What significantly correlates with early fundraising success?
Early traction is critical for emerging fund managers. In the first few weeks of fundraising, momentum builds credibility, builds confidence, and sets the pace for future LP conversations. But what actually signals success in those first four weeks?
While every fund is different, patterns do emerge. From fund size and LP activity to LinkedIn networks and prior experience, certain indicators show consistent correlations with early soft commitments. Most notably, early traction tends to reflect how well a fund’s strategy aligns with a GP’s current network and resources.
This article analyzes data from 600+ emerging funds that successfully completed Decile Group’s VC Lab accelerator, exploring which GP and fund characteristics are most associated with strong fundraising starts and what sets early movers apart.
Indicators of Early Fundraising Success
While there's no single formula for early fundraising success, the data reveals some clear patterns. Several factors, such as fund size, online presence, and past investment activity, show statistically significant correlations with early LP interest. Other commonly assumed advantages, such as team size or GP age, don’t seem to matter at all.
What Doesn’t Move the Needle
Notably, team size and GP age were not significantly correlated with early PACTs. Whether a fund was led by a solo GP or a team, or by younger or older professionals, had no measurable impact on initial fundraising traction.
This finding challenges the assumption that experience tied to age, or the perceived strength of a larger team, meaningfully boosts early success. Instead, early traction appears to stem from a mix of visibility, credibility, and strategic positioning. This offers clues about what LPs respond to in those critical first weeks.
What Does Help
When looking at early fundraising outcomes, five factors show statistically significant correlations with the amount of soft commitments received by emerging managers in their first four weeks of fundraising:
Fund Size: r = .22, p < .001
LinkedIn Followers: r = .19, p < .001
Prior Angel Investments: r = .18, p < .001
Prior VC Experience: r = .12, p < .01
LP Pitches: r = .09, p < .05
While the correlations are relatively weak, the relationships are statistically significant, suggesting that a combination of visibility, credibility, and preparation may help drive early traction. However, fund size deserves a closer look, as the relationship with early fundraising success is more nuanced in this case. In certain scenarios, bigger targets may actually hold GPs back.
Comparison of the Extremes
Beyond correlations, comparing groups by how much they raised offers another lens into what matters most, especially when examining the extremes. These comparisons help reveal which factors differentiate funds that gain momentum quickly from those that struggle to get started, and where the real inflection points may lie.
The $0 vs. $150K–$500K Gap: Find Size
A striking difference emerges between funds that raised nothing in the first four weeks and those that raised even modest amounts. For GPs who raised between $150K and $500K, most metrics, including LinkedIn presence, LP pitch activity, and prior investment experience, are nearly identical to those who raised $0. But one factor clearly diverges: fund size.
Raised $0: Average fund size = $9.5MM
Raised $150K–$500K: Average fund size ~$5.5MM
That’s nearly a 2x difference in fund size expectations, despite similar underlying credentials. The implication is clear: GPs with limited prior experience or reach are more likely to gain early LP traction when their target size feels realistic and attainable, specifically around the $5MM mark.
This pattern suggests that smaller initial targets help signal credibility and seriousness to LPs, especially when a GP is still building momentum. It’s not just ambition that gets rewarded early — it's calibration.
The $2MM+ Edge: Experience and Network
At the top end, GPs who raised over $2MM in their first four weeks show stronger averages across almost all indicators of preparedness:
Fund Size: $19.9MM
Prior Investments: 3.75 → equivalent to 6–10+ prior angel deals
Prior VC Experience: 0.75 → most had some prior exposure to venture
These fund managers aren’t just setting larger goals — they have the networks, traction, and experience to back them up. Unlike those in the $0 group, their ambition is supported by visible indicators of execution readiness. In short: larger targets are best received when a strong foundation is already in place.
Key Takeaways
The data paints a clear picture: early fundraising success is not random. It aligns with tangible attributes: fund size, prior experience, LP network size and online visibility.
Key priorities for emerging GPs include:
Set fund sizes to match your profile. GPs with smaller networks and less VC experience see better traction with leaner targets around $5MM.
Build public and private visibility. Both LinkedIn reach and active LP outreach correlate with stronger early fundraising performance.
Establish experience or show you’re learning fast. Prior investments and VC exposure help, but clear, confident positioning can close the gap.
Don’t overvalue team size or age. Team size and GP age don’t relate to early success. Fund strategy and effective communication matter more.
For emerging managers, the first four weeks of fundraising can feel like make-or-break. But with a realistic fund size, credible early signals, and strong LP communication, early traction is within reach, even without a big name or track record.
VC Lab, the leading venture capital accelerator, empowers new and emerging managers worldwide to close ethical, high-performing funds in under six months. The program provides cutting-edge tools, expert mentorship, and a global network to raise more money in less time. Apply if you want to build a meaningful venture capital firm.
