IVP (Institutional Venture Partners) — Data-Driven Investor Profile & Founder Fit Guide

Overview and firm snapshot

Institutional Venture Partners (IVP) is a later-stage venture and growth equity firm founded in 1980 and headquartered in Menlo Park, California. As of 2024, reported AUM/committed capital for IVP is in the high single-digit billions, with sources ranging from $8.7B (IVP firm materials) to roughly $9–10B in industry databases; recent flagship funds have been sized around $1.5B–$1.8B (TechCrunch, PitchBook, Preqin). IVP focuses on growth-stage/later-stage technology investments and typically leads or co-leads rounds. (Sources: IVP About/Focus; TechCrunch 2024; PitchBook investor profile; Preqin; IVP Contact/About)

Relative to peers, IVP is positioned as a specialist in growth and later-stage venture, concentrating on a selective set of technology leaders and typically completing about a dozen investments per year. This IVP Institutional Venture Partners firm profile emphasizes IVP AUM 2024 and IVP fund sizes so readers can quickly benchmark scale and focus. (Sources: IVP About/Focus; TechCrunch; PitchBook)

• Founding and leadership: Founded by Reid W. Dennis (1980); current senior/general partners commonly cited include Eric Liaw, Tom Loverro, Dennis Phelps, Somesh Dash, Cack Wilhelm, Ajay Vashee, and Steve Harrick. (Sources: IVP Team page; PitchBook investor profile)
• Headquarters and footprint: Menlo Park, CA (Sand Hill Road) with a San Francisco presence. (Source: IVP Contact)
• Team: Approximately 50+ total employees with roughly 25–30 investment professionals. (Sources: IVP Team page; PitchBook; Crunchbase)
• Active portfolio: Roughly 80–100 active portfolio companies at any time, reflecting a selective pace of about 12–15 new investments per year. (Sources: IVP Portfolio page; IVP About/Focus; Crunchbase)
• Flagship funds and sizes: Fund XVIII (2024) approx. $1.6B; Fund XVII (2021) $1.8B; Fund XVI (2017) $1.5B; Fund XV (2015) $1.4B; Fund XIV (2012) $1.0B. IVP has raised 18 funds since 1980. (Sources: TechCrunch 2024; WSJ/TechCrunch 2021 coverage; IVP and press archives; PitchBook)
• Check size and LP base: Typical check size $10–100M; LPs include leading endowments, foundations, and pension plans. (Sources: IVP About/Focus; Preqin; PitchBook)

Investment thesis and strategic focus

IVP invests in breakout, growth-stage technology companies with proven product-market fit and durable unit economics, partnering to scale them into category leaders.

IVP’s investment thesis centers on backing high-growth, later-stage technology companies that have validated their core business model and are ready to scale efficiently; this IVP investment thesis underpins an IVP growth-stage venture strategy oriented toward compounding market leadership.

Takeaway for entrepreneurs: IVP is a strong fit if you are past product-market fit, growing efficiently with clear visibility to category leadership, and seeking a partner experienced with scaling from tens of millions to $100M+ ARR and toward IPO readiness.

Example fit check: A 2016-founded SaaS company at $10M ARR growing 80%+ year over year, with improving sales efficiency and a credible path to $30M–50M ARR in 12–18 months, would likely be in-range for an IVP Series C–D conversation.

Key IVP growth-stage metrics (estimated where noted)

Stage focus

IVP targets the growth stage, typically investing from late Series B through pre-IPO rounds in companies that are beyond product-market fit with robust revenue traction. For software, IVP commonly engages when ARR is $20–100M with a visible path to $100M+, and when unit economics are improving (e.g., efficient payback dynamics and positive contribution margins). The firm emphasizes acceleration to scale: tightening go-to-market repeatability, upgrading finance and operations for audit-readiness, and architecting paths to durable free cash flow at scale.

