Andreessen Horowitz reports approximately $106.5 billion of regulatory assets under management, placing it at the top of this Finance Gazette comparison of major venture and growth investment firms with comparable US regulatory disclosures. Insight Partners and Sequoia Capital follow with approximately $92.2 billion and $82.2 billion respectively.
The world's largest venture firms have become considerably more complicated than the partnerships that originally defined Silicon Valley investing. They now manage multiple generations of funds, reserve billions of dollars for companies that remain private for longer and increasingly operate separate early-stage, growth, sector-specific and opportunity vehicles.
Their organisational structures have changed too. Some remain closely associated with their founders, while others are run through large partnerships in which responsibility for individual investments is distributed among dozens of investors. Several have developed operating teams, capital-markets capabilities and company-building operations that would once have looked unusual inside a venture-capital firm.
That evolution creates a basic problem when attempting to rank them. Assets under management, capital raised, regulatory AUM, private-fund gross assets and dry powder are not interchangeable measures, yet many published comparisons mix them as though they were.
Finance Gazette has therefore used regulatory assets under management disclosed by comparable SEC-registered advisers as the principal measure for this ranking. The result differs from some conventional VC league tables and, in several cases, helps explain why published estimates for the same investment firms can vary by tens of billions of dollars.
| Rank | Firm | Regulatory AUM |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Andreessen Horowitz | $106.5bn |
| 2 | Insight Partners | $92.2bn |
| 3 | Sequoia Capital | $82.2bn |
| 4 | Thrive Capital | $50.5bn |
| 5 | Lightspeed Venture Partners | $50.0bn |
| 6 | General Catalyst | $45.5bn |
| 7 | Accel Management Co. | $38.0bn |
| 8 | New Enterprise Associates | $35.6bn |
| 9 | TCV | $22.5bn |
| 10 | Ribbit Capital | $20.8bn |
Together, the ten registered investment advisers report approximately $543.8 billion of regulatory assets under management. That figure does not mean $543.8 billion is sitting uninvested or available for new deals.
For private funds, SEC regulatory AUM includes uncalled investor commitments and is calculated on a gross basis without deducting outstanding indebtedness or other liabilities. The measure is therefore useful for comparing the scale of registered advisers, but it should not be confused with dry powder or the amount of cash immediately available for deployment.
There is no universally clean definition of the world's largest venture-capital firm because the firms themselves increasingly operate across overlapping investment categories. Some organisations commonly included in VC rankings combine venture investments with hedge funds, public equities, traditional growth equity, wealth management or other businesses.
Coatue illustrates the problem particularly well. Its latest regulatory filing reports approximately $92.7 billion of RAUM, which would make it one of the largest firms in almost any table based purely on adviser assets. Filing-derived data, however, show much larger pools classified as hedge funds and private-equity funds than as venture-capital funds. Treating Coatue's entire RAUM as though it represented a conventional venture platform would therefore give a misleading impression of its business.
General Atlantic creates a similar classification issue. Its regulatory AUM is larger again, but the organisation is fundamentally a broad growth-equity and private-capital manager rather than a conventional VC firm. Including every large asset manager that occasionally backs private technology companies would eventually turn the exercise into a ranking of alternative-asset managers rather than venture firms.
Finance Gazette has therefore focused on investment organisations whose core businesses remain direct venture and growth investment in privately held companies and where a comparable registered-adviser RAUM figure is available. That necessarily excludes some famous names.
Founders Fund and Khosla Ventures, for example, currently report to the SEC as exempt reporting advisers rather than providing the same full registered-adviser disclosure used in this table. Index Ventures also discloses significant private-fund assets, but its regulatory status means the figure is not directly equivalent to the RAUM numbers used for the main ranking.
The result is deliberately narrower, but more reproducible.
Regulatory AUM: approximately $106.5 billion
Key people: Marc Andreessen and Ben Horowitz
A16Z Capital Management, the registered adviser behind Andreessen Horowitz, reported approximately $106.5 billion of regulatory AUM in its March 2026 filing. The adviser reported 119 client accounts, while Andreessen Horowitz itself now describes the organisation as having more than $100 billion under management across its investment platform.
The size of that platform becomes clearer when its latest fundraising is considered. In January 2026, co-founder Ben Horowitz announced that a16z had raised more than $15 billion across a collection of new strategies, including $6.75 billion for Growth, $1.7 billion for Apps, $1.7 billion for Infrastructure, $1.176 billion for American Dynamism and $700 million for Bio + Health, alongside a further $3 billion allocated across other venture strategies.
This structure shows why describing a16z as one generalist venture fund is increasingly inaccurate. The firm now operates specialist investment franchises covering areas including AI, healthcare, consumer technology, crypto, enterprise software, fintech, games and infrastructure, with separate pools of capital capable of supporting companies at very different stages of development.
Marc Andreessen and Ben Horowitz founded the firm in 2009 and both remain general partners. Andreessen previously co-created the Mosaic web browser and co-founded Netscape and Loudcloud/Opsware, while Horowitz was also a co-founder and chief executive of Loudcloud/Opsware before its acquisition by Hewlett-Packard.
The firm they built, however, is now considerably larger than its two founders. A16z explicitly describes an investment model organised around sector-focused investors supported by operating specialists in areas such as marketing, recruiting, policy and finance. That gives the business a structure closer to a large institutional asset-management platform than the small venture partnerships historically associated with Silicon Valley, while still retaining unusually visible founders at the centre of its public identity.
Regulatory AUM: approximately $92.2 billion
Key people: Jeff Horing, Deven Parekh and the wider managing-director group
Insight Venture Management reported approximately $92.2 billion of regulatory AUM across 181 client accounts in its March 2026 Form ADV, placing the firm second in this comparison. The figure is broadly consistent with Insight's own disclosures, which indicated regulatory AUM had risen above $90 billion when the firm announced its latest major fundraising.
In January 2025, Insight closed $12.5 billion of new capital across Insight Partners XIII, a related buyout co-investment vehicle and Opportunities Fund II. Rather than being concentrated solely on early-stage venture deals, that capital gives Insight substantial capacity to support software businesses through different stages of development, including companies requiring investments far larger than those typically associated with conventional seed or Series A funds.
This helps explain why Insight sits towards the growth end of the venture-capital spectrum. Software remains at the centre of its strategy, but the firm's scale allows it to participate throughout the lifecycle of a business, from emerging technology companies through to established private groups requiring hundreds of millions of dollars of additional capital. Its $92.2 billion regulatory-AUM figure therefore reflects not just a large venture franchise, but the broader expansion of venture investing into territory once occupied principally by dedicated growth-equity firms.
Jeff Horing co-founded Insight in 1995 and remains a managing director, while Deven Parekh has been one of the firm's senior investors since joining in 2000. Parekh has made more than 140 investments across enterprise software, data and internet businesses, according to Insight, and sits within a much broader managing-director group rather than a structure dominated by one investment chief.
That institutional model is important to understanding the firm. Insight's scale is not built around one famous founder making occasional early-stage bets; it is supported by a large specialist organisation capable of analysing software companies across different geographies, sectors and stages of maturity. The result is a platform that still belongs within the venture and growth-investment universe but operates at a scale considerably beyond the traditional venture partnership.
Regulatory AUM: approximately $82.2 billion
Key people: Alfred Lin and Pat Grady
Sequoia Capital Operations reported approximately $82.2 billion of regulatory assets under management in its July 2026 Form ADV across 60 client accounts. The number should not be interpreted as including all of the historical businesses that once operated under the Sequoia name globally.
The firm separated its China and India/Southeast Asia organisations in 2023, leaving the contemporary Sequoia business distinct from HongShan and Peak XV. Modern comparisons therefore need to focus on the entity that actually remains within Sequoia Capital rather than attaching historical global assets to the brand.
The distinction matters because Sequoia has spent decades building an investment franchise across successive generations of technology companies, yet the economic and organisational structure behind that brand has changed considerably. Its current regulatory asset base is substantial, but the people responsible for deploying it are no longer those most closely associated with earlier eras of the firm.
Sequoia's leadership changed materially in November 2025, when Alfred Lin and Pat Grady became co-stewards following Roelof Botha's departure from the steward role. Their investment profiles are different: Lin has been closely associated with seed and early-stage investing, while Grady is identified with growth-stage companies and some of the firm's largest contemporary technology positions.
This partnership model makes Sequoia structurally different from founder-led firms such as Thrive or Tiger Global. There is leadership at firm level, but responsibility for identifying, underwriting and supporting companies remains distributed among individual partners who specialise in different sectors and investment stages.
Regulatory AUM: approximately $50.5 billion
Key person: Joshua Kushner
Thrive Capital's July 2026 Form ADV reports approximately $50.5 billion of regulatory assets under management across 54 client accounts. The firm's latest fundraising gives that figure useful context because Thrive X closed in 2026 with more than $10 billion of capital.
Of that amount, approximately $1 billion was allocated to early-stage investing and $9 billion to growth-stage investing. The split is revealing: Thrive remains unmistakably part of the venture ecosystem, but the overwhelming majority of its newest capital is intended for companies that have already progressed well beyond their earliest financing rounds.
That reflects one of the most important changes in modern venture capital. Investors can initially back a company when it is relatively small but later need hundreds of millions, or potentially billions, of dollars of follow-on capacity if they want to maintain meaningful ownership as the company reaches a valuation in the tens or hundreds of billions. The growth of firms such as Thrive is therefore partly a consequence of successful private companies staying private for considerably longer.
Joshua Kushner founded Thrive Capital and remains the central figure associated with the firm. As the organisation has grown, it has added a broader investment and operating structure around him, but Thrive continues to retain a stronger founder-led identity than older multigenerational partnerships such as Sequoia or NEA.
That concentration also helps explain Thrive's investment style. The firm has frequently taken sizeable positions in a relatively concentrated group of high-conviction technology businesses, meaning a comparatively small number of companies can absorb enormous amounts of capital as they move through successive financing rounds.
Regulatory AUM: approximately $50.0 billion
Key people include Ravi Mhatre, Peter Nieh and a broad global partner group
Lightspeed Management Company reported approximately $50 billion of regulatory AUM across 51 client accounts in May 2026. Filing-derived private-fund data are particularly useful in Lightspeed's case because a large proportion of the relevant assets are associated directly with venture-capital funds, making the comparison cleaner than it is for crossover managers combining large public and private portfolios.
The firm now invests across multiple stages and sectors, with artificial intelligence becoming increasingly prominent alongside enterprise software, consumer businesses, fintech and healthcare. Lightspeed's scale allows it to participate in rounds that would have been unimaginable for earlier generations of VC funds, including multi-billion-dollar financings of frontier technology companies.
That expansion has not eliminated the importance of individual partners. Instead, the organisation has developed a global partnership in which different investors specialise in particular technologies, sectors and regions.
Lightspeed is better understood as a partnership than as a company organised around one dominant current chief executive. Its team identifies Ravi Mhatre as partner and co-founder and Peter Nieh as a co-founder, alongside a large collection of specialist investors working across the United States, Europe, Israel and other markets.
For founders seeking capital, the relevant relationship is therefore often with the partner who sourced and led the investment rather than with one executive who formally controls the organisation. This is a recurring feature of large venture firms: enormous pools of capital can sit inside institutions where investment authority remains distributed among individual partners.
Regulatory AUM: approximately $45.5 billion
Key people: Hemant Taneja and Jeannette zu Fürstenberg
General Catalyst Group Management reported approximately $45.5 billion of regulatory AUM across 49 client accounts in its July 2026 Form ADV. Its 2024 Fund XII fundraising helps explain how that capital is structured.
The firm raised approximately $8 billion of new capital, comprising around $4.5 billion for core venture funds, $1.5 billion for its Creation strategy and $2 billion through separately managed accounts. The breakdown is unusually informative because it demonstrates how far General Catalyst has moved beyond the traditional model of raising one closed-end fund and using it purely to acquire minority stakes in start-ups.
Its Creation strategy includes building companies and transformation businesses, while other pools of capital give the firm flexibility to support companies through different stages and structures. General Catalyst has explicitly discussed moving beyond a narrow definition of venture capital, and its investment model increasingly reflects that ambition.
Hemant Taneja is General Catalyst's CEO, while Jeannette zu Fürstenberg serves as president and managing director. That gives the firm a clearer formal executive structure than many conventional venture partnerships, although investment authority remains distributed through a much larger group of managing directors.
