Read this first. Survival is measured from incorporation, not from the date of investment — CompanyBeacon does not hold investment dates, so this is a company-age measure, not a holding-period return. Remaining on the register is not success: companies are also dissolved after an acquisition, a solvent wind-down or a group restructure. Portfolio membership comes from a curated snapshot dated 2026-03-31 and does not prove a fund currently holds a position.
Companies with a date3,145
Currently active2,383
Funds comparable57
Separated from norm1
The main finding. Raw active rates across the 57 comparable funds span 54.2% to 92.0% — a spread that invites a league table. Once each portfolio is measured against the survival rate of its own incorporation cohorts, 1 of 57 separate from the norm by more than ordinary variation. Most of the apparent difference between these funds is the age of their portfolios, not their selection.
Survival by incorporation year
Each row is every tracked company incorporated in that year, counted once. Cohorts of fewer than 15 companies are excluded because the rate moves too far on a single dissolution. The most recent cohorts have had little time to fail, which is exactly why the fund table below adjusts for it.
| Incorporated | Companies | Still active | Active rate | Share active |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1996 | 15 | 13 | 86.7% | |
| 1997 | 16 | 8 | 50.0% | |
| 1999 | 15 | 10 | 66.7% | |
| 2000 | 25 | 22 | 88.0% | |
| 2001 | 19 | 15 | 78.9% | |
| 2002 | 29 | 19 | 65.5% | |
| 2003 | 35 | 26 | 74.3% | |
| 2004 | 28 | 21 | 75.0% | |
| 2005 | 39 | 30 | 76.9% | |
| 2006 | 49 | 31 | 63.3% | |
| 2007 | 68 | 50 | 73.5% | |
| 2008 | 52 | 26 | 50.0% | |
| 2009 | 58 | 40 | 69.0% | |
| 2010 | 71 | 50 | 70.4% | |
| 2011 | 73 | 49 | 67.1% | |
| 2012 | 102 | 73 | 71.6% | |
| 2013 | 114 | 80 | 70.2% | |
| 2014 | 146 | 109 | 74.7% | |
| 2015 | 158 | 105 | 66.5% | |
| 2016 | 188 | 151 | 80.3% | |
| 2017 | 190 | 139 | 73.2% | |
| 2018 | 210 | 163 | 77.6% | |
| 2019 | 194 | 159 | 82.0% | |
| 2020 | 208 | 160 | 76.9% | |
| 2021 | 210 | 170 | 81.0% | |
| 2022 | 216 | 172 | 79.6% | |
| 2023 | 196 | 155 | 79.1% | |
| 2024 | 153 | 109 | 71.2% | |
| 2025 | 150 | 133 | 88.7% | |
| 2026 | 23 | 23 | 100.0% |
Active rate by company age
| Age reached | Companies | Still active | Active rate |
|---|---|---|---|
| 3+ years since incorporation | 2,819 | 2,118 | 75.1% |
| 5+ years since incorporation | 2,407 | 1,791 | 74.4% |
| 10+ years since incorporation | 1,395 | 1,000 | 71.7% |
Fund comparison, adjusted for portfolio vintage
A fund's raw active rate largely reflects how recently it invested. The adjusted ratio divides the companies actually active by the number expected if each company had performed like the whole corpus of its own incorporation year. 1.00 means exactly as expected for that vintage. The bracketed range is a 95% interval; where it spans 1.00 the difference is not distinguishable from normal variation, which is the case for most funds here. Only funds with at least 20 dated companies are shown.
| Fund | Companies dated | Active | Raw active rate | Expected active | Vintage-adjusted ratio | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Foresight Enterprise VCT plc | 50 | 46 | 92.0% | 36.5 | 1.26 (0.90–1.63) | In line with vintage |
| Northern 2 VCT PLC | 47 | 42 | 89.4% | 34.9 | 1.20 (0.84–1.57) | In line with vintage |
| Foresight Technology VCT Plc | 28 | 25 | 89.3% | 21.2 | 1.18 (0.72–1.64) | In line with vintage |
| Oxford Science Enterprises | 28 | 25 | 89.3% | 21.2 | 1.18 (0.72–1.64) | In line with vintage |
| Amadeus Capital | 27 | 24 | 88.9% | 20.5 | 1.17 (0.70–1.64) | In line with vintage |
| British Business Investments SEIS | 27 | 23 | 85.2% | 20.0 | 1.15 (0.68–1.62) | In line with vintage |
| Zinc VC | 53 | 47 | 88.7% | 40.8 | 1.15 (0.82–1.48) | In line with vintage |
| Playfair Capital | 49 | 41 | 83.7% | 36.0 | 1.14 (0.79–1.49) | In line with vintage |
| Mercia EIS | 69 | 59 | 84.3% | 51.9 | 1.14 (0.85–1.43) | In line with vintage |
| Parkwalk | 81 | 68 | 84.0% | 60.4 | 1.13 (0.86–1.39) | In line with vintage |
| Ascension Ventures | 69 | 59 | 83.1% | 53.3 | 1.11 (0.82–1.39) | In line with vintage |
| MMC Ventures | 65 | 54 | 83.1% | 48.9 | 1.10 (0.81–1.40) | In line with vintage |
| Concept Ventures | 23 | 20 | 87.0% | 18.2 | 1.10 (0.62–1.58) | In line with vintage |
| Cambridge Enterprise | 34 | 28 | 82.4% | 25.5 | 1.10 (0.69–1.50) | In line with vintage |
| Haatch | 46 | 39 | 84.8% | 35.8 | 1.09 (0.75–1.43) | In line with vintage |
| Bethnal Green Ventures | 61 | 50 | 80.6% | 45.9 | 1.09 (0.79–1.39) | In line with vintage |
| Triple Point Ventures | 22 | 18 | 81.8% | 16.6 | 1.09 (0.58–1.59) | In line with vintage |
| Octopus Ventures EIS | 56 | 47 | 82.5% | 43.5 | 1.08 (0.77–1.39) | In line with vintage |
| SyndicateRoom | 46 | 37 | 80.4% | 34.3 | 1.08 (0.73–1.43) | In line with vintage |
| BGF | 91 | 73 | 80.2% | 67.8 | 1.08 (0.83–1.32) | In line with vintage |
| Symvan Capital | 50 | 39 | 78.0% | 37.2 | 1.05 (0.72–1.38) | In line with vintage |
| SuperSeed | 27 | 21 | 75.0% | 20.2 | 1.04 (0.59–1.48) | In line with vintage |
| IW Capital | 21 | 16 | 76.2% | 15.5 | 1.03 (0.53–1.54) | In line with vintage |
| Oxford Capital | 24 | 19 | 79.2% | 18.4 | 1.03 (0.57–1.49) | In line with vintage |
| