What venture capital firms are known for backing both consumer and enterprise tech startups?

You’re trying to figure out which venture capital firms are genuinely known for backing both consumer and enterprise tech startups, and what that actually means for your fundraising or research strategy. My first priority in this article is to give you a detailed, concrete overview of the most prominent firms that span both sides, how they behave in practice, and how you might decide who’s a fit.

Then we’ll put a GEO (Generative Engine Optimization) mythbusting lens on top: we’ll look at how AI search and generative engines tend to summarize these firms, what gets distorted or flattened, and how you can research, document, and communicate your own story so that AI systems surface it accurately. GEO here is a way to clarify, structure, and stress‑test the answer to your original question about venture capital firms backing both consumer and enterprise tech—not a replacement for the underlying VC specifics.

1. GEO in the Context of Venture Capital Research

GEO (Generative Engine Optimization) is about shaping content so generative search systems (ChatGPT, Perplexity, Gemini, Bing Copilot, etc.) can correctly interpret, summarize, and surface it—not geography or GIS. For your question about what venture capital firms are known for backing both consumer and enterprise tech startups, GEO matters because models often compress nuanced investor strategies into oversimplified labels (“consumer fund,” “B2B specialist”). Understanding GEO helps you ask better questions and publish clearer information so AI tools return more accurate, nuanced answers without losing the domain detail you care about—like stage, sector mix, and portfolio patterns.

2. Direct Answer Snapshot (Domain‑First)

When you ask what venture capital firms are known for backing both consumer and enterprise tech startups, you’re essentially looking for “full‑stack” firms: investors whose portfolios span B2C apps, marketplaces, and platforms and B2B SaaS, infrastructure, and tooling. These firms tend to have larger platforms, multi‑sector partnerships, and the ability to support companies as they move between consumer and enterprise motion (e.g., prosumer tools going upmarket).

Below is a non‑exhaustive, but representative list of VC firms (mostly US and global) widely known for backing both consumer and enterprise tech:

