Raising venture capital is often portrayed as a mix of luck, timing, and charisma. Founders are encouraged to refine their pitch decks endlessly, grow large social followings, or relocate to startup hubs, hoping proximity alone will unlock investor interest. Yet when fundraising outcomes are examined at scale, a different picture emerges, one that is far more structured, predictable, and human.

This research was conducted by Epirus Ventures using structured startup and founder data from Crunchbase, one of the world’s most comprehensive datasets on private companies, founders, investors, and venture funding activity. Rather than focusing on headline-grabbing mega rounds or fashionable sectors, the analysis centers on a quieter but more consequential question: which founder characteristics consistently appear in startups that succeed in raising venture capital, and which factors matter far less than founders tend to believe?

The findings do not reduce fundraising to a formula. Instead, they reveal probability-shifting patterns, signals that influence how investors perceive risk, credibility, and execution potential.

Fundraising Is Not Random - It Is Pattern Recognition

Venture capital operates under extreme uncertainty. Investors are asked to commit capital years before outcomes are clear, often with limited data and incomplete information. In response, they rely on pattern recognition. Over time, these patterns harden into heuristics: founder profiles, team structures, and narratives that “feel” fundable.

What makes this dangerous for founders is that many of these heuristics are misunderstood. Some are real but exaggerated. Others are outdated. A few are simply myths that persist because they are repeated often enough.

This research examines several founder-level dimensions that repeatedly surface in funding data: founder count, prior founder experience, industry background, geography, education, and age. When viewed together, they paint a clearer picture of how investors actually assess risk.

Solo Founders vs Teams: The Disadvantage Appears Earlier Than Most Expect

One of the most entrenched beliefs in startup culture is that solo founders are inherently disadvantaged in fundraising. The data partially supports this belief, but the timing of the disadvantage is critical.

Solo-founded startups are noticeably less likely to raise institutional capital compared to teams. However, once a solo founder clears the first institutional hurdle, typically a Seed or Series A round, their subsequent fundraising trajectory begins to resemble that of small founding teams.

Chart 1: Probability of Raising Institutional Capital by Founder Count

Solo founder:          

████████░░░░░░░░░░  ~40%

Two founders:        

███████████░░░░░░░  ~55%

Three+ founders:    

█████████████░░░░░  ~60%

The implication is subtle but important. Investors appear to apply a higher bar at the very beginning when evaluating solo founders, largely due to concerns around execution bandwidth, decision fatigue, and resilience. Once traction and credibility are established, that skepticism fades.

For founders, this suggests that adding a co-founder purely for optics is unlikely to change outcomes. What matters more is whether perceived risk is reduced in other ways, through early traction, credible advisors, or demonstrated domain expertise.

Repeat Founders Raise Faster - But the Advantage Is Binary

Repeat founders are widely believed to have an outsized fundraising advantage. The data confirms this, but not in the way many assume.

Repeat founders do raise faster and often secure larger initial rounds, yet the advantage depends almost entirely on the quality of their previous outcome. A founder with a meaningful prior exit behaves very differently in funding data compared to someone whose earlier startup quietly failed or achieved only modest success.

Chart 2: Median Time to First Institutional Round

Repeat founder (successful exit):  

█████████░░░  9 months

Repeat founder (no major exit):     

███████████░░ 15 months

First-time founder:                           

█████████████░ 18 months

This pattern reveals that investors are not rewarding experience in the abstract. They are rewarding trust. A prior successful exit compresses diligence, accelerates conviction, and transfers credibility. Importantly, much of this advantage comes from procedural knowledge, knowing how to frame milestones, control fundraising momentum, and speak the language of investors.

For first-time founders, this is not an unbridgeable gap. While a prior exit cannot be manufactured, the mechanics repeat founders use can be learned, studied, and applied.

Domain Expertise Quietly Outperforms Most Surface-Level Signals

Among all founder attributes examined, one of the most consistent and understated signals is industry-domain alignment. Founders building in sectors where they have prior experience tend to raise capital earlier, face fewer diligence hurdles, and progress further through funding stages.

This effect is especially pronounced in regulated or technically complex industries such as fintech, health, climate, and enterprise infrastructure.

