austin - PitchBook

AUSTIN

2016

Credits & Contact PitchBook Data, Inc. JOHN GABBERT Founder, CEO ADLEY BOWDEN Vice President, Market Development & Analysis

Content GARRET T JAMES BL ACK Senior Analyst BRYAN HANSON Data Analyst J ENNIFER SAM Senior Graphic Designer

Contact PitchBook

Contents

pitchbook.com RESE ARCH [email protected] EDITORIAL [email protected]

3

Introduction

SALES [email protected]

Review: Austin in the US venture ecosystem

4

Economy

5

Investment activity

6-10

Exits & fundraising

11-12

Select league tables

13

COPYRIGHT © 2017 by PitchBook Data, Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form or by any means—graphic, electronic, or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, taping, and information storage and retrieval systems—without the express written permission of PitchBook Data, Inc. Contents are based on information from sources believed to be reliable, but accuracy and completeness cannot be guaranteed. Nothing herein should be construed as any past, current or future recommendation to buy or sell any security or an offer to sell, or a solicitation of an offer to buy any security. This material does not purport to contain all of the information that a prospective investor may wish to consider and is not to be relied upon as such or used in substitution for the exercise of independent judgment. Photo courtesy of Eric Hunt, Wikimedia Commons.

The PitchBook Platform The data in this report comes from the PitchBook Platform–our data software for VC, PE and M&A. Contact [email protected] to request a free trial.

2 P I TC H B O O K 201 6 V E N T U R E E CO S YS T E M FAC T B O O K : AU S T I N

A promising venture ecosystem facing hurdles Introduction When it comes to analyzing trends in venture investment, thinking in terms of an ecosystem is one of the more powerful approaches, as much within venture capital is not quite as quantifiable as one would like. Moreover, framing an investment ecosystem as an overlapping, interlocking system of cycles is especially illuminating when it comes to analysis of VC within a specific region, given the interplay between general business cycles, fund investing lifecycles, policy mandates and more. For example, the primary narrative for the US venture industry throughout 2016 has been a decline in activity even as valuations have remained relatively strong, with certain metropolitan areas enjoying more resilient numbers than others. But when zeroing in on one of those metropolitan areas, the location-specific historical trend in the supply of startups jockeying for and garnering VC investment becomes a more critical component for analysis.

Look up a company. And its cap table. And its investors. And its EBITDA multiples. And its board members. In seconds.

The metro-specific growth over the past several years also matters considerably. On top of that, it’s important to highlight how metro-specific venture activity is necessarily limited by the speed of the spread of viable information within a given network, plus the size of the nodes in a venture network, i.e. the size of

The PitchBook Platform

capital sources. Likewise, livability and interconnectivity within a metro matter,

has the data you need

ranging from metrics such as ease of doing business to tax rates to typical rents

to close your next deal.

to sprawl. The purpose of this PitchBook report series is to place PitchBook venture data within a broader context on a more geography-specific basis, the better to illustrate potential use cases for analysis. It’s critical to note that within that broader context one must take timing into account. The growth percentage

Learn more at pitchbook.com

over time is an important indicator of a venture ecosystem’s overall health, as one of my collaborators remarked during our review, and there is always more to any existing ecosystem than can be rendered in a dataset. As this is the inaugural installment of the metro-specific series, we welcome your feedback and questions—reach out to us at [email protected]. I’d like to thank S3 Ventures, Sante Ventures, the Austin Chamber of Commerce, PTV Healthcare Capital, and the National Venture Capital Association, among others whom assisted in the production of this report.

GARRET T JAMES BL ACK Senior Analyst


Review: Austin in US venture ecosystem Snapshot of Austin MSA’s size within the US venture ecosystem as a whole In early August 2016 we released the

of the 12 venture ecosystems below,

entail quality in any way. What is more

first US Venture Ecosystem: FactBook,

to provide some context for where

important to note from the table below

the largest PitchBook report ever and

the Austin MSA venture ecosystem

before moving on is which key factors

a compendium of venture and relevant

stood in terms of overall size in mid-

in the venture industry matter most

economic datasets for the top 12 (by

2016. More rigorously assessing the

for a smaller ecosystem—which Austin

overall venture activity) metro areas

quality of a given venture ecosystem is

certainly is—among the ones already

within the US. Just as a recap, we have

something we are still working toward,

enumerated in the introduction.

reproduced the table ranking the size

so we’d like to stress that size does not

Note: As of 6/30/2016, this ranking was generated by weighting capital raised, VC invested, VC activity and venture-backed exit value equally, tallying up their ranking in each area, then summing and sorting from lowest to highest, with a lower score indicating a larger ecosystem.