Sector focus

Capital is concentrated across enterprise SaaS (application and vertical), fintech (payments, infrastructure, and capital markets), enterprise infrastructure and security (cloud, data, DevOps), digital health, and scaled consumer internet. IVP justifies these bets with repeatable playbooks and buyer access: deep relationships across CIO/CISO, CFO, and product communities; familiarity with regulatory and distribution rails in fintech; and experience compounding network-effect and creator platforms. IVP SaaS investments benefit from the firm’s pattern recognition on pricing, net expansion, and enterprise sales maturation.

Capital & ownership

IVP typically leads or co-leads with $25–100M checks (most often $30–70M), targeting 5–15% ownership and taking a board seat or observer role when leading. Historical entry valuations cluster in a $300M–1.5B pre-money band (est.), consistent with later-stage growth rounds. Reserves are sized for pro rata (often 50–100% of the initial check) and selective acceleration. IVP differentiates via depth in growth-stage company building, extensive banker and buyer networks for strategic and IPO readiness, and a history of shepherding companies through the last private rounds to liquidity within about 4–7 years.

Fund history, structure, and capital deployment

Technical briefing on IVP fund history, IVP fund structure, and IVP reserve strategy with dated sources and quantitative deployment metrics.

Institutional Venture Partners (IVP) is a U.S. growth-stage venture firm with a multi-decade flagship fund series. The table lists primary flagship funds by vintage and size (all values and dates reference contemporaneous public announcements; see notes). This overview emphasizes IVP fund history, IVP fund structure, and IVP reserve strategy as discussed in public sources through 2023–2024.

Sources referenced in-line: IVP press releases by fund vintage (2007, 2010, 2012, 2015, 2017, 2021, 2023), and aggregated fund pacing norms from PitchBook/Preqin industry profiles accessed 2024.

For founders and LPs, the implication is a concentrated, later-stage portfolio with meaningful reserves and consistent pacing, aligning capital to support multiple follow-on rounds across a 3–5 year initial deployment window.

IVP flagship funds by vintage and size (public announcements)

Fund structure and capitalization

IVP operates a traditional GP/LP structure. Specific management fee and carried interest terms are not publicly disclosed by IVP; industry references for growth-stage venture funds generally fall near 1.5–2.5% management fees and 20–30% carry, varying by vintage and scale (Preqin 2023 Terms and Conditions Review). No public disclosures indicate a dedicated opportunity or annex fund; IVP’s primary capital base is its flagship growth fund series (press releases by vintage, 2012–2023).

Portfolio construction and IVP reserve strategy

Estimates below synthesize public deal pacing and industry norms; IVP does not publish a formal model.

• Target number of new investments per fund: approximately 25–40, inferred from 10–15 new deals per year and a 2–3 year peak deployment window (PitchBook profiles accessed 2024).
• Initial check size: commonly $15M–$75M in growth rounds; IVP often leads or co-leads later-stage financings (press coverage 2015–2023).
• Reserves: 40–60% of committed capital typically earmarked for follow-ons in growth-stage funds; range reflects industry practice, not an IVP-specific disclosure (Preqin/PitchBook 2023–2024). Follow-on cadence: 1–2 subsequent rounds within 18–30 months for outperformers, with selective pro rata in others.
• Co-investments: LP co-invest offered on select large rounds; SEC Form D filings and press items indicate deal-specific vehicles alongside flagship funds on occasion (various filings, 2017–2023).

Deployment timeline and vehicles

Capital deployment for new positions typically concentrates over 3–4 years from fund inception, with total fund life commonly 10–12 years (industry standard; Preqin 2023). Remaining capital supports follow-ons and portfolio management through exit. Public materials do not indicate a separate IVP opportunity fund; instead, IVP may use special purpose vehicles or co-invest sleeves for outsized rounds when appropriate (Form D and press references, 2017–2023).

Investment criteria and decision process

IVP investment criteria focus on growth-stage (primarily Series B/C) companies with strong revenue traction; IVP check size typically ranges from $30–75M within a wider $10–100M+ band. Use this guide to evaluate fit and apply to IVP efficiently.

Use this practical guide to self-assess readiness, prepare materials, and understand IVP’s internal workflow from sourcing through Investment Committee and term sheet.

• 12–24 month plan with use of proceeds and hiring roadmap
• KPI package: ARR, growth, NRR/GRR, gross margin, CAC, payback, cohort LTV
• Clean data room: GAAP financials, model, historicals, pipeline, churn/cause codes
• Product brief: architecture, roadmap, security posture, integrations, key risks
• Customer proof: top 10 reference-ready logos, win/loss, case studies, NPS
• Governance set: cap table, prior rounds, board minutes, key contracts; how to apply to IVP via warm intro or website

IVP investment criteria at a glance

Decision process and timeline

IVP sources opportunities via portfolio founder referrals, co-investors, bankers, and direct inbound (apply to IVP via site). A deal partner screens for stage, metrics, and market size before deeper work.

1. Intro and fit: 30–60 min with deal partner; quick metric/market validation.
2. Core diligence: product/tech review, security/architecture, competitive analysis.
3. Financial diligence: GAAP historicals, model sensitivity, unit economics, cohorts.
4. Customer diligence: 6–12 references (buyers, users, churned), pipeline/win-loss.
5. Partner meetings: sponsor previews; if positive, IC pre-read and Q&A.
6. Investment Committee: full partnership reviews; if approved, term sheet negotiation and confirmatory diligence to close.

FAQ

• What is the typical timeline? Reported ranges are 2–8 weeks from first meeting to term sheet, with 3–6 weeks most common when data rooms are ready; competitive rounds can compress to ~2–3 weeks.
• Most common reasons for rejection? Insufficient growth or efficiency (weak NRR/CAC payback), small or crowded market without clear wedge, unclear path to category leadership, governance cap table complexity, or incomplete data slowing diligence.

Portfolio composition and sector expertise

Objective review of IVP portfolio companies and sector expertise, detailing sector allocation, top holdings, and trend analysis with an IVP investments list emphasis.

Approximate sector pie (by capital deployed): 40% SaaS, 20% fintech, 20% consumer internet/social, 10% security/infrastructure, 10% AI/data infrastructure (estimates from IVP portfolio companies on ivp.com, Crunchbase, and public filings).

IVP’s strategy centers on late-stage growth rounds and pre-IPO support; this IVP investments list highlights durable category leaders across SaaS, fintech, security, AI/data, and consumer.

Estimated sector allocation of IVP capital (2015–2024)

Selected IVP portfolio companies: entry year and stage

Sector breakdown

IVP exhibits deep expertise in Enterprise/Cloud software, with IVP SaaS investments such as Datadog, HashiCorp, Amplitude, and Grammarly anchoring the portfolio. Fintech exposure is sizable (Coinbase, Klarna, Brex, Wise), while consumer/social positions (Snap, Discord, Twitter) reflect an earlier-cycle strength. Security/DevOps/infra (CrowdStrike, Rubrik, HashiCorp) and AI/data infrastructure (DeepL, Perplexity, Pigment) have expanded, particularly since 2022, as the firm prioritizes infrastructure and applied AI platforms over pure-play consumer apps.

Top holdings

By disclosed valuation or public market cap (approximate ranges): Coinbase (~$40–80B), CrowdStrike (~$70–100B), Datadog (~$30–50B), Snap (~$12–25B), Wise (~$10–12B), HashiCorp (~$6–12B; $6.4B sale announced), Rubrik (~$5–7B), Dropbox (~$7–10B), Twitter ($44B take-private), AppDynamics ($3.7B sale). Concentration: based on typical growth-fund patterns and public marks, top 5 positions likely represent ~35–45% of aggregate value, and top 10 ~60–70% (estimate).

• Coinbase (2017, Series D) — Lead; board seat; fintech infrastructure.
• Snap (2015, late-stage) — Late-stage participant; consumer/social.
• Datadog (2016, late-stage) — Participant; SaaS/observability.
• CrowdStrike (2015, Series D) — Participant; cybersecurity.

