Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Heh, I feel like this is a direct shot at 500:

(Fairly so. They seem to offer a blurry line on what they consider "portfolio" sometimes, not going out of their way to differentiate accelerator vs later stage investments)

>>(it’s important to distinguish between companies that went through the accelerator and cases where the investment firm made a small late-stage investment in the company)



If you want to see the companies that went through the 500startups accelerator, just go here: http://www.seed-db.com/accelerators/view?acceleratorid=2001

(500startups does mix the two on their portfolio page; Seed-DB only shows accelerator companies)


Also a shot at Techstars, who have been known to lump in late-stage fund investments with their accelerator returns. Writing a tiny check into Uber's B-round has nothing to do with their accelerator program, for example, and it's disingenuous when they conflate the two.

I should mention that they have been doing a better job distinguishing this lately.


Actually, David Cohen wrote a check in Uber's angel round - http://davidgcohen.com/2014/07/14/the-ponys-lucky-horseshoe/

And the list of Techstars companies shows only the stats of companies that went through a Techstars accelerator - http://www.techstars.com/companies/ Non-accelerator company investments (Uber, Twilio, etc) only appear on the Techstars fund page - http://www.techstars.com/venture-capital-fund/

Disclosure - I work for Techstars


Ah, thanks for clarifying what round that was, and kudos to David! Like I said, you guys have been doing a better job distinguishing between your accelerator and venture portfolio, although that hasn't always been the case.

In a similar vein, what are your thoughts on Techstars calling themselves "the #1 startup accelerator in the world" and claiming "the best results" for their program? Given that YC's performance is roughly ~12X yours, this does seem to be somewhat of a misstatement. That is, unless you're claiming to be #1 for some arbitrary metric that isn't actually the benchmark for your industry (which to be clear, is the market cap of the companies you fund).

I think Techstars is clearly a great program, but stuff like that just strikes me as disingenuous. :)


I personally (speaking for myself) never cared for "the #1 startup accelerator" wording, and now that Techstars has built a small marketing team you'll have noticed that we talk about Techstars a lot differently - http://www.techstars.com/ :)

BTW, the #1 thing came from the first ranking of accelerators back in 2011 - http://tech.co/top-15-us-startup-accelerators-ranked-2011-05 (I believe they used a mixture of financial results and founder ratings, but I'm not sure.)

Yep, YC companies have raised a lot more money and have a higher total valuation, but YC also has a two-year head start! Based on any reasonable metric, Techstars has better results than any other accelerator - http://www.seed-db.com/accelerators

PS - my favorite story about how Techstars directly helped to change the course of one company is here - http://www.wired.com/2015/12/how-bb-8a-rolling-robot-in-a-ga...


For those following along at home, that $50k is likely worth around $250M today.

Early Uber investors are sitting on one of the largest ever venture returns.


And the first Techstars Ventures fund was a $5million fund that invested in angel rounds of Uber, Twilio, SendGrid, GroupMe, and more - http://www.feld.com/archives/2015/01/raise-150-million-vc-fu...

As Brad writes, that fund is "one of the best performing funds I’ve ever invested in". :)




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: