Last week, we released our first white paper, Why Emerging Venture Capital Managers Matter, which analyzed performance data from more than 2,400 U.S.-based venture capital funds. Venture Capital Journal covered the findings, [you can read their piece here]. The core finding was straightforward: emerging managers outperform established peers by 7.2 percentage points in IRR on average, but institutional screening processes systematically exclude them before their performance is ever evaluated.
The paper made the case that this is not a talent problem. It is a design problem. The way institutional programs are structured, and the way emerging managers build their platforms, determine whether that performance is captured or missed.
But identifying the problem is only half of it. The harder question is: what do you actually do about it?
From Research to Practice
Alongside the white paper, we released two diagnostic tools designed to translate our research findings into something actionable. One is built for institutional allocators. The other is built for emerging managers themselves.
Both tools are structured as self-assessments, not pitch evaluations or scorecard exercises. They are designed to surface structural gaps: the kind that are easy to overlook when you are inside the system but that show up clearly in the performance data.
We built them because a recurring theme in our research is that the distance between “good intentions” and “good outcomes” in venture capital is almost always a design problem.
LPs can have genuine conviction around emerging managers and still run programs that filter out the performance they are trying to capture. GPs can have exceptional investment instincts and still build platforms that institutional LPs cannot underwrite.
These diagnostics are designed to close that gap. Each one generates a personalized report delivered by email, with a structured interpretation of your results, domain-level analysis, and practical context for next steps.
For LPs: The Emerging Manager Program Diagnostic
This tool helps institutional allocators evaluate whether their emerging manager program is structurally configured to capture alpha, or constrained by gaps in design, execution, or governance.
It covers four areas:
Program Strategy and Integration asks whether the program is treated as a performance-driven allocation strategy or a compliance-driven side portfolio. Our data shows that framing alone shapes outcomes, from screening criteria to retention decisions.
Selection and Evaluation Process examines whether the institution evaluates emerging managers based on fund configuration and capability, or relies on proxies like fund size, sequence, and brand. If AUM thresholds are your first filter, you are removing managers before their portfolio construction or risk discipline is ever assessed.
Infrastructure and Support Capabilities evaluates whether the institution has built the internal capacity to source, evaluate, and support emerging managers at the level required for program success. Institutions that treat these programs as lighter-touch versions of their core platform consistently underperform those that invest in dedicated infrastructure.
Performance Management and Governance assesses how the program monitors performance, makes retention decisions, and maintains accountability. Without clear retention criteria, top performers get graduated out and replaced by untested ones, destroying the compounding that makes emerging manager exposure valuable in the first place.
For EMs: The Venture Capital Platform Diagnostic
This tool helps emerging venture capital managers evaluate whether their fund platform is structurally configured for institutional capital or constrained by gaps in strategy, infrastructure, governance, or fundraising readiness.
It covers five areas:
Investment Strategy and Portfolio Construction evaluates whether the fund has a clearly defined, defensible thesis with intentional portfolio construction that aligns with fund constraints. Our research shows that emerging managers who design portfolios around their constraints outperform those who try to replicate established fund playbooks at smaller scale.
Team and Firm Infrastructure assesses whether the firm has the operational foundation, team depth, and decision-making capacity to execute the strategy and evolve as the platform scales. Gaps here are one of the most common reasons otherwise strong managers fail to convert LP interest into commitments.
Governance and Decision-Making examines whether the fund has rigorous, defensible processes that can withstand institutional scrutiny and operate under market stress. For emerging managers, the bar is often higher than for established funds, because institutional LPs compensate for shorter track records with deeper process evaluation.
LP Readiness and Fundraising Preparation evaluates whether the fund is prepared to engage institutional LPs with professional materials, ILPA-aligned practices, and defensible positioning. This section surfaces gaps in materials quality, diligence defensibility, and fundraising strategy that can be addressed before they become barriers in live processes.
Portfolio Monitoring and Value Creation assesses whether the fund has systems to track performance, support portfolio companies, manage reserves, and plan for exits across the fund lifecycle. These capabilities matter both for fund performance and for LP confidence in future fundraises.
Why Both Sides Matter
We built both diagnostics because the performance gap we identified in the white paper is not caused by one side alone.
When institutional programs are poorly designed, they filter out exactly the managers they should be backing. When emerging managers are not prepared for institutional engagement, they confirm the biases that keep capital from flowing to them in the first place.
The result is a system where both sides are operating below their potential, and where the gap between available performance and captured performance keeps widening.
These tools are a starting point. They will not solve the structural misalignment on their own. But they can help both LPs and GPs identify where their own design choices are creating drag, and where straightforward improvements could meaningfully change outcomes.
Colibrí Institute publishes open research to improve how capital is allocated. If this was useful, consider sharing.
What’s Next
We’re committed to producing open-access research that improves how venture capital functions - and how it intersects with technology, policy, and economic opportunity.
Coming soon:
Deeper dives into specific findings from our first white paper
Research at the intersection of capital systems, technology policy, and institutional decision-making
Convenings that bring together allocators, managers, policymakers, and researchers
If there are questions you’d like us to explore, reply to this email or leave a comment. We’re building this in public, and your input shapes what we work on.
Support Our Work
Colibrí Institute is a nonprofit. Our research is open-access by design because we believe better data should be available to the entire ecosystem, not just those who can pay for it.
We partner with mission-aligned institutions to fund independent research on venture capital, technology, and policy.
If your organization is interested in supporting this work, reach out to us at hello@colibri.institute
Follow along:
→ Mariela on LinkedIn
→ Itzel on LinkedIn
→ Colibrí Institute on LinkedIn
— Mariela & Itzel