MSA

Size of VC ecosystem, ranked

Total VC funds raised since 2006

Total VC invested since 2010

Total # of VC rounds since 2010

San Francisco

#1

#1

$117.6 billion

#1

$101.4 billion

#1

9,710

#1

$90.8 billion

San Jose

#2

#4

$35.5 billion

#2

$43.3 billion

#3

4,152

#2

$63.5 billion

New York

#3*

#2

$43.6 billion

#3

$33.9 billion

#2

6,174

#4

$17.6 billion

Boston

#4

#3

$41.2 billion

#4

$30.7 billion

#4 3,664

#3

$28.7 billion

Los Angeles

#5

#9

$2.7 billion

#5

$21.3 billion

#5 3,403

#5

$11.2 billion

Seattle

#6

#5

$7.6 billion

#7

$8.4 billion

#6

1,717

#10

$6.7 billion

Chicago

#7

#7

$3.4 billion

#8

$8.3 billion

#9

1,348

#6

$9.95 billion

Washington, DC

#8

#6

$4.8 billion

#9

$8.2 billion

#7

1,416

#9

$7.4 billion

San Diego

#9

#11

$1.5 billion

#6

$9.4 billion

#10 1,317

#7

$8.7 billion

Austin

#10

#10

$1.9 billion

#10

$6.6 billion

#8

1,376

#12

$3.7 billion

Philadelphia

#11

#8

$3.0 billion

#12

$4.8 billion

#11 1,003

#11

$5.4 billion

Atlanta

#12

#12

$1.15 billion

#11

$5.0 billion

#12

#8

$7.8 billion

837

Total exit value since 2010

Source: PitchBook. *New York and San Jose technically tied but given San Jose’s exit value and VC invested we gave it second place.


Economy Austin’s current economic condition & recent trends When assessing how the health of the

cultural reputation, as well as a sizable

parties, it appears the area is still

local economy impacts the venture

transportation bill that passed recently

and will remain quite attractive as a

ecosystem, some primary factors to

and input from multiple domestic

residence for some time.

look at are tax burdens, relative wages, rental rates and the supply of talent. Seasonal temporary hiring contributed to Austin’s unadjusted employment rate declining to 3% in December 2016, while Texas on the whole saw a 4.6% seasonally adjusted jobless rate in November 2016, per the Texas

Texas has no corporate, individual income or state property tax. It also ranks 41st among the 50 US states in taxes paid per $1,000 of personal income, at $88.

Workforce Commission. Austin and Texas on the whole are still exhibiting significantly strong numbers, but by and large it appears the marked

Austin metropolitan statistical area

Select statistics

Labor force, 2016*

1,101,336

Labor force growth, Oct. ‘15-Oct. ‘16

2.3%

Employment growth, Oct. ‘15-Oct. ‘16

2.4%

Unemployment growth, Oct. ‘15-Oct. ‘16

-0.9%

Average hourly earnings of all employees, August 2016

$27.35

Growth in average hourly earnings of all employees, 2015 YTD-2016 YTD

2.4%

Change in existing building inventory, 2015 YTD-2016 YTD

0.93%

Change in vacancy rate, 2015 YTD-2016 YTD

-0.2%

Change in quoted full-service equivalent rental rates

8.2%

Quoted full-service equivalency rental rate

$32.7

Change in existing home sales, 2015 YTD-2016 YTD

3.8%

Change in existing home average price, 2015 YTD-2016 YTD

5.3%

Metro Business Cycle Index, August 2016 (Oct. 1980=100)

795.34

Change in Metro Business Cycle Index, 2015 YTD-2016 YTD

6.4%

Austin Business-Cycle Index, October 2016*

2.9%

Monthly change in unemployment rate, September 2016-October 2016*

-0.2%

Change in percentage of homes sold that were affordable for medianincome families, 2Q 2016-3Q 2016*

