The U.S. venture capital industry is one of the most impressive economic growth engines this country has. Seven of the top ten companies by market capitalization today were VC-backed when they were young, innovative, and very risky. My research with Will Gornall shows that companies that received VC funding and subsequently went public now account for nearly half of the U.S. market capitalization and 94% of R&D spending among all public companies founded in the last 50 years.
Today, global VC assets under management stand at nearly $3.5 trillion, spread across more than 11,000 institutional VC firms. Those firms have backed a quarter of a million companies, including almost 4,000 unicorns. Yet the industry remains shrouded in mystery.
Many capital allocators struggle to select fund managers and manage their VC portfolios, and many founders are uncertain which VCs are the best fit for them. In this light, TIME is publishing its second annual ranking of America’s 350 Top Venture Capital Firms. Methodology: How TIME and Statista Determined America's Top Venture Capital Firms of 2026 The 2026 methodology is a weighted average of four factors, some quantitative, others more subjective: fundraising (30%—how much capital the firm attracted over a one- to ten-year span, and the trajectory of that growth); investments (20%—how much capital was put to work, including deal volume); performance (40%—the scale of outcomes, including IPOs and highly valued private companies, along with the consistency of follow-on investments, with early-stage bets weighted more heavily); and leadership (10%—leading rounds and winning board seats).
Each of these four factors is relevant, though how they are combined and measured of course matters and can dramatically affect which firms come out on top. The combined 50% weight given to fundraising and investments by the TIME methodology largely reflects size. Size matters: many investors have minimum check sizes and pass on smaller VC funds, and many funds have grown dramatically in recent years.
But capital allocators have yet to see whether greater size delivers similarly attractive returns and profits. Academic work also is not conclusive. A larger firm can underperform on the performance metrics and still score well on sheer scale.
Emerging managers who have raised smaller funds, or who are simply young, may lose ground on the size factor. Two caveats deserve mention: deal volume favors firms making a great many bets, and the follow-on measure again rewards firms that invest early and then continue to back their winners. Performance is the critical consideration; at the end of the day, it is the ability to back home runs repeatedly and at scale that separates the greatest VC firms from the rest.
Extract — continue reading at the source.