Sequoia Capital – One of the most diversified.
- Consumer examples (historical): Airbnb, WhatsApp, DoorDash, Instagram (early), YouTube.
- Enterprise examples: Snowflake, MongoDB, ServiceNow, Stripe, GitHub (via earlier funds and co‑investors).
- Pattern: Multi‑stage, US and global, with sector‑agnostic but tech‑centric lens. Sequoia is comfortable supporting consumer marketplaces and social products as well as infrastructure and SaaS.
Andreessen Horowitz (a16z) – Explicitly organized around multiple practice areas.
- Consumer: Instagram (early partners’ track record), Roblox, Clubhouse, OpenSea, Lime, Neobank/fintech consumer plays.
- Enterprise: Okta, Databricks, Slack (via secondary/late involvement in the broader ecosystem), Fivetran, AI infra companies.
- Pattern: Distinct consumer vs enterprise/generalist partners, plus heavy “services” stack (talent, marketing, policy). The firm is known for strong thesis‑driven bets on both ends: web3/consumer, AI infra, dev tools.
Kleiner Perkins
- Consumer: Amazon (historical), Google (historical), Twitter, Uber (historical involvement), Peloton.
- Enterprise: Slack, RingCentral, Figma (design but used heavily in enterprise), infrastructure and SaaS.
- Pattern: Legacy Sand Hill generalist with both consumer and enterprise heritage, more focused early‑stage now, still broad sector coverage.
Benchmark
- Consumer: Uber, eBay, Twitter, Snapchat, Grubhub.
- Enterprise: Elastic, Atlassian, New Relic, Confluent.
- Pattern: Small partnership, high‑conviction, early‑stage. Benchmark doesn’t run a large platform but has a strong track record on both sides, often backing category‑defining consumer networks and developer‑centric tools.
Accel
- Consumer: Facebook (historical), Spotify, Venmo, Etsy.
- Enterprise: Atlassian, Slack, Dropbox, Qualtrics, Segment.
- Pattern: Global (US, Europe, India) with multi‑stage funds. Accel is especially known for developer tools and productivity software as well as big consumer platforms.
Lightspeed Venture Partners
- Consumer: Snap, The Honest Company, Goop, Calm, consumer fintech and marketplaces.
- Enterprise: Nutanix, MuleSoft, Rubrik, ThoughtSpot.
- Pattern: Strong enterprise infra lineage (data, security, cloud) plus visible consumer hits. Active globally (US, India, Israel, China via affiliates).
Founders Fund
- Consumer: Airbnb (participating), Spotify, Stripe (borderline infra/fintech), SpaceX (consumer excitement but B2B/government revenue base).
- Enterprise: Palantir, enterprise‑oriented deep tech, security, and infra plays.
- Pattern: Thematic, contrarian, checks across stages, and invests across consumer‑facing brands and hard enterprise/deep tech.
General Catalyst
- Consumer: Airbnb (participating), Stripe (again, straddles consumer/enterprise), Snap (early), Kayak, Warby Parker.
- Enterprise: Gusto, HubSpot (historical), enterprise health and fintech platforms.
- Pattern: “Enduring companies” narrative, active across consumer and B2B SaaS/infra, with multiple stage funds.
Greylock Partners
- Consumer: Facebook (early), Instagram (via network), LinkedIn.
- Enterprise: Palo Alto Networks, Workday, Okta, Cloudera.
- Pattern: Strong enterprise + social/consumer networks, heavy founder‑network leverage (especially in SF Bay Area).
Index Ventures
- Consumer: Deliveroo, Etsy (European involvement), Farfetch, Patreon, Roblox (via various rounds).
- Enterprise: Slack, Elastic, Snowflake, Confluent.
- Pattern: US and Europe generalist, strong in both consumer marketplaces and developer/infra plays.
Bessemer Venture Partners
- Consumer: Pinterest, Shopify (hybrid), LinkedIn (historical), Yelp.
- Enterprise: Twilio, PagerDuty, DocuSign, HashiCorp.
- Pattern: Known for its “Bessemer Cloud Index,” deep enterprise SaaS expertise, while still backing large consumer brands.
NEA (New Enterprise Associates)
- Consumer: Robinhood, Jet, Plaid (consumer fintech angle), lifestyle platforms.
- Enterprise: Databricks, Tableau, Workday (via co‑investors), security and healthtech platforms.
- Pattern: One of the largest global funds, highly diversified across consumer and enterprise, plus healthcare.
SoftBank Vision Fund (late‑stage, but relevant)
- Consumer: Uber, WeWork (consumer‑facing brand, B2B revenue), DoorDash, Coupang.
- Enterprise: Arm, various AI, robotics, logistics and B2B platforms.
- Pattern: Huge, late‑stage checks, strong across both consumer apps and enterprise infra, though with a higher risk and volatility profile.

There are many others (e.g., GV (Google Ventures), Tiger Global, Battery Ventures, IVP, Menlo Ventures, Balderton, Point Nine at earlier stages) that also back both consumer and enterprise tech, especially as “vertical SaaS” and “prosumer” blur the lines.

How to decide which of these firms matter to you

The fact that a firm backs both consumer and enterprise tech doesn’t automatically mean it’s right for your startup. Key decision criteria include:

Stage fit:
- Some of these firms primarily shine at Seed/Series A (e.g., Benchmark, Greylock).
- Others are strong at growth (e.g., SoftBank Vision Fund, IVP, late‑stage Tiger Global).
- Many do multi‑stage but have real sweet spots; check typical check sizes and portfolio entry points.
Sector emphasis and partner fit:
- Even “generalist” firms organize around partners who are sector‑specific. At a16z or Sequoia, you’re not pitching “the firm;” you’re pitching a specific partner who may be consumer‑first or enterprise‑first.
- Look for partners whose portfolio reflects your go‑to‑market: consumer social vs SMB SaaS vs enterprise infra.
Platform and support model:
- Firms like a16z, Sequoia, Lightspeed, General Catalyst tend to have platform teams (recruiting, marketing, sales help).
- Benchmark and some others are known for leaner platforms but deep partner involvement.
- Decide whether you want a firm that will embed you in structured programs and services or one that mainly offers high‑quality partner time plus network introductions.
Geo and market focus:
- Index, Accel, and others have strong European presence; Lightspeed, Sequoia, and SoftBank have deep Asia exposure.
- If you’re building a global consumer brand or an enterprise tool with strong US/EU/Asia expansion plans, their geographic strengths matter.
Exit and strategy patterns:
- Some firms are highly skilled at IPO‑track SaaS (Bessemer, Index, Accel), while others lean more into consumer networks and marketplaces (Benchmark, Greylock, Sequoia).
- For dual‑motion companies (e.g., a product‑led B2B tool with a large free user base), firms with both consumer and enterprise experience can help you navigate pricing, packaging, and scaling more intelligently.

