Loading...
For LP research analysts
Evaluate GP sourcing claims with portfolio-level engineering metrics.
LPs increasingly want to evaluate GP sourcing as a structured discipline rather than a black box. Engineering acceleration as a measurable, repeatable input gives LPs a way to differentiate GPs whose sourcing methodology is rigorous from those who are over-relying on existing networks. The metric is not just for sourcing; it is for evaluating sourcing.
Portfolio retrospective coverage
Most public-GitHub portfolios
GP comparisons
Cross-fund analysis supported
Time per GP analysis
2-4 hours
Problem
Most LP due diligence on GPs focuses on track record, team, and stated methodology. There is no good external way to evaluate whether a GP's sourcing actually produces an edge versus picking up deals everyone else also saw. Aggregate engineering metrics across a GP's portfolio give a quantitative view of whether the GP backed teams during the acceleration window or after consensus formed.
How VC Deal Flow Signal fits
VC Deal Flow Signal lets LPs analyze GPs' portfolio companies retrospectively. Look at when each portfolio company first showed engineering acceleration, when the GP invested, and how that timing compares to peer GPs. The pattern of investing during acceleration windows versus after public events distinguishes GPs sourcing on quantitative leading indicators from GPs sourcing on press cycles.
For each portfolio company in the GP's record, look up the engineering acceleration time series. Note the first sustained acceleration date.
GPs investing during the acceleration window (3 to 6 weeks before public fundraise) demonstrate proactive sourcing. GPs investing after public events demonstrate reactive sourcing.
Aggregate the lead-time-to-investment across the GP's portfolio. The distribution itself — median, top quartile, tail — is a defensible quantitative read on sourcing methodology.
The same metric can be computed for peer GPs in the same vintage. Cross-fund comparison provides relative ranking that is independent of self-reported methodology.
The structured metric is one input alongside track record, team, and references. It is not the only input but it adds quantitative rigor to a historically qualitative evaluation.
No — sourcing edge has many components, including network strength, founder relationships, and contrarian conviction. Engineering acceleration measures one specific dimension: the timing of investment relative to publicly observable engineering signals. It is one input, not a full evaluation.
Less well. The framework is most informative for technical sectors where startups have meaningful public engineering footprints. For consumer, services, or hardware-heavy companies, alternative metrics are more relevant.
The underlying data is public, so the analysis is independently reproducible by the GP. Most GPs welcome quantitative discussion of their sourcing methodology — it differentiates them from peers when the methodology is genuinely rigorous.