Competing GP Structures in Emerging VC

For emerging venture capital managers, one of the biggest early decisions is whether to go solo or build a team. Solo GPs often move faster and retain full control, while team-led funds can leverage diverse networks and shared responsibilities. But which model sets new managers up for long-term success?

Based on quantitative data from Decile Group’s VC Lab accelerator program for new and emerging managers, including 500+ funds that have successfully completed VC Lab between 2020 and 2024, this report breaks down how solo and team-led funds compare in terms of representation and performance. By the end, you’ll have an answer to the question: Should you raise your first fund alone or with co-founders?

Solo-led funds have been the preferred choice among emerging managers, with 60% opting to launch alone versus 40% with a team. However, this trend is shifting. In 2024, the split between solo and team-led funds reached 50-50 – a notable shift from previous years. As more managers recognize the benefits of shared networks and complementary skills, team-based structures are becoming an increasingly viable path for launching a fund.

Team-led funds tend to be more diverse in terms of gender representation, with 42% being led by either all women or mixed gender teams, compared to just 19% of solo-led funds being managed by women. However, while team structures may foster more diversity overall, all women teams still make up only 10% of team-led funds – roughly half the percentage of women-led funds among solo managers. This suggests that while team structures create more opportunities for women in VC, breaking through as an all-woman team remains a challenge.

Solo-led funds remain dominant in both established and emerging markets. In traditional ecosystems like the US and EU, solo-led funds account for 63% and 66% of funds respectively, while in emerging markets, such as MENA, solo-led funds are even higher at 67%. In other emerging regions, including Africa and LATAM, the gap narrows slightly to 56% and 54% solo-led funds, whereas maturing markets like Asia and Canada show a more balanced approach – with Asia nearly even at 51% solo-led and Canada leaning towards team-led funds at 53%. These figures underscore that while solo-led funds are common across many regions, maturing ecosystems are increasingly embracing collaborative structures.

Team-led funds secure initial commitments roughly two weeks faster than solo-led funds, averaging 8.3 months compared to 8.7 months. This slight difference is further highlighted by the fundraising pace, as 18% of solo-led funds take 12 to 18 months to finalize their first round compared to only 13% for team-led funds, while 31% of solo-led funds complete fundraising within 6 months compared to 29% of team-led funds. Despite the marginal edge in mitigating extended delays observed in team-led funds, both models perform very similarly overall in terms of closing speed.

Within the above timeframes, team-led funds secure slightly larger sums, averaging about $2.5MM compared to solo-led funds at around $2.3MM. Additionally, team-led funds typically achieve these commitments in 2.6 rounds, while solo-led funds require an average of 3.2 rounds, suggesting that team-led funds are more efficient at aggregating capital in fewer, larger closes, which may reflect the benefits of collaborative fundraising efforts. However, once again, despite this marginal edge, both models perform very similarly overall in terms of the number and value of closes.

In contrast to the above patterns, a slightly higher percentage of solo-led funds achieve their first close, with 42.2% compared to 41% for team-led funds, and they secure on average 54.3% of their target capital versus 52% for team-led funds within the same timeframes and number of closes. This pattern suggests that solo-led funds may capture early commitments more effectively, likely due to their agility and streamlined decision-making that facilitates rapid alignment with investor expectations.

However, it is also worth noting that solo-led funds tend to launch with smaller target sizes – averaging at $9.1MM compared to $11.2MM for team-led funds, which may also partly explain the slight differences. Therefore, despite this marginal edge, both models perform very similarly overall in terms of closing success and the proportion of target sizes closed as well.

Emerging managers traditionally favored solo-led funds, but by 2024 the split has evened out as more embrace collaborative networks and complementary skills. Team-led funds also demonstrate greater gender diversity, with 42% being led by all-women or mixed teams compared to 19% for solo-led funds, though all-women teams remain rare at 10%. Additionally, solo GPs dominate established markets, including the US and EU, while maturing and emerging markets, such as LATAM and Africa, show a more balanced split and openness to teams. Overall, these trends indicate that while solo funds have dominated over the past years, the growing emphasis on diversity and regional dynamics is steadily increasing the appeal for team-led funds.

Team-led funds secure initial commitments roughly two weeks faster, averaging at 8.3 months versus 8.7 months for solo-led funds and tend to raise slightly larger sums within these timeframes ($2.5MM versus $2.3MM). In contrast, solo-led funds show a marginal early advantage by reaching first closes in 42.2% of cases versus 41% for team-led funds and securing 54.3% of their target capital compared to 52% for teams within the same timeframes and number of closes. Overall, while each model exhibits slight advantages in different areas, our data indicates that these differences are very marginal and overall performance in terms of successful closes, closing speed, number and value of closes, and proportion of target sizes closed is very similar. Therefore, emerging managers must consider factors other than performance when deciding whether to launch solo or as a team.

Solo funds offer agility and streamlined decision making since a single manager can act quickly without needing to build consensus, yet this may come at the expense of a broader network and diverse perspectives. In contrast, team-led funds benefit from the pooling of complementary skills and networks, which can enhance insights and share the operational burden, though they may experience slower decision-making due to the need for alignment among partners and potential disagreements. Moreover, while team-led funds are more prevalent in emerging markets and tend to foster greater gender diversity, they remain less common in established ecosystems and the proportion of all-women leadership continues to be a challenge.

Ultimately, the decision hinges on each manager’s professional experience, track record, specific opportunities, personal context, and preference for agility versus collaboration in alignment with long term goals.

Whether you choose to go solo or build a team, launching 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.