recently rated:

Rated by 39

3.6 3.4 3.3 3.1 3.3

3.3

Foundation Capital

Certified

$$$$$ Menlo Park, US West

top rated funds:

Rated by 12

4.2 5.0 4.4 4.2 4.6

4.5

Rincon Venture Partners

Certified

$$$$$ Santa Barbara, CA, US West

Rated by 22

4.8 4.7 4.6 3.5 4.4

4.4

Foundry Group

Certified

$$$$$ Boulder, US Central

Rated by 11

4.8 3.5 4.1 4.3 4.1

4.2

Silverton Partners

 

$$$$$ Austin, US West

Rated by 19

4.3 4.2 4.1 3.6 4.4

4.1

New Atlantic Ventures

Certified

$$$$$ Reston, US East

Rated by 39

3.5 4.0 4.4 4.1 3.9

4.0

True Ventures

Certified

$$$$$ Palo Alto, US West

Rated by 10

4.3 4.3 4.0 4.0 3.0

3.9

Andreessen Horowitz

Certified

$$$$$ Menlo Park, US West

Rated by 30

3.3 4.1 4.1 3.9 4.0

3.9

Leapfrog Ventures

Certified

$$$$$ Menlo Park, US West

Rated by 30

4.0 4.2 4.1 2.9 4.2

3.9

406 Ventures

Certified

$$$$$ Boston, US East

Rated by 63

3.9 3.9 3.8 3.5 4.0

3.8

First Round Capital

Certified

$$$$$ San Francisco, US West

Rated by 11

3.9 4.2 3.2 3.6 4.0

3.8

Mangrove Capital Partners

Certified

$$$$$ Luxembourg, Europe

Rated by 43

3.8 4.1 3.4 3.6 4.1

3.8

RRE Ventures

Certified

$$$$$ New York, US East

Rated by 27

3.8 3.6 3.8 3.8 3.6

3.7

FLOODGATE

Certified

$$$$$ Palo Alto, US West

Rated by 105

4.7 3.7 3.7 3.0 3.5

3.7

Sequoia Capital

Certified

$$$$$ Menlo Park, US West

Rated by 31

3.9 3.8 3.7 3.4 4.0

3.7

Altos Ventures

Certified

$$$$$ Menlo Park, US West

Rated by 11

3.6 3.7 3.6 3.8 3.4

3.6

Flywheel Ventures

Certified

$$$$$ Santa Fe, US West

Rated by 20

3.5 3.3 3.8 3.6 3.9

3.6

DFJ Mercury

Certified

$$$$$ Houston, US Central

Rated by 16

3.6 3.5 3.8 3.5 3.5

3.6

August Capital

Certified

$$$$$ Menlo Park, US West

Rated by 10

4.0 3.8 3.9 2.8 3.7

3.6

Updata Partners

 

$$$$$ Red Bank, US East

Rated by 62

3.7 3.6 3.4 3.4 3.9

3.6

Trinity Ventures

Certified

$$$$$ Menlo Park, US West

Rated by 10

3.5 3.8 3.7 3.4 3.8

3.6

IDG Ventures SF

Certified

$$$$$ San Francisco, US West

Rated by 20

3.5 3.6 3.5 3.2 3.4

3.5

Wellington Partners

Certified

$$$$$ Munich, Europe

Rated by 12

3.2 3.6 3.4 3.0 4.2

3.5

DN Capital

 

$$$$$ London, Europe

Rated by 18

3.2 3.5 3.3 3.1 3.8

3.4

Blumberg Capital

Certified

$$$$$ San Francisco, US West

Rated by 19

3.8 3.1 3.4 3.2 3.3

3.4

Draper Richards

Certified

$$$$$ San Francisco, US West

Rated by 14

2.8 3.5 3.7 3.2 3.7

3.4

Merus

 

$$$$$ US West

Rated by 48

3.7 3.5 3.1 3.4 3.2

3.4

Menlo Ventures

 

$$$$$ Menlo Park, US West

Rated by 31

3.3 3.3 3.2 3.6 3.7

3.4

Clearstone Venture Partners

Certified

$$$$$ Santa Monica, US West

Rated by 16

3.9 3.7 2.9 2.9 3.6

3.4

Versant Ventures

 

$$$$$ Menlo Park, US West

Rated by 11

2.9 3.6 3.7 3.3 3.6

3.4

OpenView Venture Partners

Certified

$$$$$ Boston, US East

Rated by 10

3.6 3.4 3.9 2.7 3.3

3.4

DFJ Esprit

Certified

$$$$$ London, Europe

HomeShowcaseTermsAdviceOpenDiscussCoFound

Sign-upHelpFor VCsFor MediaAdvertiseTop VCsBanned VCs

Firm Rating:

Firm Homepage:

In the spirit of feedback, I emailed Roelof Botha out of the blue, after reading an article on him from Forbes a few months back. Even though he passed on taking next steps right now for investment, he was a complete gentleman, and got back to me on an incredibly timely basis. He gave me a look, and we emailed back and forth.

At the end of the day, that's all you can ask for. I think sometimes both sides forget we are all on the same team, and one is nothing without the other. Having been on our side, I think Roelof relates better than others, and I have respect for him.

Was initially pleasantly surprised to be scheduled for a full 1.5 hours for our pitch, a luxurious time frame...however, was not at all surprised (despite rumors that there had been a crack down in this area) to find that the scheduled time did not match reality. We began 30 minutes later than scheduled, due to the late arrival of the Sequoia partner.

