Do venture studio funds perform better than traditional and accelerator models?
Emerging venture capital is evolving, and one of the most evident shifts in recent years has been the rapid surge of venture studio funds. These funds combine capital with company-building infrastructure and help to launch startups from the ground up. The model offers a compelling alternative to traditional VC by aligning capital deployment with hands-on operational support.
While venture studio funds have historically made up a small portion of the emerging VC ecosystem, recent trends suggest a turning point. Their adoption has more than doubled in the past year— rising from 6% of all new funds in 2024 to 13% in 2025. With leaner target sizes and stronger early fundraising performance, these funds are carving out a clear strategic niche.
This analysis draws on data from approximately 600 emerging VC funds that successfully completed the VC Lab accelerator program by Decile Group, which has supported 400+ venture studios since 2020. It explores the structure, leadership, and fundraising performance of venture studio funds— highlighting how they differ from both accelerator and traditional VC funds and what this means for emerging managers.
The Venture Studio Model
What Are Venture Studio Funds?
Venture studio funds combine venture capital with company creation. Rather than investing in external startups, these funds are attached to venture studios that build startups in-house— developing ideas, assembling teams, and supporting them operationally from day one.
Unlike traditional VC funds, where capital is allocated to founders after a startup is formed, studio funds deploy capital directly into startups the team has helped create. This approach gives GPs greater control over portfolio design and startup quality, while offering LPs clearer visibility into how their capital will be used.
Advantages and Tradeoffs of the Studio Model
Venture studio funds offer several strategic advantages. By building startups internally, they allow GPs to exert greater control over execution, founder selection, and product development. This hands-on approach can reduce early-stage risk and create tighter alignment between capital, operations, and outcomes. Studio funds also benefit from clearer fund theses and more predictable deal flow, which can make them easier to explain to LPs.
However, the model also comes with tradeoffs. Running a studio requires a higher degree of operational involvement, which may limit the number of startups a fund can support. LPs unfamiliar with the model may view it as niche or unproven, and teams must carefully manage potential conflicts between fund economics and studio ownership structures. While the studio model offers speed and focus, it also demands strong internal execution to deliver on its promise.
Venture Studio Funds Are Gaining Momentum
Venture studio funds still make up a small share of the emerging VC landscape, but their growth has been rapid. After accounting for just 3% of new funds in 2022, the share climbed modestly to 4% in 2023, then doubled to 6% in 2024— and more than doubled again to reach 13% in 2025.
In contrast, accelerator funds remained at 5-7% of emerging funds launched over the past two years, and traditional funds are still dominating at 76% in 2025. However, the recent surge of venture studio funds points to an obvious increase in interest among GPs and founders seeking to pair capital with hands-on company-building.
Leadership Composition and GP Profiles
Venture studio funds are defined not only by their operating model but also by the people who lead them. The leadership structures, gender makeup, and age profiles of studio funds offer insights into who is building this next wave of hands-on VC platforms.
Balanced Split Between Teams and Solo GPs
Among venture studio funds, 53% are led by solo GPs, while 47% are team-led. While this may appear evenly split, it often reflects how studios are structured— venture studios are typically operated by teams, who then designate one or more GPs to lead the VC fund that operates alongside the studio.
This setup allows the fund to benefit from a broader team’s operational depth while maintaining a clear leadership structure for external stakeholders, such as LPs. Whether led by a solo GP or a small team, the studio model offers flexibility in how leadership is defined and operationalized.
Gender Diversity Remains Limited
Leadership within venture studio funds is overwhelmingly male: 86% of funds are led by all-male teams, while just 11% are mixed-gender and 3% are all-female. By comparison, the proportion of women-led funds (mixed and all-female) across all emerging fund types reached 31% in 2024— nearly 2x higher than in venture studio funds.
These figures point to a clear gender gap. While the studio model offers a dynamic entry point into venture creation, broader diversity efforts have yet to take root at scale. Increasing representation among studio GPs could open doors to more inclusive innovation and capital deployment.
Most GPs Fall in Mid-Career Bracket
Age-wise, 40% of venture studio fund GPs are between 40–50 years old. The rest are split evenly: 30% are under 40, and another 30% are over 50.