2.4%

expansion since the financial crisis is slowing. The Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas released data in late December showing the Austin Business-Cycle Index grew by an annualized rate of 2.9% in October 2016, considerably below relative to the last decade as a whole. We emphasize year-over-year changes—the better to gauge more recent changes that will have affected current sentiment—so the impact of monthly or quarterly influxes of data do not overly drown out longer-term trends. Such longer-term perspectives are crucial to take into account when considering typical venture investment cycles. That said, a more recent decline in economic indicators, however, will contribute to and may have already clouded domestic and outside investor sentiment, at least somewhat. For now, the state of the Austin economy is still quite healthy—any negative changes are distinct mainly due to the fact they are in proportion to previous, markedly strong numbers. A brief note on Austin’s livability: Given the increasing popularity of events such as SXSW and Austin’s persisting

Sources: US Bureau of Labor Statistics, CoStar Group, Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, Real Estate Center at Texas A+M University & National Association of Realtors, & Texas Workforce Commission, data not seasonally adjusted. YTD as of 11/19/2016 excepting average hourly earnings, which are as of 9/29/2016. Office rental data is as of 10/6/2016, residential as of 11/1/2016. *As of 12/1/2016.


Investment activity An overview of Austin’s venture investment activity Overall, the rate of venture investing in Austin startups has slid considerably, after a boom period of two years straight Austin MSA venture activity

Deal Value ($M)

Investment in Austin-based startups is on the downswing relative to elevated activity from 2014 to 2015. Beginning in the final quarter of 2015,

# of Deals Closed 286

activity has oscillated in a subdued

296

fashion on a quarterly basis, although aggregate capital invested flatlined

251

in the back half of 2016. There are

Source: PitchBook

199

190

multiple challenges that could contribute to a cyclical downturn within Austin specifically, relative

156

to the nationwide decline. As we’ve

134

healthy, but among these challenges decreasing the probability of VCs finding worthwhile opportunities; lack

$978

$1,291

$1,424

$811

$996

$881

$688

are: an insufficient supply of startups

$459

98

$905

102

$846

$633

78

already seen, the local economy is

107

of robust domestic sources of capital; declining interest on the part of both

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

local and outside investors due to increases in perception of risk; and a sluggish recycling of capital. So which of these are most relevant for Austin, right now?

Austin MSA venture activity

$600.0

90 Deal Value ($M)

# of Deals Closed

80

$500.0

70

Source: PitchBook

60

$400.0

50

$300.0

40 30

$200.0

20

$100.0

10

$0.0

0 1Q 2Q 3Q 4Q 1Q 2Q 3Q 4Q 1Q 2Q 3Q 4Q 1Q 2Q 3Q 4Q 1Q 2Q 3Q 4Q 1Q 2Q 3Q 4Q 1Q 2Q 3Q 4Q 2010

2011

2012

2013

2014


2015

2016

According to the most recent edition

resolutely high median financing size

experience somewhat insulated rises in

of the Kauffman Index of Startup

and post-valuation—particularly at

those metrics, interconnected as they

Activity, the Austin metro area

the late stage—imply that investors’

are by information flow but insulated

ranked first in the US in its rate of

supply of capital is still ample, yet the

somewhat by relative costs and

new entrepreneurs and fourth in

benchmarks for obtaining financings

available/willing sources of capital. It’s

terms of startup density (defined as

of such size have shifted upward. Each

easy to ascribe such a shift to a typical

number of startups per 1,000 firm

venture ecosystem across the US will

period in any investment cycle where

population), plus second in growth entrepreneurship. It should be noted that the composition of that startup population is diverse enough that it

First financings have also declined considerably in number through the end of 2016 but value has remained stable First-time financings of Austin MSA-based startups

may not be exactly representative of the types of industries that are

Deal Value ($M)

likely to attract venture capital—food

# of Deals Closed 96

vendors such as taco trucks, for

87

instance. The strong supply of new

85

business formation makes sense in the context of economic data—it’s simply

39

38

55

57

$119

not as much of an issue, from both

$167

of startups likely to vie for funding is

$148

Austin. Accordingly, the total supply

$103

65

less expensive to build companies in

49

43

25

quantitative and anecdotal angles.

drop-off in the number of first-time

$144

$189

$197

$103

financing activity overall plus a

$249

are. Coupled with a decline in

$105

$150

But inflated financings and valuations

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

financings (although VC invested in

Source: PitchBook

first-time rounds is quite robust), the

Activity may be declining, but median sums invested remain resolutely high Median venture financing size ($M) in Austin MSA

Valuations are either up or at least staying flat Median venture financing post valuation ($M) in Austin MSA