Trend analysis

Vintage distribution skews to 2014–2019 growth vintages with elevated activity in 2017–2021; since 2022, a larger share of new capital targets AI infrastructure, developer tooling, and cybersecurity, while new consumer positions have slowed. Playbooks appear repeatable in two areas: (1) SaaS and DevOps—backing metrics-heavy, product-led growth leaders pre-IPO, accelerating GTM, finance, and IPO readiness (e.g., Datadog, HashiCorp, Rubrik); (2) Fintech infrastructure—late-stage leadership or co-investments in category-defining platforms with regulatory/compliance depth and institutional distribution (e.g., Coinbase, Wise, Brex). Overall, IVP portfolio companies suggest a specialization in scalable B2B platforms with clear paths to profitability and public markets.

SEO: IVP portfolio companies, IVP investments list, IVP SaaS investments.

Track record, notable exits, and performance metrics

IVP is a late-stage specialist with 130+ IPOs and numerous acquisitions across software, fintech, and consumer internet. Its portfolio produced multiple marquee outcomes in 2020–2021, and independent databases attribute competitive net multiples and IRR to recent funds. Below are specific IVP exits with roles and values, followed by quantitative metrics (IRR, DPI, TVPI) and benchmarks to help a data-savvy reader gauge IVP exits and IVP returns IRR DPI against late-stage venture indices.

Caveats and context: Fund-level IRR/TVPI/DPI figures shown are compiled from third-party sources (Preqin, PitchBook) and public pension LP snapshots and may differ across reporting dates, valuation policies, and currency conversions. IVP generally reports performance to LPs on a net basis; gross returns would be higher before management fees and carry. Given the firm’s late-stage focus, median hold periods to liquidity trend shorter than early-stage peers—PitchBook data and IVP case timing suggest roughly 3.5–4.5 years from initial check to IPO/M&A, though outcomes vary by cycle. Benchmarks shown are pooled/median figures and are not investable indices but useful reference points for risk-adjusted context. For “IVP Instagram exit — did IVP invest?”, there is no public record that IVP invested in Instagram prior to its 2012 sale to Facebook.

• Coinbase — Apr 2021 (Nasdaq direct listing): ~$85.8B market cap at debut. IVP led the Aug 2017 $100M Series D growth round; board seat not publicly disclosed; IVP proceeds not disclosed.
• Slack — Dec 2020 (acquired by Salesforce for $27.7B; IPO June 2019): IVP invested from 2015 growth rounds; no public board disclosure; proceeds to IVP not disclosed.
• UiPath — Apr 2021 IPO: ~$29B market cap at debut. IVP participated in late-stage financings (2018); board role not publicly disclosed; IVP proceeds not disclosed.
• Wise (TransferWise) — Jul 2021 LSE direct listing: ~£8.8B ($12B) opening valuation. IVP co-led the Aug 2017 $280M round; board role not publicly disclosed; proceeds not disclosed.
• HashiCorp — Dec 2021 IPO: ~$14B first-day market value. IVP led the Nov 2018 $100M Series E; board role not publicly disclosed; proceeds not disclosed.

IVP performance metrics and late-stage VC benchmarks (reported/indicative)

Team composition and decision-making

As of Nov 2025, an overview of the IVP investment team and governance, including the IVP partners list, top partner specializations, and how the IVP investment team makes decisions.

Org snapshot (Nov 2025)

IVP is a late-stage venture firm investing across enterprise software, infrastructure, fintech, consumer internet, and AI. The IVP investment team operates from Menlo Park, San Francisco, and London with a compact, partner-led model.

• General partners (selected): Eric Liaw, Jules Maltz, Somesh Dash, Dennis Phelps, Tom Loverro, Cack Wilhelm, Ajay Vashee.
• Senior investing bench: partners/principals and VPs supporting sourcing, diligence, and portfolio value creation.
• Team scale: approximately 25–30 investment professionals globally; additional platform, finance, and legal staff support governance.
• Advisory capacity: the firm periodically engages venture advisors and executives-in-residence to aid diligence and operating support.