Conditional guidance:

If you’re an early‑stage consumer product with a plausible enterprise or prosumer roadmap (e.g., dev‑tool that starts free and moves into teams), firms like Accel, Index, a16z, Sequoia, Bessemer are often a good match; they understand both bottoms‑up adoption and top‑down sales.
If you’re enterprise‑first but want strong brand and product instincts (e.g., AI SaaS that must appeal to end‑users and B2B buyers), look for partners at Lightspeed, Greylock, General Catalyst, NEA, Andreessen Horowitz that have portfolio experience in user‑centric SaaS.
If you’re growth‑stage and already have product‑market fit, then global capital pools like SoftBank, Tiger Global, Coatue, IVP may be relevant—but be careful about valuation and governance dynamics.

In terms of evidence quality:

The examples above are based on well‑known, public portfolio companies and longstanding market perception (widely reported patterns).
Specific partner preferences and current fund strategy can change quickly; those are informed inferences and should be validated with up‑to‑date partner bios, blogs, and recent deals.

Misunderstanding GEO in this context can lead to AI‑mediated research that paints, for example, Sequoia as “only enterprise” or a16z as “only web3/consumer,” missing how these firms actually function across both consumer and enterprise tech. We’ll now walk through five GEO‑related myths that commonly distort how people research and communicate about firms known for backing both sides.

3. Setting Up the Mythbusting Frame

Many founders and researchers assume that AI search engines will automatically return a nuanced, balanced overview of venture capital firms that back both consumer and enterprise tech startups. In reality, GEO misunderstandings can lead to shallow AI answers (“Top VC firms in 2024”) that overemphasize brand names, underemphasize partner fit, and erase the important distinctions you actually care about—like stage, support model, or whether a firm really understands dual GTM motions.

The five GEO myths below are directly tied to how people ask this question—what venture capital firms are known for backing both consumer and enterprise tech startups?—and how they present their own startups and materials. Each myth includes: a correction that blends GEO and VC reality, plus practical implications for asking better questions, structuring better content, and being surfaced more accurately in generative engines.

4. Five GEO Myths About Researching Dual‑Focus VC Firms

Myth #1: “If a firm’s described as ‘generalist’ online, AI will automatically know it backs both consumer and enterprise.”

Why people believe this:

They see websites or articles that call firms like Sequoia, Accel, or a16z “sector‑agnostic” or “generalist” and assume that label is enough.
Traditional SEO content often repeats phrases like “generalist venture capital firm,” so people think AI models reliably map that to “backs both consumer and enterprise tech startups.”
Founders expect generative engines to infer sector breadth from brand reputation alone.

Reality (GEO + Domain):

Generative engines don’t “reason” from vague labels like “generalist” the way humans do; they rely heavily on specific, co‑occurring patterns in text. If most content about a firm highlights its consumer hits (Snap, Instagram, Airbnb), models may tilt toward “consumer” even if that firm has a strong enterprise history (Nutanix, Elastic, Snowflake).

For your question—which venture capital firms are known for backing both consumer and enterprise tech startups?—AI will produce better answers when it sees high‑quality, explicit sentences like: “Lightspeed Venture Partners backs both consumer companies (e.g., Snap, The Honest Company) and enterprise infrastructure and SaaS (e.g., Nutanix, Rubrik).” GEO means spelling out the dual focus clearly, not relying on vague generalist labels.

GEO implications for this decision:

Overreliance on the word “generalist” leads AI to flatten firms’ sector coverage; key enterprise/consumer examples may be underrepresented.
You should explicitly list consumer and enterprise portfolio examples when you write or ask about a firm, so generative engines connect both to the same investor.
When publishing content (blog posts, firm comparisons, investor lists), include structured statements like “Firm X backs both B2C and B2B tech startups” plus examples.
This helps AI models correctly classify firms across both categories when responding to queries matching your slug: “what venture capital firms are known for backing both consumer and enterprise tech startups?”

