

Startup Investor Rankings - dmor
http://mattermark.com/app/Benchmarking

======
mdhayes
Mattermark is something of little relevance to me but how good is the data?
They recently produced a list of the fastest growing startups in my local
community and the results were pretty odd. Companies with huge measurable
growth beaten by, literally, new starts just a few months old with no revenue
and few customers.

Granted I don't know what yard stick they used to come up with the list but to
me on the ground in the community the list seemed way off and widely
ridiculed.

------
lpolovets
Measuring public-facing growth is cool, but it doesn't seem particularly
useful for measuring investor performance. It's like measuring someone's
driving ability using the shininess of their car collection as a proxy.

~~~
dopamean
It doesn't really looks like the goal is measure financial performance. I
think it's kind of an interesting idea considering how odd the valuation
process can be for a company that has no revenue but tons of growth.

------
filip01
Could someone explain why "signals of growth", or as in this case "momentum",
would be relevant to anyone? I understand that actual growth stats might be
difficult to get hold of, but I think I'd rather have 200 of those than 200
000 "weekly growth of web traffic, mobile downloads, inbound links, employees,
and social media".

~~~
GamblersFallacy
I'd suggest "signals of growth" & "momentum" are a proxy for a site that has
repeat traffic & systematic word of mouth. You can't maintain the momentum of
growth unless you retain a significant number of new visitors.

If new visitors are developing the habit of repeat visits, thats a strong
signal the startup has discovered a formula that strikes a chord with their
niche/market.

------
hkmurakami
Is the page rendering properly for others? I currently see the list of
companies right justified, then the bar graph part after all the companies
have been listed.

Chrome 31.0

(edit: displays fine on Firefox)

edit2: 12:09am looks like they fixed it

~~~
source99
12:33 - still broken for chrome.

~~~
xinkr
same

------
trevmckendrick
Not trying to rain on the parade, but could this ever include weighted
rankings by a fund's % ownership in a given investment. E.g. a fund that owns
10% of Uber should rank higher than a fund with 5%, everything else being
equal.

That said, it's probably much more important to have _any_ investment in Uber
(to continue the example) than whether you have a handful % more/less than
another fund.

------
abalone
AngelList should be in this ranking. Especially because FundersClub, a direct
competitor, is at the top.

Yes there is a slight difference. FundersClub is a curated platform while
AngelList is open. But curation alone does not a VC make. If one brokerage is
on there, the other should be too.

~~~
dmor
FundersClub makes investments in companies alongside their customers, which is
why they have a portfolio. AngelList does not (to our knowledge) do this,
which is why they are not included.

~~~
abalone
I think you are mistaken. FundersClub curates the investments it brokers but
the money comes from a (typically very large) group of independent investors.

From the FundersClub FAQ:

 _FundersClub lets its members who are accredited investors invest in startup
venture funds online... FundersClub manages the funds and provides value-add
benefits to the startup companies we invest in, as well as the investors in
our funds._

No mention of kicking in their own funds. Perhaps there's a relatively trivial
amount contributed by the FundersClub team from time to time but it's not the
basis of their operation (Naval participates in some AngelList investments
too). This is extremely similar to AngelList apart from the curation.

------
tonydiv
This seems like an edgy way to attract traffic. If there were some more
specifics behind how these rankings were determined, I'd be more inclined to
care.

------
tagawa
Interesting, but may I suggest you use a table or graphic to show this data?
As it is now, the labels and bars are not aligned in the three browsers I
tried. It also breaks in narrow windows.

------
paul_f
I wonder if this is any different than Money magazine ranking mutual funds?
Nobody smart would ever use that ranking to pick a fund. "Revert to the norm"
anyone?

~~~
loumf
I guess it depends on whether we think the underlying ability is a skill with
long-term, differentiated levels. If so, even after factoring out reversion,
we could still find that there is a consistent ranking.

For managed mutual funds, I think it's been studied that there is no ability
(source: Boglehead books). So, unless things radically change, there is no
signal in the noise to be found -- the rankings aren't more stable than
random.

I have no idea for VC funds.

------
reetuio
YC is not at the top. There must be something wrong.

------
vbs_redlof
Coming from a finance background, calling this measure of startup investor
performance "portfolio momentum" is very confusing.

------
Paul_Morgan
Isn't this just random noise? Just because your portfolio is doing better
doesn't mean you know how to pick winners. It just means you're better at
rolling dice.

------
taigeair
This is pretty neat