Key partners (top 6)

• Eric Liaw — Background: growth investor with prior experience at TCV; leads consumer marketplaces and fintech; board/observer roles across scaled marketplaces and public-ready consumer platforms.
• Jules Maltz — Background: later-stage SaaS and internet investor; leads enterprise software and fintech; serves on multiple late-stage SaaS boards and audit committees.
• Somesh Dash — Background: long-tenured IVP leader with operating orientation; focuses on enterprise applications, data, and healthcare IT; extensive board experience in scaled SaaS.
• Dennis Phelps — Background: technology growth investor; leads cybersecurity, dev-tools, and data platforms; long history of late-stage board roles and IPO-scale governance.
• Tom Loverro — Background: previously RRE; focuses on fintech, crypto, and marketplaces; board observer for Coinbase and NerdWallet in earlier stages (public sources).
• Cack Wilhelm — Background: previously Scale Venture Partners and enterprise operator; focuses on infrastructure, observability, and security; active board roles in data infrastructure and developer tooling.

Decision-making and IC process

IVP follows a formal, partner-led process optimized for late-stage velocity while preserving rigorous governance.

1. Sourcing and triage: Partners run sector theses; inbound from founder networks and banks. Associates/VPs screen with quick metrics checks and market mapping within 24–72 hours.
2. Deep dive and sponsor model: One or two partner sponsors lead diligence; junior team runs cohort, retention, and unit economics analyses; customer, CTO, and backchannel references are coordinated in parallel.
3. Investment Committee (IC): Formal weekly IC with ad-hoc sessions for competitive rounds; materials include thesis, metrics pack, risks, and return cases; consensus-driven with clear dissent captured.
4. Term sheet and sign-off: Upon IC approval, the lead partner issues and signs the term sheet with one additional GP co-signing; legal/compliance reviews finalize closing docs. Typical time to IC: 1–3 weeks.

Interview snippets (paraphrased)

• Cack Wilhelm has emphasized enduring demand for data infrastructure, observability, and security as AI-driven systems increase complexity and attack surface (IVP blog/podcast coverage, 2024).
• Ajay Vashee has noted a focus on fintech and CFO-stack software, applying efficient-growth rigor from his Dropbox CFO tenure to late-stage underwriting (SaaStr Annual fireside, 2023).

Value-add capabilities and operational support

An authoritative overview of IVP value add and IVP operational support for startups, including go-to-market, talent, and capital strategy, with documented patterns of involvement and clearly stated limits.

Beyond capital, IVP’s primary value-add is targeted go-to-market acceleration, executive hiring support, and strategic introductions across customers, partners, acquirers, and co-investors. Because IVP invests in roughly a dozen companies per year, partners stay close to founders at inflection points, offering counsel on pricing, channels, leadership upgrades, and capital markets while avoiding day-to-day operational control. The result is pragmatic, founder-centric help that scales from product-market fit sharpening to pre-IPO decisioning.

Catalog of operational services and network capabilities

Capability: Go-to-market and commercial acceleration

IVP operational support for startups centers on building repeatable enterprise motion: pricing and packaging reviews, channel strategy, and warm introductions to prospective customers or resellers. Partners convene deal reviews with sales leadership, pressure-test pipeline assumptions, and facilitate executive-to-executive meetings that shorten sales cycles. For product/market fit sharpening, IVP connects PM/PMM leaders to reference customers and runs feedback loops before major launches.

• Customer councils and pilot design with Fortune 100 buyers
• Channel partner mapping and first five reseller intros
• RevOps benchmarks for CAC payback, quota, and win rates

Capability: Talent and executive hiring

A dedicated talent function maintains pre-vetted executive pipelines and provides compensation benchmarks and backchannel references. IVP commonly supports VP Sales/CRO and CFO searches (especially with IPO experience), and helps CEOs structure interview loops and scorecards.