$12.0

$90.0 Angel/Seed

Early Stage VC

Later Stage VC

$10.0

$9.3

$8.0 $6.0 $4.0

$80.0

Angel/Seed

Early Stage VC

Later Stage VC

$70.0 $60.0

$60.0 $50.0 $5.9

$40.0

$3.96 $4.0

$33.5

$30.0

$20.8 $21.5

$20.0

$2.0 $0.7

$1.0

$0.0

$10.0

$5.0

$4.5

$0.0 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Source: PitchBook


Source: PitchBook

investors fear of overexuberance

follow-on rounds becomes more

as that which was observed in 2016

and oversupply of capital leading to

crucial. Sufficient levels of funding

through late November could portend

slumping returns on sums invested

across the entire capital stack has a

ill for the width of the startup pipeline

and consequently begin to pull back

greater impact when analyzing overall

when it comes to Series A funding

somewhat. Thus, once reversion to the

activity on a metro scale. There was

down the line. Such a phenomenon

mean has completed, Austin is likely

a significant ramp-up in seed-stage

could well have come into effect in

to see venture financing creep up

financings in tandem with a much

2016 already, happening to any given

once more, barring significant macro

more modest increase in Series A

series of financing and subsequent

shocks.

fundings across the past few years,

rounds. Accordingly, with overall

for example. This increase doubtless

supply not being an issue yet the

already fed into Series A financings

benchmarks of quality for startups to

that are occurring now. Yet any

garner venture financing having moved

potential slump in the seed stage such

upward in a highly valued climate, the

However, when it comes to metro-level analysis, the pipeline of previously financed companies eligible for

Proportionally, later stages are still resilient yet Series A financings hit a multiyear low in 2016 Austin MSA VC activity (#) by series

Quite coincidentally, Series B financings saw no less than $211.5M in total value in 2016 Austin MSA VC activity ($M) by series

200

$1,400.0

180 160 140

Seed

Series A

Series C

Series D+

Series B

$1,200.0 $1,000.0

120

Seed

Series A

Series C

Series D+

Series B

$800.0

100 $600.0

80 60

$400.0

40

$200.0

20 $0.0

0

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Source: PitchBook

Source: PitchBook

Aligning with national trends, early-stage numbers have been hit hard Austin MSA VC activity (#) by round size

Capital invested in significantly sized rounds has declined but not as sharply Austin MSA VC activity ($M) by round size

300

$1,600

250

200

Under $500K

$500K-$1M

$1M-$5M

$5M-$10M

$10M-$25M

$25M+

$1,400 $1,200

Under $500K

$500K-$1M

$1M-$5M

$5M-$10M

$10M-$25M

$25M+

Source: PitchBook

Source: PitchBook

$1,000

150

$800 $600

100

$400 50

$200

0 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

$0 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016


Austin MSA VC activity ($M) by sector

stutter in the startup pipeline could

100%

80%

60%

40%

Commercial Services Consumer Goods & Recreation Energy

lead to repercussions in the years to

HC Devices & Supplies HC Services & Systems IT Hardware

activity within sectors more primed

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

Software

Austin MSA VC activity (#) by sector

80%

60%

40%

0% 2015

the creation of new healthcarerelated startups. Anecdotally, the underrepresented in Austin—if not the nation—as of late in the gradual recovery since the financial crisis, barring a gradual uptick in Austin over within a venture ecosystem matters more and more nowadays for longterm health. Particularly as the lines between various sectors blur with

Software

2016

the new center could help engender

the past few years. Sector diversity

advances in enterprise-specific

thriving venture/startup ecosystem will

# of Deals Closed

see more startups geared toward such

12

Source: PitchBook

software programs and advances in certain hardware segments, a truly

Austin MSA VC activity in healthcare devices & services

confluences. Similar interactions are

11

10 8

Innovation—that will target connecting

healthcare sector pipeline is still

Source: PitchBook

Deal Value ($M)

of a nonprofit—Capital City

HC Devices & Supplies HC Services & Systems IT Hardware

Pharma & Biotech 2014

opening of the new Dell Seton Medical

research and development efforts at

Other

20%

2013

startup formation considerably. The

Commercial Services Consumer Goods & Recreation Energy

Media

2012

ecosystem framework, the formation

entrepreneurs with the healthcare

100%

2011

Particularly analyzing within an

Center as well as the establishment

Source: PitchBook

2010

to attract venture investors’ interest.