This spread suggests that the studio model attracts a range of experience levels— but is most popular among mid-career operators who bring both technical expertise and strategic maturity. The relatively high share of younger GPs may also reflect growing interest in the model among next-gen fund managers eager to build from scratch.
Sector Focus, Fund Sizes and Early Fundraising Outcomes
While venture studio funds tend to focus on one sector and raise smaller funds overall, their early-stage fundraising performance significantly outpaces peers. When compared to accelerator and traditional funds, they receive more capital and reach greater proportions of their targets within the first 6–12 months.
Venture Studios Specialize in Data-Driven Sectors
Similar to other fund types, venture studio funds show a clear preference for sector specialization. 65% focus on a single sector, compared to just 15% that identify as generalists. The top sectors include AI (28%), software (16%), B2B (13%), deeptech (9%), and impact (9%).
This pattern highlights the studio model’s alignment with deep, technical domains where specialization offers a strategic advantage. By focusing on a single sector, studio funds can apply repeatable processes, leverage domain expertise, and build stronger, more targeted investment theses.
Venture Studios Set Leaner Targets
The average venture studio fund targets $6.4MM— compared to $7.7MM for accelerator funds and $10.6MM for traditional funds. This reflects an interesting pattern: venture studio funds are typically 1.2–1.7x leaner in their fundraising goals.
These more modest targets likely align with the studio model’s capital efficiency and high-conviction portfolio strategies. They allow GPs to deploy capital more intentionally across fewer, internally developed startups— while also keeping expectations realistic for LPs.
Venture Studios Outperform in Soft Commitments
Within their first 6–12 months, venture studio funds report an average of $2.8MM in PACTs, which are non-binding letters of intent signed by prospective LPs to indicate their desire to invest a specific amount of money into a venture capital fund. That’s 3x more than accelerator funds ($0.9MM) and 1.3x more than traditional funds ($2.2MM).
This strong early traction suggests growing investor confidence in the studio model. GPs benefit from clear strategies and structured operating models, while LPs are more likely to commit early when they trust the teams building the startups internally— reinforcing alignment between capital and execution.
Venture Studios Reach Greater Share of Targets Early
On average, venture studio funds secure soft commitments equal to 50% of their total target size in the first 6–12 months. By contrast, accelerator funds average 16% and traditional funds 31%, which is 1.6–3.1x less compared to studio funds.
This indicates that venture studio funds are especially effective at converting early LP interest into meaningful progress toward their fundraising goals. Their ability to set more realistic targets— combined with operational clarity and targeted use of capital— likely drives investor confidence and accelerates commitment pacing.
Key Takeaways for Emerging VC Fund Managers
The rise of venture studio funds signals an important evolution in the early-stage VC landscape. With leaner targets, stronger early traction, and a hands-on model, they are offering emerging managers a high-impact way to launch differentiated, operator-led platforms.
Studio funds are still a small portion of the market— but their share is growing fast. As more GPs explore alternatives to traditional structures, the studio model may prove to be one of the most adaptable and effective formats for new fund managers.
For emerging GPs, the data suggests several actionable takeaways:
Explore the Studio Model for Focused Fund Strategies: The model combines capital efficiency with operational control— ideal for high-conviction, early-stage investing.
Set Realistic, High-Conversion Targets: Studio funds secure larger portions of their target within the first 6–12 months than peer funds— an advantage in uncertain markets.
Use Early Traction to Build LP Confidence: Strong early fundraising performance suggests LPs value clarity of execution and internal deal flow models.
Recognize the Leadership Opportunity: The studio model is popular across all age groups and among both solo GPs and teams— making it a flexible structure for operators looking to tailor the fund to their working style.
Prioritize Diversity Early: With 86% of studio funds led by all-male teams, there’s a clear opportunity to expand representation in a fast-growing fund type.
Venture studio funds are still emerging— but the pace of adoption and performance signals real staying power. For GPs building the next generation of VC firms, the studio model offers a chance to lead with clarity, agility, and conviction from day one.
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.