The combination is important. General Catalyst increasingly resembles a large private-capital platform with central strategic leadership, yet it still presents itself as a partnership in which individual investors develop and execute specific investment theses. Its organisational model sits somewhere between the traditional venture firm and the broader alternative-asset managers into which parts of the industry are evolving.
US regulatory AUM: approximately $38.0 billion
Key people include Andrew Braccia, Sameer Gandhi, Rich Wong and the wider Accel partnership
Accel Management Co. LLC reported approximately $38 billion of regulatory assets under management across 83 accounts in March 2026. There is, however, an important qualification: the figure relates specifically to the registered US adviser and should not automatically be treated as the consolidated worldwide AUM of every entity operating under the Accel brand.
Accel's fundraising during 2026 demonstrates the broader scale of the organisation. In April, it announced $5 billion of late-stage capital, followed in August by another $3.5 billion across four vehicles dedicated to early-stage investment in the US, Europe, Israel and India. Taken together, the two announcements represent $8.5 billion of newly announced early- and late-stage capital during the year.
The structure reveals Accel's investment philosophy. Rather than attempting to serve every stage from one enormous flagship vehicle, the firm can preserve dedicated early-stage strategies while maintaining separate pools of later-stage capital capable of continuing to support companies that perform particularly well.
Accel operates through a partnership rather than around a single chief executive. Its senior investment personnel include long-standing partners such as Andrew Braccia, Sameer Gandhi and Rich Wong, alongside investors based in London, India and other markets.
That distributed structure aligns with Accel's fundraising model. The firm can maintain geographically focused early-stage teams while operating larger later-stage vehicles across the wider platform, giving it the ability to participate in companies from their first institutional financing through substantially more mature private-market stages.
Regulatory AUM: approximately $35.6 billion
Key people: Tony Florence, Mohamad Makhzoumi and Scott Sandell
NEA Management Company reported approximately $35.6 billion of regulatory AUM across 27 accounts in March 2026. Filing-derived data indicate that most of those assets are associated with venture-capital funds, making NEA one of the cleaner examples in the ranking of a large platform whose regulatory asset figure remains predominantly tied to venture investment.
The firm is also unusually broad by sector. Unlike technology-focused firms built principally around software and internet businesses, NEA has developed major investment franchises across both technology and healthcare, allowing it to participate in areas ranging from software and infrastructure to biotechnology and medical services.
That breadth has required an organisational model capable of surviving leadership changes across decades. Founded in 1977, NEA is considerably older than many of the firms above it in this ranking and has already moved through several generations of investors.
Tony Florence and Mohamad Makhzoumi were appointed co-CEOs in 2024, while Scott Sandell became executive chairman and chief investment officer. The structure deliberately combines firm-level leadership with specialist responsibility across technology and healthcare.
Florence has spent much of his career investing in technology and software, while Makhzoumi has concentrated heavily on healthcare services and healthcare technology. NEA also identifies separate leadership for its major sector groups, reinforcing the idea that a $35 billion-plus venture organisation can no longer sensibly be understood through one famous partner alone.
Regulatory AUM: approximately $22.5 billion
Key people include Jay Hoag and the firm's executive and investment committees
TCMI Inc., operating as TCV, reported approximately $22.5 billion of regulatory AUM across 34 accounts in March 2026. TCV sits towards the growth end of the venture spectrum and has historically concentrated on technology companies that have already established meaningful scale.
The firm's own material says it has raised approximately $24 billion of capital since its creation in 1995, reflecting its long-standing role as a provider of growth capital to technology companies rather than a conventional seed investor. Its investment model is therefore more closely connected to businesses that have demonstrated product-market fit and need significant additional funding to accelerate expansion.
This makes TCV useful in understanding the blurred boundary between venture capital and growth equity. It belongs squarely within the technology investment ecosystem, but its typical investment stage is markedly different from that of early-stage firms competing to finance companies before they have established substantial revenues.
Jay Hoag is a founding general partner, chairs TCV's Investment Committee and serves on its Executive Committee. He remains an important figure within the firm, but the organisation has developed a broader group of general partners and committee members responsible for investment decisions.
TCV therefore combines founder continuity with a highly institutionalised decision-making structure. Its evolution resembles the path taken by several older venture firms: the original partners remain influential, but the business increasingly depends on systems and investment teams capable of managing capital well beyond the founders' personal portfolios.