Sequoia Capital's investment strategy is very simple - the product/service has to serve a very large market. They can fix everything else (replace management, keep developing the product, etc.) but they can not fix the market. If you want to pitch them - make sure that your story shows a huge market for your offering.

The Partner that we were scheduled to meet with (through a referral) was 30+ minutes late. He rushed us through almost every pitch slide in our presentation. As he hurried out of the room after 25 minutes he kept saying, "Let's stay in touch. Let's stay in touch".

Really bad form

I have never pitched to Sequoia. However, I am in the process of fund raising with a pretty decent idea and a beta site that has got good feedback.

From the commentators above (see below), it seems like Sequoia is a real pain to work with. I quit wherever I was working because I wanted to do my own thing. My previous work place was a typical b-school haven full of "really smart guys" who are arrogant. Sequoia seems like that. It almost seems like you work for Sequoia instead of yourself (esp. if they are going to replace you). So why would I go through it again"

Or I am reading too much into it"

Btw- Was Marc Andreeson referring to Sequoia when he said "For example, some venture firms are very entrepreneur-friendly. Others are notoriously brutal. Interestingly, financial success in the venture capital profession does not seem to be correlated to entrepreneur-friendliness."
http://blog.pmarca.com/2007/06/the_tr...

How the meetings usually go is standard among most VC. Make sure you know your market and have focus. Execution is #1 so know exactly how you have/will win customers, market share and make money.

A small tip. Before you take a meeting with Sequoia, practice on lesser name VC's first. We took our very first VC meeting of our fund raising exercise with them and I wish we would have done them last. VC's have a play book, they all pretty much ask the same questions. It's very nice to know what to expect before you walk in the door with these guys.

Sequoia is a great partner, and will come to a decision quickly. One thing that sticks with them is ability to grow big. They do not want small (<$100M) exits, and will gauge founders views on this notion. Plans need to have long term view toward market building and revenue.

Sequoia is a "TAM" (Total Addressable Market) investor. Unfortunately, they view as expendable the founders and employees who take huge personal risk to help them address these markets. As an entrepreneur, I think they are the stereotype of the VC to be avoided.

To sum up:

"Knock knock."
"Who's there""
"Sequoia Capital""
"Sequoia Capital wh--"
"HIT YOUR NUMBERS!"

Having said that, they are extremely bright guys, and because they are so powerful it's easy for them to bring in their buddies for additional rounds. And to state the utterly obvious, I would love to be a Sequoia LP.

Met with two partners at Sequoia and was very impressed with both. Took a meeting within a few days of receiving the executive summary. They listened, ask really good questions, said they would get back in a couple of days, did, was a no, but said they were happy to provide feedback, scheduled time for it, and gave good feedback...All in all, for a rejection, could not have gone better :)

Even though our company ended up taking funding from another VC, our experience with Sequoia in general, and Roelof in particular, was extraordinarily positive. I came in half-expecting to be eaten alive, given some of the stories, but the partners were attentive listeners, kind, and gave wise and sensible feedback. I'd think with their kind of track record they'd be more standoffish, but I was pleasantly disarmed. Good guys!

We were bounced around the firm for our initial pitch and landed on Joe Dobrenski. Lesson learned, only pitch a real player in the firm.

Joe was a nice enough guy (I suppose), but a complete waste of our time. He was really really really late and then hurried us along. No eye contact or attempt to engage in a meaningful discussion. Bolted for the door after 20 minutes.

If anyone sells Dale Carnegie classes... please call on Sequoia Capital and sell them the basic intro course on how to win friends and influence people.

These guys earn their reputations - good decisions fast.

They have two partners for each deal -- for privacy reasons I will decline to name the two partners on our deal. Mr. X has been very responsive and straight with us, an early stage venture spawned at MIT (we have no slick MBAs or presentation yet). Mr. Y was really cool too -- unlike lesser VCs that nag about our lack of a team, these guys really focused upon the consumer experience. However, getting beyond the talk to a deal was not (yet) possible for us. Look at their track record and not at their website's claims about "very early stage" 100K deals. All their recent deals are post-Beta w/ >$3million. That said, they are very responsive and give good advice. They are actually really conservative -- they'll get in when it's a sure thing.

Focus is on building things that can be worth $1B or more (otherwise, not worth their time...) Bring discipline and unbeatable rolodex to the table.

At first, I was shocked to learn that Sequoia was part of a private equity consortium that bought First Republic Bank. Then, upon further thought, it's no surprise that top venture capitalists would start to abandon the venture capital model first...

-- http://bit.ly/1dwhWq

Has venture investing gotten that bad? I know that top venture funds have the authority to do all types of deals, including public market investments. It makes sense for VCs to try and make money however they can, so I get buying a publicly traded technology company or even taking some innovative traditional businesses private, like a newspaper with a good online division.

BUT, buying a bank? Where is the innovation?

Lots of meetings resulting in a suggestion to refocus the business on just a few current customers. Why would I need venture funding for that"

Most of the partners at Sequoia are top-drawer. But a sour apple in the barrel can make it a harder decision for seasoned entrepreneurs to choose Sequoia.

Sequoia India recently committed $7M to a social netowork, MingleBox.com. The CEO of MingleBox is married to one of the Managing Directors at Sequoia Cap India. Is there a conflict of interest, you bet!