Chart 3: Follow-On Funding Rates by Founder Domain Expertise

High domain alignment:    

█████████████░░░  ~65%

Moderate alignment:        

██████████░░░░░░  ~50%

Low / no alignment:          

███████░░░░░░░░░  ~35%

From an investor’s perspective, domain expertise reduces the likelihood of early strategic errors. Founders entering “hot” sectors without prior exposure can and do succeed, but they face a higher burden of proof and often rely more heavily on advisors to compensate for gaps.

Location Still Matters - Even in a Remote-First World

The narrative that geography no longer matters in venture capital is only partially true. While remote work has expanded access, funding data shows that startups founded in established venture hubs still raise capital faster.

Chart 4: Time to First Institutional Funding by Location

Top-tier VC hubs:            

██████████░░░░░░ 12 months

Secondary ecosystems:  

████████████░░░░ 16 months

Non-traditional hubs:      

██████████████░░ 20 months

The advantage of hubs is not superior founders or ideas. It is proximity to capital, denser networks, and faster feedback loops. Over time, exceptional companies outside major hubs do close the funding gap, but rarely without intentional effort around visibility and network access.

Education Is Overemphasized - Except When It Isn’t

Elite universities are overrepresented among funded founders, yet when industry, location, and network access are accounted for, the direct impact of education declines sharply.

Chart 5: Incremental Impact of Education on Fundraising Outcomes

Relevant technical PhD:    

███████████░░░  High

Elite university (general):  

██████░░░░░░░  Low–Moderate

Non-elite institution:

█████░░░░░░░░░  Neutral

Education matters most when it signals hard technical credibility or provides direct access to investor networks. Outside these cases, it is a weak standalone predictor of fundraising success.

Founder Age: No Optimal Window, Only Tradeoffs

Contrary to popular mythology, funding data does not support the idea that younger founders are inherently advantaged. Mid-career founders often raise more efficiently, secure larger initial rounds, and move through stages with fewer resets.

Chart 6: Founder Age vs Fundraising Efficiency

Mid-career founders (30s–40s):   

███████████░░░  High

Younger founders (20s):                  

█████████░░░░░  Moderate–High

Older founders (50+):               

█████████░░░░░  Moderate

Age itself is not the signal. What it proxies for, experience, energy, or credibility, is what investors respond to.

What Founders Consistently Over-Optimize

Several factors that dominate founder conversations show weak correlation with fundraising outcomes. Excessively polished pitch decks, personal branding on social media, oversized founding teams, and premature geographic expansion may help marginally, but they rarely change outcomes on their own.

Chart 7: Factors With Weak Correlation to Fundraising Success

Over-polished pitch decks:    

███░░░░░░░░░░░

Personal branding / social:    

███░░░░░░░░░░░

Large founding teams:          

████░░░░░░░░░░

Premature global expansion:

██░░░░░░░░░░░░

These elements are supportive at best. They do not substitute for credibility, traction, or clarity.

The Signals That Consistently Increase Fundability

When all dimensions are considered together, a small set of signals repeatedly stands out.

Chart 8: Strongest Signals Influencing Fundraising Outcomes

These elements are supportive at best. They do not substitute for credibility, traction, or clarity.

Prior founder exit:                       

██████████████░

Strong domain alignment:            

█████████████░░

Early, model-aligned traction:

████████████░░

Narrative & milestone clarity:

██████████░░░░

Trusted network access:        

██████████░░░░

What This Means for Founders and Investors

For founders, the lesson is not to chase optics but to engineer trust deliberately. Understanding how investors interpret signals allows founders to focus their effort where it compounds rather than where it merely looks impressive.

For investors, the findings reinforce the importance of questioning inherited heuristics and separating surface-level cues from structural indicators. Many exceptional founders do not look exceptional at first glance.

Closing Thoughts

Fundraising is not a lottery, and it is not purely meritocratic. It is a human system shaped by trust, familiarity, and risk reduction. Founders who understand this stop guessing and start acting strategically.

That shift, more than timing or hype, is what quietly separates startups that raise from those that don’t.

‍

Read - 6 Lessons for Founders from 159 Failed Products

‍