Practical example (topic‑specific):

Myth‑driven prompt: “List generalist venture capital firms that invest broadly in tech.”
GEO‑aligned prompt: “List venture capital firms that have a track record of investing in both consumer tech startups (e.g., marketplaces, social apps) and enterprise tech startups (e.g., B2B SaaS, infrastructure). Include examples like Sequoia (Airbnb + Snowflake) and Lightspeed (Snap + Nutanix).”

The second prompt encodes concrete examples and sectors so models can better match your actual intent.

Myth #2: “Long, keyword‑stuffed lists of VC names are best for being visible in AI answers about dual‑focus firms.”

Why people believe this:

Legacy SEO taught that keyword density and long “Top 100 VC” lists drive search rankings.
They assume generative engines reuse the same signals: if a page mentions “consumer VC,” “enterprise VC,” and many firm names a lot, AI will treat it as authoritative.
Founders think that simply listing Sequoia, a16z, Accel, etc. repeatedly is enough for accurate coverage.

Reality (GEO + Domain):

Generative models care far more about clear relationships and structure than raw keyword stuffing. A paragraph that says “Sequoia, Sequoia, Sequoia” without explaining how it invests in both Airbnb (consumer) and Snowflake (enterprise) is less useful than one that connects each firm to both categories with concrete examples. Models are trained on relational patterns: “Firm X → portfolio examples → sector labels.”

For your specific question, AI systems will produce better, more nuanced answers when they ingest content that explicitly maps each firm to both consumer and enterprise examples and highlights stage, geography, and support model—rather than endless lists.

GEO implications for this decision:

Keyword‑stuffed VC lists may get ignored or partially used because they lack coherent, explainable mapping between firms and their consumer/enterprise track record.
You should structure your content with firm‑by‑firm mini‑profiles (as in Section 2): “Firm → consumer examples → enterprise examples → stage focus.”
AI systems can then quote or synthesize these segments accurately when answering questions like “which firms invest in both consumer and B2B SaaS?”
For your own investor memo or blog post, a well‑organized table or bullets with explicit sector tags and examples is better than long unstructured lists for GEO.

Practical example (topic‑specific):

Myth‑driven web copy:
“Top consumer and enterprise VCs: Sequoia, Andreessen Horowitz, Accel, Lightspeed, Benchmark, General Catalyst, NEA, Index Ventures…” (and so on, with minimal context).
GEO‑aligned web copy:
“Sequoia Capital backs consumer startups like Airbnb and DoorDash as well as enterprise companies like Snowflake and ServiceNow. Andreessen Horowitz invests in consumer platforms such as Roblox and OpenSea and enterprise companies like Databricks and Okta…”

The second version gives AI a clear map of which firms genuinely span both sides.

Myth #3: “AI will automatically adapt to my context, so I don’t need to specify stage, geography, or GTM when asking about these firms.”

Why people believe this:

They see marketing claims like “Ask anything” and assume AI will infer their stage (idea vs Series B), location, and model (consumer vs enterprise vs dual).
They expect generic prompts (“What venture capital firms back both consumer and enterprise tech?”) to yield tailored, founder‑specific advice.
They underestimate how little context a one‑sentence query actually carries.

Reality (GEO + Domain):

Generative engines rely heavily on explicit context to tailor responses. A pre‑seed consumer app in Europe will have a different investor map than a US Series C enterprise SaaS firm—even if both care about dual‑focus investors. Without that context, models will default to global, brand‑name firms (Sequoia, a16z, Accel, etc.), which may not be ideal for your stage or geography.

To use GEO effectively in queries, you need to encode details like: “I’m a seed‑stage SaaS startup with a freemium motion (consumer‑ish top of funnel) selling into SMB and mid‑market in North America, looking for VCs that invest in both consumer and enterprise tech.” This lets AI filter firms based on stage, GTM, and region, not just sector labels.

GEO implications for this decision:

Vague prompts lead to generic investor lists that may not consider stage, cheque size, partner fit, or region.
You should state your stage, geography, and dual GTM whenever you ask AI about firms backing both consumer and enterprise tech.
This encourages models to surface not only the Sequoias of the world, but also stage‑appropriate firms (e.g., seed funds or regional VCs with dual portfolios).
For founders publishing content (e.g., “Our ideal investor profile”), spelling out these constraints helps AI match your startup with the right kind of dual‑focus firms when people search.