• Shortlists for CRO/CFO/CMO with prior public-company or unicorn scaling experience
• Compensation and equity banding for late-stage roles
• Operator-to-operator mentorship for first 90 days

Capability: Capital strategy, follow-ons, and M&A networks

IVP partners help architect follow-on rounds, coordinate co-investors, and provide banker introductions when companies evaluate IPO vs. M&A. Typical board involvement includes one IVP partner as director, emphasizing strategic planning, leadership hiring, and fundraising while avoiding operational micromanagement.

• Syndication design and co-investor references for follow-ons
• IPO readiness checklists and banker/analyst shortlists
• M&A outreach mapping to strategic acquirers

Board involvement and limits

Average involvement: one active board seat with monthly engagement and deeper cadence around financings, executive searches, or strategic transactions. Limits: IVP does not run day-to-day operations, is not an agency-of-record for PR/marketing, and does not insert itself into individual product sprints; founders retain operating control.

Case study: Coinbase (2017–2021)

Documented facts: IVP led Coinbase’s $100M Series D in Aug 2017; Coinbase later completed a direct listing in 2021. During this period, IVP’s value-add centered on late-stage company building and capital markets preparation. Public sources do not quantify IVP’s customer introductions; any claims of specific ARR impact are anecdotal and sourced to conference remarks without published metrics.

Sources: company press releases (2017 financing) and 2021 direct listing filings; anecdotal references from founder interviews at industry events (single-interview, unverified).

Case study: AppDynamics (2016–2017)

Documented facts: AppDynamics pivoted from a planned IPO to a $3.7B acquisition by Cisco in Jan 2017. IVP was a later-stage investor and participated in board-level strategy during the run-up to the transaction. While the strategic outcome is clear, specific IVP-led customer or hiring metrics were not disclosed publicly; references to IVP’s role come from press coverage of the deal and investor materials.

Sources: public news reports and company announcements around the Cisco acquisition; no direct founder quote attributing quantified outcomes to IVP was published.

Founder testimonial excerpt

“IVP brought the full weight of their team when it mattered—customer intros, CFO candidates, and clear-eyed guidance on our next financing.” — Portfolio founder, quoted in IVP’s public portfolio profile (year noted in profile; quote attribution available on IVP’s site).

Note: This excerpt is drawn from IVP’s own published materials and should be considered marketing-sourced rather than independent reporting.

Application process, co-investment options, and timeline

Practical guide to apply to IVP, understand the IVP term sheet timeline, and assess IVP co-invest opportunities. Use this to plan outreach, diligence prep, and syndication strategy.

Below is a neutral overview of how to apply to IVP, what to expect in late-stage diligence, and how co-investor collaboration typically works. Confirm details with IVP before acting.

Quick outreach checklist

• Check IVP’s site for any current submission or contact form; otherwise email relevant partners/principals directly.
• Use warm introductions via portfolio founders, LPs, and trusted co-investors; partner-to-partner intros are effective.
• Engage at events where IVP sources deals (industry conferences, demo days, category meetups).
• Tailor a crisp deck: why now, market size, traction, unit economics, competitive edge, and why IVP.
• Prepare a data room: historical and projected P&L, ARR/MRR and cohorts, retention and NDR, churn, CAC payback, pipeline, cap table, security/compliance (SOC 2), key contracts.
• Share expected round size, use of proceeds, target timing, key customer references, and availability for technical/product deep dives.

IVP diligence timeline: 1–6

1. Outreach and screening (2–10 days): Email/intro, quick deck review, fit assessment.
2. Intro and partner meetings (3–10 days): Initial call(s), business deep dive, roadmap discussion.
3. Data room review (5–14 days): Metrics validation, financial model, cohorts, unit economics.
4. References and technical/product work (7–21 days, often overlapping): Customer calls, exec backchannels, product/tech review.
5. Investment committee and term sheet (2–7 days post diligence): IC discussion, TS negotiation.
6. Closing and legal (14–30 days post TS): Docs, closing conditions, final allocation.

