Competing Fund Types in Emerging VC

Venture studios and accelerators represent two distinct models for supporting startups, differing in structure, level of involvement, and equity stakes. Venture studios create startups from scratch, generating ideas internally and providing capital, talent, and operational support in exchange for significant equity stakes (typically 30-80%). In contrast, accelerators focus on scaling existing startups through short, intensive programs, offering mentorship, networking, and initial funding for smaller stakes (generally 5-15%).

To strengthen their investment strategies, some venture studios and accelerators launch dedicated VC funds to extend financial support beyond their core programs. Venture studios may do so to maintain long-term involvement in the startups they build, while accelerators often seek to provide follow-on capital to high-potential startups emerging from their cohorts, ensuring they remain invested in their continued growth.

Since 2020, Decile Group’s VC Lab accelerator program has supported 400+ venture studios and 250+ accelerators in raising VC funds to invest in their startups. Based on quantitative data from 900+ venture capital funds that participated in the program in 2024 and 500+ funds that successfully completed VC Lab between 2020 and 2024, this report breaks down how venture studio and accelerator funds actually compare in terms of representation and performance.

In 2024, venture studio funds were nearly twice as common as accelerator funds, accounting for 10.3% of all venture capital funds launched compared to 5.5% for accelerators. This 1.9x difference indicates a stronger trend among venture studio operators to formalize their investment capabilities through dedicated venture capital funds, suggesting a growing emphasis on deeper involvement in the startup creation process and a longer term financial commitment.

In most cases, only one or a few members of a venture studio or accelerator team take the lead in launching a dedicated VC fund, while the rest of the team remains focused on running the core operations of the studio or program. This is reflected in the data, with 64.7% of accelerator funds and 76.5% of venture studio funds having just one GP focused on fund building in 2024. The fact that the fund launch is typically driven by a single individual within the organization suggests that while these models operate collaboratively, the process of setting up a VC fund requires specialized expertise and strategic focus that is often concentrated in the hands of one key team member.

In 2024, accelerator and venture studio funds demonstrated similar levels of gender diversity, with women representing 27-28% of GPs, slightly below the 32% seen in traditional VC funds. This difference is primarily driven by a higher proportion of all-women-led funds in traditional VC (22%) compared to venture studio and accelerator funds (17-18%), while the share of mixed-gender teams remained comparable across all models (9-10%). These figures suggest that while venture studio and accelerator funds show a similar level of gender diversity, they have yet to reach the same level of all-women-led representation seen in traditional VC funds being launched.

In 2024, venture studio funds held a larger share of the VC landscape in Africa and MENA (20% and 16% of funds, respectively) compared to other regions (6-12%), suggesting a stronger role in supporting early-stage startups where ecosystems may still be developing. Accelerator funds were most common in Europe and MENA (7%), followed by the USA and Canada (5-6%), with lower representation in LATAM, Africa, and Asia (3-4%). While relatively evenly distributed, accelerator funds were 1.3x to 2.3x more prevalent in Europe, MENA, the USA, and Canada, likely reflecting stronger accelerator ecosystems in these regions and investor appetite to invest in the companies they support.

Between 2020 and 2024, traditional VC funds were 1.6 times more likely to reach a first close than venture studios and just over 2 times more likely than accelerators. While venture studios were slightly more successful than accelerators in this regard, both models saw significantly lower first-close rates than traditional funds. This may be due to the dual focus required to run both the investment fund and the underlying venture studio or accelerator program, which can slow down fundraising efforts. Additionally, lower LP demand for these non-traditional models, which require a different risk appetite, may further contribute to the longer timelines for reaching a first close.

In 2024, accelerator funds outperformed venture studio funds in securing PACTs. PACTs are non-binding letters of intent signed by Limited Partners to indicate their desire to invest a specific amount of money into a venture capital fund. Accelerator funds obtained an average of $1.3MM compared to $700K for venture studio funds within the first 3-4 months of fundraising. This 1.9x difference indicates that accelerator funds were able to capture more initial investor interest and commitments within the same timeframe.

However, when comparing the proportions of hard commitments to fund targets, both models showed comparable performance. On average, venture studios achieved 15.6% of their target on average, while accelerator funds reached 17.9% within the same timeframes. This similarity is likely due to the differing minimum target sizes of these funds. Accelerator funds tended to target larger funds, with an average minimum target fund size of $7.1MM, whereas venture studios set smaller targets with average minimum fund sizes of $5.8MM.

Overall, these figures suggest that while accelerator funds consistently attracted more absolute capital through PACTs, venture studios demonstrated similar effectiveness in achieving proportional commitments relative to their fundraising goals. This balance highlights that despite the differences in total capital raised, both models perform comparably well when measured against their respective target sizes. The larger target sizes pursued by accelerator funds may reflect their focus on providing follow-on capital to a broader portfolio of startups graduating from their programs, while venture studio funds typically target smaller sizes as they concentrate on building fewer startups with deeper operational involvement from the ground up.

In 2024, venture studio funds were nearly twice as common as accelerator funds, accounting for 10.3% of all venture capital funds launched compared to 5.5% for accelerators. While venture studios and accelerators tend to be operated by teams, fund formation is typically led by one or a few team members, with 64.7% of accelerator funds and 76.5% of venture studio funds led by solo GPs in 2024. Gender diversity was consistent across both models, with women representing 27-28% of GPs, demonstrating that venture studios and accelerators offer comparable opportunities for women in leadership roles. Regionally, venture studio funds held a larger share of the VC landscape in Africa and MENA (20% and 16% of funds, respectively), suggesting a stronger role in supporting early-stage startups where ecosystems may still be developing. Accelerator funds were most common in Europe and MENA (7%), followed by the USA and Canada (5-6%), where they were 1.3x to 2.3x more prevalent than in other regions, likely benefiting from stronger investor networks and greater access to follow-on capital to support rapid startup scaling.

Between 2020 and 2024, venture studio and accelerator funds faced longer setup and fundraising timelines than traditional VC funds, with traditional funds being 1.6 times more likely to reach a first close than venture studios and just over 2 times more likely than accelerators. This slower pace may be due to the dual focus required to manage both the investment fund and the underlying venture studio or accelerator program, and potentially lower LP demand for these non-traditional models, which often require a different risk appetite. Although accelerator funds attracted more absolute capital – securing an average of $1.3MM in PACTs within the first 3-4 months compared to $700K for venture studios – both models performed similarly when measured against their target sizes. Venture studios and accelerator funds achieved comparable proportions of their fundraising goals through PACTs (15.6% vs. 17.9%, respectively), largely due to the difference in minimum target sizes ($7.1MM vs. $5.8MM, respectively). This suggests that while accelerator funds raised more capital overall, venture studios were equally effective in securing commitments relative to their fundraising targets.

Whether you are launching a fund to support your venture studio or accelerator, raising a successful VC fund requires the right knowledge, strategy, and support. At VC Lab, we empower emerging managers with a structured 14 week accelerator program designed to guide you through fund building, compliance, LP fundraising, due diligence, and more. Our intensive curriculum, global network, and ethical framework help you launch faster, smarter, and with confidence.