companies plays into such associated

Pharma & Biotech 2010

also regulated by ongoing startup

or headquarters relocations of major

Other

0%

However, the timeline of supply is

of sizable new educational institutions

Media 20%

come for the Austin area.

crucial for sectors apart from general consumer and enterprise software,

9

9

which have benefited more directly

8

than most from the dramatic decrease in launching costs over the past 15

7

5

years. Examples include startups

6

targeting medical records systems in particular with tailored capabilities as

$23

$37

$27

$114

$71

$29

$48

$16

$103

opposed to, say, a general filesharing

$55

$14

4

service like Dropbox. Drawing outside investment is critical

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 9 P I TC H B O O K 201 6 V E N T U R E E CO S YS T E M FAC T B O O K : AU S T I N

to the health of any ecosystem,

investors’ participation has remained

Up until 2016, outside firms/angels

particularly those in mid-growth stages

stable, while financing counts have

participated in far more angel/seed

such as Austin’s, and encouraging

actually fared better, relatively

fundings relative to other stages, but

such sector interconnections will be

speaking, than the total number of

through the end of 2016, early and

crucial in maintaining outside investors’

completed financings, at least in terms

late-stage numbers have remained

interest. In the past handful of years,

of pace in proportion to 2015. That

more resilient proportionally. This also

Austin has been hyped as a startup

may be due more to Austin’s relatively

testifies to how Austin’s population of

destination for multiple reasons,

lower costs as well as a crop of

startups is still healthy, some of which

particularly lower launch and operating

promising startups emerging from the

are still able to garner financing after

costs plus enhanced livability and

recent boom in angel/seed investment

benchmarks have shifted.

cultural appeal. Amid the slump in

and now attracting outside interest as

activity, the tally of rounds with outside

they contribute to Austin’s reputation as a thriving startup ecosystem.

Investment in Austin MSA-based companies with participation by investors headquartered outside Texas 170

Deal Value ($M)

100%

181

90%

145

# of Deals Closed

140

106

70%

50%

86

79

40% 30%

63 49

80%

60%

Source: PitchBook

47

Investments ($M) by size in Austin MSA-based companies with participation by investors headquartered outside Texas

20%

50

10% 2010

$498

$571

$895

$416

$536

$392

$313

$242

$306

$282

$319

0%

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

2013

$500K-$1M

$5M-$10M

$10M-$25M

2014

2015

2016

$1M-$5M $25M+ Source: PitchBook

100%

120 Angel/Seed

Early VC

Late VC

90%

104

100

80% 70%

Source: PitchBook

80

60% 76

60

50% 40%

38 25

20

2012

Investment (#) by size in Austin MSA-based companies with participation by investors headquartered outside Texas

Investment (#) by stage in Austin MSA-based companies with participation by investors headquartered outside Texas

40

2011

Under $500K

30% 34 19

20% 10% 0% 2010

0 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

2011

2012

2013

Under $500K

$500K-$1M

$5M-$10M

$10M-$25M

2014

2015

2016

$1M-$5M $25M+ Source: PitchBook


Exits & fundraising Datasets of venture-backed exits and local venture fundraising in Austin A central component of any venture ecosystem is the recycling of dollars invested by both LPs and GPs. In

Given the historical scale of Austin exits, activity in 2016 has been relatively healthy, although value was toward the lower end Venture-backed exits of Austin MSA-based companies

the overall fundraising and investing

Exit Value ($M)

cycle, attrition will occur at certain

# of Exits

periods, yet if long-term fund

their money back, then any local ecosystem cannot survive. And, to

19

18

$604

fund investors eventually getting

$859

economics do not work out, with

19

18

17

14

reiterate an earlier point, without a reasonably healthy local ecosystem,

24

23

12

12

outside investment simply will not be feasible. Accordingly, the relatively stable level of venture-backed exits of

tallies. However, considering the natural lag between investment and

$361

$530

$254

$502

$520

$986

$391

is toward the lower end of historical

$156

well, although the total value exited

7 $190

Austin-based companies in 2016 bodes

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Source: PitchBook

exit periods, 2016 exit value is decent relative to annual sums invested between 2006 and 2013.