Regulatory AUM: approximately $20.8 billion
Key person: Meyer "Micky" Malka
Ribbit Management Company reported approximately $20.8 billion of regulatory AUM across 67 accounts in March 2026. Its inclusion changes the bottom of the ranking compared with several widely circulated lists because Ribbit is a specialist financial-technology investor rather than a broad generalist venture firm.
That specialisation is precisely what makes the firm interesting. Ribbit describes itself as a global investment organisation focused on changing the world of finance, and its portfolio has historically concentrated on companies attempting to reshape banking, payments, insurance, lending and other areas of financial services.
AUM rankings can therefore obscure major differences in portfolio construction. Ribbit may manage less capital than the largest generalist firms, but a far greater proportion of its investment activity is concentrated within one industry, giving it a very different exposure profile from diversified technology platforms.
Meyer "Micky" Malka remains one of the central figures associated with the organisation and appears on Ribbit's current team alongside a wider group of investors and operating executives. The firm retains a strong founder identity while having developed into a sizeable specialist investment platform.
Its presence in the top ten also demonstrates why relying on brand recognition can produce a distorted ranking. Several venture firms that receive considerably more media attention disclose smaller comparable regulatory asset bases than Ribbit.
Founders Fund is unquestionably one of the world's most important venture firms, but its absence from the table is methodological rather than an assessment of its significance.
The firm currently reports to the SEC as an Exempt Reporting Adviser, meaning it does not provide the same full registered-adviser RAUM disclosure used for the ten firms in the main ranking. It would therefore be misleading to take a private-fund gross-asset figure from Founders Fund and place it directly beside a16z's or Sequoia's RAUM as though the measurements were identical.
The same issue applies to Khosla Ventures. Both firms can be extremely large and influential without providing the precise regulatory metric required for this particular comparison.
This distinction is one of the central reasons online lists disagree.
Index presents a different version of the same problem. Its regulatory disclosures indicate approximately $25.3 billion of gross private-fund assets, spread across a substantial collection of investment vehicles, most of which are classified as venture-capital funds.
Index, however, is an exempt reporting adviser, so that $25.3 billion figure is not the same registered-adviser RAUM measure used for the main table. Finance Gazette has therefore chosen comparability over forcing Index into an apparently exact numerical position.
That does not mean Index is economically smaller than every firm below $25.3 billion in the table. It means the public regulatory data do not support that precise apples-to-apples conclusion.
Perhaps the most important distinction in the entire ranking is the difference between assets managed and money available to invest.
Regulatory AUM can include investments already made, cash and other assets, uncalled investor commitments and assets calculated on a gross basis before certain liabilities. A firm reporting $100 billion of RAUM therefore does not necessarily have anything close to $100 billion available for new financing rounds.
Recent fundraising provides a second useful measure of investment capacity. A16z's $15 billion-plus 2026 fundraising, Thrive X's $10 billion-plus close and Accel's separate $5 billion and $3.5 billion announcements all indicate substantial amounts of newly committed capital entering those organisations, but even those figures should not automatically be equated with immediate dry powder because deployment schedules, follow-on reserves and existing commitments differ between funds.
This is one reason venture-capital comparisons need more than a single headline number. RAUM measures scale; recent fundraising gives some indication of replenished investment capacity; neither, on its own, tells the reader exactly how much money a firm can put into its next deal.
The ten firms reveal several very different governance models. Andreessen Horowitz and Thrive remain strongly associated with their founders, while Sequoia and Accel operate more obviously as partnerships in which authority is distributed among successive generations of investors.
General Catalyst combines a formal chief-executive structure with a broader partnership model. NEA has deliberately moved through a leadership transition, while TCV retains a founding partner at the centre of its investment committee but has built a wider institutional structure around him.
These differences matter because venture capital remains unusually dependent on individual judgement. Assets may technically be managed by a legal investment adviser, but investment theses are developed, companies are selected and board relationships are maintained by individual partners.
Understanding who controls the organisation and who actually decides where its capital goes is therefore part of understanding the financial institution itself.
The growth of private technology companies is one of the main explanations. Businesses increasingly remain private at valuations that once would almost certainly have resulted in a public listing, forcing investors that want to preserve their ownership to commit substantially more capital through later financing rounds.