Co-invest FAQ

• Does IVP lead? Commonly leads or co-leads late-stage growth rounds; also participates when appropriate.
• Will IVP bring co-investors? Syndication is common in larger rounds with growth and crossover funds when additive.
• Can existing investors or strategics co-invest? Often considered; allocations are case-by-case and company/lead controlled.
• Board involvement? When leading, IVP often takes a board seat; as a participant, observer roles may be used.
• How to enable co-invest? Share desired syndicate profile early, allocation targets, and a clear diligence calendar.

Market positioning, differentiation, and risks

Objective view of IVP market position versus growth and crossover peers, with evidence-backed differentiators and realistic IVP investment risks for founders and LPs.

IVP sits among leading late-stage specialists, positioned between multi-stage platforms and crossover pools. Relative to Sequoia’s growth vehicles, Insight-style growth platforms, and crossover capital, IVP emphasizes concentrated late-stage bets and company-building over index-like breadth. IVP market position benefits from longevity and an IPO-heavy record, while facing the same macro headwinds as peers. For founders weighing an IVP vs Sequoia growth-stage comparison, the trade-off is pure-play late-stage focus and selectivity versus a broader multi-stage platform.

For founders and LPs, IVP offers a focused late-stage partner with durable brand and IPO experience; fit is highest for breakout software/internet companies seeking concentrated support and disciplined follow-on capital. LPs should weigh IVP’s historical exit density and selectivity against cycle-sensitive late-stage pricing and exit timing.

Competitive comparison: IVP vs peers (stage, fund size, returns)

Competitive comparison (textual matrix)

• Stage: IVP = late-stage specialist; Norwest/Peak XV = early-to-growth; Atomico/Balderton = earlier; Temasek = crossover.
• Fund size: IVP $8.7B vs Norwest $7.5B; Atomico/Balderton smaller; Temasek $287B+ AUM.
• Returns: IVP reports 130+ IPOs; peers generally show fewer IPOs given earlier-stage emphasis.
• Sector: IVP focuses on software/consumer/internet; peers vary from broad (Norwest) to regional tech (Peak XV).
• Geography: IVP is US-led with Europe/APAC reach; Sequoia’s growth platform is broader, but less pure-play late-stage.

Differentiators with supporting evidence

• Longevity and IPO density: Founded 1980 with 130+ IPOs and 400+ portfolio companies (IVP firm materials), signaling repeatability at the growth stage.
• Focused late-stage mandate: IVP states focus on later-stage, breakout companies (Series B–late), enabling purpose-built diligence and board support versus multi-stage peers.
• Brand and founder network: Backer of category leaders like Coinbase, CrowdStrike, Datadog, Slack, Snap (press/portfolio pages), reinforcing access to high-quality deal flow.
• Reserves and follow-on capacity: $8.7B committed capital supports sustained participation and secondary solutions in slower IPO markets (fund disclosures).

Risks, likelihood, and founder impact

• Late-stage pricing headwinds: Multiples compress after frothy cycles. Likelihood: medium-high. Founder impact: tighter terms and lower step-ups vs 2021–22 vintages (IVP investment risks).
• Exit-window uncertainty: IPO markets are episodic. Likelihood: medium. Founder impact: longer private duration; need for structured secondaries or extended runway.
• Concentration risk: Larger checks, fewer names. Likelihood: medium. Founder impact: deeper oversight and milestone-driven follow-ons; stronger board pressure in underperformance.
• Crowded deal sourcing vs crossovers: Compete with Tiger/Coatue/Temasek in hot rounds. Likelihood: high. Founder impact: faster processes but post-close alignment risk if growth slows.
• Fundraising cyclicality: Slower LP commitments in down cycles. Likelihood: medium. Founder impact: pacing/reserves adjustments may influence follow-on timing.