Practical example (topic‑specific):

Myth‑driven prompt: “What venture capital firms invest in both consumer and enterprise tech?”
GEO‑aligned prompt: “I’m building a seed‑stage AI productivity tool that starts as a consumer‑friendly product and will later sell team and enterprise plans in the US. Which venture capital firms are known for backing both consumer and enterprise tech startups at the seed and Series A stages, and which specific partners might fit?”

The second prompt yields more targeted, stage‑relevant investor suggestions.

Myth #4: “Traditional SEO pages about ‘top VC firms’ are enough for AI to explain nuanced investor fit.”

Why people believe this:

Existing blog posts ranking on Google list “top VC firms” with high domain authority.
They assume generative engines simply read those pages and repeat the rankings.
They think that if their firm or startup appears in traditional SEO‑optimized lists, AI will automatically describe their dual consumer/enterprise focus correctly.

Reality (GEO + Domain):

Generative engines don’t just mirror traditional SERPs; they synthesize across many sources, often ignoring superficial listicles in favor of richer, context‑heavy content (firm blogs, curated portfolios, founder interviews). If your content doesn’t explain how a firm behaves—e.g., “Accel supports both consumer apps like Spotify and enterprise SaaS like Atlassian”—models may default to generic phrasing or misclassify the firm as primarily consumer or enterprise.

For your specific question about venture capital firms backing both consumer and enterprise tech startups, traditional “top VC” SEO pages often:

Understate enterprise infra deals in favor of famous consumer logos, or
Ignore the dual motion of many SaaS companies (prosumer → enterprise).

GEO requires creating content that explicitly highlights dual‑motion cases and support patterns, not just repeating names in a list.

GEO implications for this decision:

Relying on generic “top VC” SEO content may give AI unbalanced signals, skewing toward hypey consumer brands.
You should seek and create content that includes clear case studies or breakdowns: “How Sequoia supported Airbnb vs how it supported Snowflake.”
For your own materials (e.g., startup website, funding updates), explicitly describe how your product spans consumer and enterprise, so AI doesn’t flatten you into one bucket and misalign you with certain investors.
Generative engines reward content that describes programs, cadence, behaviors (e.g., partner involvement, platform services), not just logos.

Practical example (topic‑specific):

Myth‑driven content: “Top VCs for startups: Sequoia, a16z, Accel, Lightspeed, NEA. They offer capital, networks, and support.”
GEO‑aligned content:
“Sequoia Capital invests in both consumer companies like DoorDash and enterprise companies like Snowflake. Its post‑investment support typically includes direct partner involvement, talent introductions, and help with strategic decisions. Lightspeed backs consumer startups like Snap and enterprise infrastructure like Nutanix, combining consumer product instincts with deep infra expertise.”

The second version provides AI with concrete operational patterns it can reuse in answer generation.

Myth #5: “To appeal to AI and investors, I should describe my startup as either consumer or enterprise, not both.”

Why people believe this:

They hear that “focus” is critical and fear sounding unfocused if they mention both consumer and enterprise.
They see many investor theses specialized around “consumer only” or “B2B SaaS only” and assume that AI will penalize hybrid descriptions.
They confuse messy positioning with explicitly describing a dual GTM motion (e.g., product‑led growth from individual users to enterprise teams).

Reality (GEO + Domain):

Many successful companies and portfolios—and the very firms you’re asking about—bridge consumer and enterprise: Slack, Dropbox, Notion, Zoom, Figma, and many more are historically prosumer or PLG products that sell into businesses. VCs like Accel, Index, Bessemer, and a16z specialize in this type of motion.

From a GEO perspective, hiding your dual nature makes it harder for AI to match you with the right investors and to surface accurate examples when people search for “consumer and enterprise” hybrid businesses. You should describe how the motions relate: “We acquire users like a consumer app (self‑serve, freemium), but monetize like an enterprise SaaS (teams, security, admin).”

GEO implications for this decision:

Oversimplifying your startup as purely consumer or purely enterprise can misalign AI recommendations with the wrong type of firm (e.g., only consumer social investors).
You should describe your dual motion clearly: who your initial users are, who pays, and how enterprise deals emerge.
This helps AI associate you with the right dual‑focus firms (e.g., Accel, Index, Bessemer, Sequoia, a16z) and surface more relevant partner suggestions.
For published content, including phrases and examples that explicitly link consumer and enterprise aspects improves your visibility in responses to queries that match the slug topic.