Interestingly, acquisitions are at a decade low Venture-backed exits (#) by type of Austin MSA-based companies

Corporate buyers still shell out the most, however Venture-backed exits ($M) by type of Austin MSAbased companies

100%

100%

90%

90%

80%

80%

70%

70%

60%

60%

50%

50%

40%

40%

30%

30%

20%

20%

10%

10% 0%

0% 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Acquisition Buyout IPO

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Acquisition Buyout IPO

Source: PitchBook


Source: PitchBook

The peak of domestic fundraising is still carrying forward, given typical investment lifecycles Austin MSA venture fundraising

Capital Raised ($B)

4

The timing of fundraising and exit cycles could be initially presumed to roughly sync, with a successful fundraising period overlapping

4

4

somewhat with hefty sums exited, yet the impact of hype cycles and

# of Funds Closed

flourishing local startup scenes should not be overlooked. Hence the surge in

3

3

domestic funds closed between 2013 and 2014. Many of the funds raised

2

even two to three years ago are likely

2

still investing, although some are perhaps nearing the tail end of their active period. With outside investors

$97

$268

$462

$105

$39

$0

$147

$20

$821

1

1

in Austin, the role of local firms in

$75

still maintaining a significant presence

1

syndicates will still be crucial, yet not solely responsible for bolstering investment totals. That said, greater

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Source: PitchBook

growth is unlikely to occur without a ramp-up in domestic fundraising.

A fair number of lucrative exits occurred Venture-backed exits of Austin MSA-based companies (#) by size

A clear majority of exit value in several sizable sales Venture-backed exits of Austin MSA-based companies ($M) by size

100%

100%

90%

90%

80%

80%

70%

70%

60%

60%

50%

50%

40%

40%

30%

30%

20%

20%

10%

10%

0%

0% 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Under $25M

$25M-$50M

$50M-$100M

$100M-$500M

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Under $25M

$25M-$50M

Source: PitchBook


$50M-$100M

$100M-$500M Source: PitchBook

Select league tables Select rankings of most active investors and deals in Austin Most active investors in Austin MSA Capital Factory

10

Silverton Partners

9

Central Texas Angel Network

9

LiveOak Venture Partners

5

Mercury Fund

5

Wild Basin Investments

5

ATX Seed Ventures

4

Floodgate Fund

4

S3 Ventures

4

Techstars

4

UT Horizon Fund

4

Altos Ventures

3

Founders Fund

3

Frontier Tech Ventures

3

New Science Ventures

3

Noro-Moseley Partners

3 Source: PitchBook

Select 2016 venture financings of companies headquartered in Austin Company

Deal size ($M)

Series/ stage

Sector

Select investors

Pivot3

$55.5

C

Systems & info mgmt

Argonaut Private Equity, S3 Ventures

Spredfast

$50.1

F

Media & info services

Riverwood Capital

Lumos Pharma

$34

B

Drug discovery

Deerfield Management

Bigcommerce

$30

E

Business/ productivity software

GGV Capital, American Express Ventures, SoftBank Capital

Silvercar

$28

C

Automotive

Audi of America, Austin Ventures

CognitiveScale

$21.8

B

Systems & info mgmt

Norwest Venture Partners, Intel Capital

FloSports

$21.2

B

Social/ platform software

DCM Ventures, Bertelsmann Digital Media Investments

Twyla

$19

A

Specialty retail

Google Ventures

OutboundEngine

$18

C


S3 Ventures, Altos Ventures, Silverton Partners

ESO Solutions

$17.7

C

Medical records systems

Accel-KKR, Wild Basin Investments

The Zebra

$17

A


Ballast Point Ventures, Daher Capital

TrendKite

$16.3

D

Business/ productivity software

Adams Street Partners, Mercury Fund Source: PitchBook

All league tables are compiled using the number of completed VC rounds for Austin MSA or Austin-based companies in 2016 through December 31. To ensure your firm is accurately represented in future PitchBook reports, please contact [email protected].

Venture capital Venture capital, for the purposes of this report, is defined as institutional investors that have raised a fund structured as a limited partnership from a group of accredited investors, or a corporate entity making venture capital investments.

Valuations Pre-money valuation: the valuation of a company prior to the round of investment. Post-money valuation: the valuation of a company following an investment.

Exits This report includes both full and partial exits via mergers and acquisitions, private equity buyouts and IPOs.

Fundraising This report includes Austin-based venture capital funds that have held a final close. Funds-of-funds and secondary funds are not included. 13 P I TC H B O O K 201 6 V E N T U R E E CO S YS T E M FAC T B O O K : AU S T I N

We do EBITDA multiples, private comps, valuations, market trends, growth metrics. You build a better portfolio.

See how the PitchBook Platform can help your private equity firm close your next deal. [email protected]