Artificial intelligence has intensified the trend because model development, computing infrastructure and specialist talent can require extraordinary amounts of money. The financing needs of frontier AI businesses bear little resemblance to those of traditional software start-ups that could scale with comparatively modest infrastructure spending.
Large venture firms therefore face a choice. They can invest early and accept substantial dilution as successful companies raise progressively larger rounds, or they can build growth vehicles capable of continuing to finance their strongest portfolio companies.
Thrive X illustrates the second approach particularly clearly, with approximately $1 billion allocated to early-stage investment and $9 billion to growth. Accel has chosen a different structure by announcing separate pools of capital for earlier and later stages, while General Catalyst has spread capital across conventional venture funds, company creation and separately managed accounts.
There is consequently no single model for becoming a $40 billion, $50 billion or $100 billion venture platform.
In many cases, only partly.
There remains a meaningful difference between a venture investor buying a minority position in an early-stage business and an alternative-asset manager operating across private equity, credit, infrastructure and public markets. The distinction becomes less clear, however, when a venture firm can invest at seed, provide hundreds of millions of dollars in a growth round, buy secondary shares and continue holding a company as it approaches the public markets.
Those activities were once performed by separate categories of investor. They can now coexist inside the same platform.
That is why the business model matters as much as the headline AUM figure. Two investment organisations with $50 billion under regulatory management can have very different portfolios, fund structures, stage exposures and decision-making processes.
No. Regulatory AUM measures financial scale rather than internal rate of return, realised gains, distributions to investors, investment multiples or the quality of future investment decisions.
A smaller seed-stage fund can theoretically produce substantially stronger returns than a platform managing tens of billions of dollars. Venture capital has historically been characterised by power-law outcomes, with a relatively small number of exceptional companies accounting for a disproportionate share of total fund performance.
Scale nevertheless creates capabilities smaller firms cannot easily replicate. A large platform can maintain ownership through successive financing rounds, provide unusually large growth investments, employ specialist teams and support portfolio companies across multiple geographies.
The appropriate conclusion is therefore that AUM measures capacity and scale, not investment quality.
Andreessen Horowitz ranks first under the Finance Gazette methodology, with approximately $106.5 billion of regulatory AUM reported by A16Z Capital Management.
The firm separately states that it now manages more than $100 billion across its investment platform.
Insight Partners ranks second with approximately $92.2 billion of regulatory AUM, followed by Sequoia Capital at approximately $82.2 billion.
Coatue reports approximately $92.7 billion of regulatory AUM, but it is a diversified public/private investment manager whose regulatory fund data contain much larger hedge-fund and private-equity pools than venture-capital funds.
Finance Gazette therefore excludes it from the comparable venture-focused ranking rather than treating all of its regulatory assets as though they belonged to a conventional VC platform.
Founders Fund is an exempt reporting adviser and does not disclose the same full registered-adviser RAUM measure used for the main ranking.
That means its available private-fund asset figures cannot be inserted directly into this table without mixing different regulatory measures.
No. Regulatory AUM can include investments already held and uncalled investor commitments, so it should not be interpreted as dry powder.
Recent fundraising can provide additional information about current investment capacity, but even capital raised is not necessarily immediately available for entirely new deals because funds also reserve money for follow-on investments and other commitments.
Differences can result from different reporting dates, regulatory AUM being confused with private-fund gross assets, capital raised being substituted for assets managed, global firms operating through multiple legal advisers, or public and private assets being combined.
Estimates can also be used where firms do not disclose a directly comparable regulatory figure. A credible comparison therefore needs to identify both the source and the definition behind every number.
Venture capital represents only one part of the rapidly expanding private-markets industry. For a broader comparison of the firms controlling some of the world's largest pools of private capital, see Finance Gazette's ranking of The 10 Largest Private Equity Firms in the World in 2026.
Blackstone remains the world's largest private-markets manager, with almost $1.35 trillion under management. It is followed by Brookfield Asset Management and Apollo Global Management, both of which now oversee more than $1 trillion.
The ranking examines the latest company-reported assets under management for Blackstone, Brookfield, Apollo, KKR, Ares, Carlyle, EQT, TPG, Blue Owl and CVC, while explaining how private equity, private credit, infrastructure, real estate and insurance-related capital have transformed the world's biggest alternative-asset managers.