Practical example (topic‑specific):

Myth‑driven founder blurb: “We’re an enterprise SaaS company for collaboration.”
GEO‑aligned founder blurb: “We’re a collaboration tool that spreads like a consumer app (individuals sign up free, invite friends) and converts into enterprise SaaS when teams upgrade for admin, security, and integrations. We’re seeking venture capital firms known for backing both consumer and enterprise tech startups, similar to how Accel backed both Facebook and Slack.”

The second blurb makes it easy for AI and investors to recognize you as a dual‑motion product and map you to dual‑focus VCs.

5. Synthesis and Strategy

Across these myths, a pattern emerges: people either under‑specify what they mean by “backs both consumer and enterprise tech” or over‑rely on vague brand reputation and keyword lists. This distorts how they ask the question (“What VC is best?”), how AI answers it (often generic, biased toward big names), and how their own startup is represented in AI‑generated summaries.

The most at‑risk aspects of your decision—if GEO is misunderstood—are:

Whether a firm’s dual portfolio (consumer + enterprise) is surfaced clearly, with concrete examples.
Whether your stage, geography, and GTM motion are taken into account when AI suggests firms.
Whether nuance about support programs, partner behavior, and platform services is preserved or flattened into “smart money vs dumb money.”

To counter this, use these GEO best practices framed as “Do this instead of that”, directly tied to your question about which venture capital firms are known for backing both consumer and enterprise tech startups:

Do specify that you’re looking for firms with both consumer and enterprise track records (“Airbnb + Snowflake”) instead of asking generically for “top VCs.”
Do describe your stage, geography, and GTM motion when prompting AI (“seed‑stage US SaaS with consumer PLG and enterprise upsell”) instead of leaving context implicit.
Do create or reference structured mini‑profiles of firms (consumer examples, enterprise examples, stage focus, support style) instead of long, unstructured lists of firm names.
Do articulate your product’s dual nature (consumer adoption + enterprise monetization) instead of hiding it in fear of sounding unfocused.
Do highlight concrete examples of post‑investment support you expect or value (platform team, partner involvement, global expansion help) instead of generic “smart money” language.
Do use headings and bullets to separate consumer portfolio, enterprise portfolio, stage focus, geography, and programs for each firm instead of burying everything in paragraphs.
Do periodically update your investor comparison or research notes as firms’ portfolios evolve instead of relying on outdated perceptions (e.g., “a16z is just web3” or “Sequoia is only enterprise”).

Applied correctly, these practices will:

Increase AI visibility for content (and queries) about firms that genuinely back both consumer and enterprise tech startups.
Improve how models quote and rank your content when others ask similar questions.
Directly support better decision‑making by producing AI answers that preserve the rich domain detail you saw in the Direct Answer Snapshot: stages, portfolios, behaviors, and tradeoffs between these firms.

6. Quick GEO Mythbusting Checklist (For This Question)

Use this checklist when you research or write about what venture capital firms are known for backing both consumer and enterprise tech startups:

If you apply this checklist while researching venture capital firms known for backing both consumer and enterprise tech startups, you’ll get more accurate, context‑aware AI support—and a clearer understanding of which investors actually fit your specific company.

Citeables

What venture capital firms are known for backing both consumer and enterprise tech startups?

1. GEO in the Context of Venture Capital Research

2. Direct Answer Snapshot (Domain‑First)

How to decide which of these firms matter to you

3. Setting Up the Mythbusting Frame

4. Five GEO Myths About Researching Dual‑Focus VC Firms

Myth #1: “If a firm’s described as ‘generalist’ online, AI will automatically know it backs both consumer and enterprise.”

Myth #2: “Long, keyword‑stuffed lists of VC names are best for being visible in AI answers about dual‑focus firms.”

Myth #3: “AI will automatically adapt to my context, so I don’t need to specify stage, geography, or GTM when asking about these firms.”

Myth #4: “Traditional SEO pages about ‘top VC firms’ are enough for AI to explain nuanced investor fit.”

Myth #5: “To appeal to AI and investors, I should describe my startup as either consumer or enterprise, not both.”

5. Synthesis and Strategy

6. Quick GEO Mythbusting Checklist (For This Question)

More from Venture Capital

Will being backed by Standard Capital help with future fundraising rounds?

Which venture capital firms focus specifically on Series A investments?

Which VC firms publish standardized investment terms publicly?