Most GPs will tell you their fund is "top quartile." Most of them are wrong — or working from benchmarks that conveniently exclude the context that matters.
Venture capital benchmarks exist to give LPs a fair comparison across funds of similar vintage, strategy, and stage. Without them, you are comparing a 2015 seed fund to a 2021 growth fund and wondering why the numbers look different. The four core metrics — IRR, TVPI, DPI, and RVPI — each tell a different story. Understanding what each actually measures, and where each breaks down, is the foundation of LP-quality fund evaluation.
I have reviewed hundreds of fund decks and LP reports across my time as both an investor and founder. The single most consistent pattern: GPs lead with the metric they look best in, and bury the one that matters most to LPs. Usually that buried metric is DPI.
The Four Core Venture Capital Benchmarks Explained
Every serious LP benchmarks funds across these four metrics. Each has a specific purpose, and they are most useful read together.
| Metric | What It Measures | Top Quartile Target | Median |
|---|---|---|---|
| Net IRR | Time-weighted return net of fees & carry | 25%+ by year 10 | 12–15% |
| TVPI | Total value (realized + unrealized) / paid-in | 3.0x+ | 1.5–1.8x |
| DPI | Actual cash returned to LPs / paid-in | 2.0x+ by year 10–12 | 0.8–1.2x |
| RVPI | Remaining portfolio value / paid-in | Declining as DPI rises | Varies widely |
Source: Cambridge Associates, Carta State of Private Markets 2024, Preqin benchmarks
Venture Capital Benchmarks by Vintage Year: What the Numbers Show
Vintage year is the single most important variable when reading any VC benchmark report. A 2019 fund that has returned 2.5x net is dramatically different from a 2022 fund showing 2.5x TVPI — the latter is almost entirely unrealized paper value with no exits to validate it.
Cambridge Associates tracks top-quartile early-stage VC performance by vintage. The 2012–2016 vintages have been the strongest in recent history, with top-quartile funds consistently posting 3.5–5.0x TVPI and meaningful DPI above 2.0x. These vintages benefited from the 2019–2021 liquidity window through IPOs and M&A exits.
The 2018–2020 vintages are still maturing. Top-quartile funds in these cohorts are showing 2.5–3.5x TVPI, but DPI is still developing — most portfolio companies from these vintages haven't exited yet, or exited at reduced valuations. This creates the current benchmark problem: TVPI looks reasonable, but LPs are sitting on paper returns with no liquidity.
The 2021–2022 vintages are the most controversial. Deployed at peak multiples, these funds have largely marked down their portfolios — but selectively. Top-quartile is hard to define because the entire cohort underperformed. Benchmarking against peers in the same vintage is the only fair comparison, and the benchmarks show median TVPI in the 1.0–1.2x range with near-zero DPI as of 2025 data.
Why DPI Is the Benchmark That Actually Matters
I have had this argument with a lot of GPs over the years. TVPI is easy to game — or at least easy to inflate through optimistic portfolio marks, follow-on rounds at higher prices, or simply refusing to mark down companies that are clearly struggling. DPI cannot be faked. It is cash in LP accounts.
The current liquidity crisis in VC — driven by the IPO market drought of 2022–2024 and the slowdown in strategic M&A — has exposed how many "top-quartile" funds are actually TVPI-rich and DPI-poor. Per Carta data, the median VC fund from the 2019–2020 vintage year cohort had returned less than 0.3x DPI as of Q3 2024. Their LPs are waiting on paper gains that may or may not materialize.
For LPs evaluating a new fund, ask for DPI by vintage. For mature funds (year 7+), a fund with 3.0x TVPI and only 0.5x DPI is a very different story than a fund with 2.5x TVPI and 1.8x DPI. The second fund has proven it can generate liquidity. The first is still a hypothesis. Track this data on the VC Performance dashboard to see how major fund managers are trending.
Where LPs Find Venture Capital Benchmark Data
The quality of benchmarking data varies significantly by source. Here is how the major providers compare and what each is best used for.
- 🏆
Cambridge Associates
Industry gold standard for institutional VC benchmarking. Covers 1,800+ VC and PE funds. Publishes quarterly reports used by pension funds, endowments, and sovereign wealth funds globally. Requires subscription or LP relationship to access.
- 📊
Preqin
Best for cross-asset-class comparison (VC vs. PE vs. private credit). Strong on fund-level data and emerging manager coverage. Used heavily by fund-of-funds and consultants. Good for vintage year cohort analysis.
- 📐
Burgiss / MSCI
Strongest on public market equivalent (PME) calculations — comparing VC net returns against S&P 500 or Russell 2000 for the same time period. Used by large institutional LPs who need apples-to-apples comparison to public equities.
- 🌱
Carta State of Private Markets
Best freely available data source for seed and early-stage VC, especially emerging managers. Covers 8,000+ companies and 1,500+ funds on its platform. Skews toward smaller, newer funds — less relevant for multi-billion-dollar growth funds.
- 🔍
PitchBook
Broad market coverage but less precise on net returns than Cambridge. Best for deal flow data, comparable transactions, and fund size/vintage year tracking. Most commonly used by GPs and founders for market intel.
How to Actually Use Benchmarks When Evaluating a Fund
Benchmarks are context, not verdicts. A fund in the top quartile of a weak vintage is not necessarily better than a median fund in a strong vintage. A seed fund should not be benchmarked against growth funds. And a fund with a highly concentrated portfolio — where one company drives 80% of returns — will show extreme TVPI variance that mean-reversion benchmarks cannot capture.
The most sophisticated LPs I know benchmark in three layers. First, same-vintage, same-stage comparison using Cambridge Associates quartile data. Second, public market equivalent analysis using Burgiss PME to understand whether VC exposure is actually beating liquid alternatives after fees. Third, GP-specific attribution — breaking down whether returns came from one outlier position or from a repeatable portfolio construction thesis.
For emerging managers without a track record, LPs will often use the manager's angel portfolio or prior fund investments as a proxy. Angel returns above 3.0x MOIC on 10+ deals is a reasonable leading indicator, though it overstates likely fund-level returns given the concentration and illiquidity differences. The Benchmarking dashboard on Value Add VC helps founders and GPs understand where their numbers sit relative to market.
The benchmark that matters most in 2026 is not IRR or TVPI.
It's DPI — actual cash returned to LPs. Every other metric is a story. DPI is proof.
Track VC and PE fund performance data on the VC/PE Performance dashboard at Value Add VC. Originally published in the Trace Cohen newsletter.