm-claimed round lore should be verified deal by deal
Firm Basics
- AUM: Form ADV (filed 6 Jul 2026)
- Stage: Concentrated multi-stage / growth
- Approach: Warm intro only
What These Names Are Not
Y Combinator is an accelerator, not an AUM-table VC firm. Techstars and 500 Global belong in the same bucket. Outcome rankings still treat YC as a seed-outcome leader, not as a traditional AUM-table partnership.
The NVCA 2026 Yearbook counted 2,984 US VC firms in existence, the first decline on the series. Angels, CVCs, and accelerators sit outside that dedicated-firm count.
Tiger Global, SoftBank Vision Fund, Coatue, and ICONIQ mix non-venture books. Do not treat them as traditional partnership VC.
Accel-KKR is a PE/tech buyout shop, not Accel VC. OpenVC lists 833 CVC firms with different incentives (strategic parent, not independent GP). Do not flatten them into this table.
How to Choose the Right Venture Capital Firm
- Match stage and check to the round you are actually raising. Use Carta medians for size. Use the firm's latest product (seed vehicle vs Leaders Fund vs ScaleUp) for fit.
- Pick the partner, then the logo. SVB is blunt: evaluate the individual. Sites still say pre-seed while the first screen is traction.
- Build 30-50 highly relevant names, not 300 cold emails. OpenVC is the right order of magnitude. Start relationships six months before the raise.
- Optimize the syndicate, not the highest post-money. On YouTube, named partners still push prototype plus customers over a deck-only seed. Do not chase the biggest valuation if the partner and the syndicate are wrong.
Emerging Trends in Venture Capital Firms
- AI took 65.4% of US deal value in 2025 (NVCA Yearbook, $222 billion), up from 50.9% in 2024, while taking 39.4% of deal count. The top five companies (OpenAI, CoreWeave, xAI, Anthropic, Databricks) raised nearly $60 billion collectively. Strip $100 million+ mega-deals and the remaining ~14,865 deals average about $7.1 million.
- LP money concentrated. Traditional VC fundraising spanned 585 funds. The top 10 funds took 32.9% of that capital.
- Mega-firms split into products. a16z's $15 billion is seven-plus books. Sequoia's seed is $200 million against a $7 billion expansion vehicle. Benchmark added a growth fund for the first time. Targeting "the firm" is obsolete.
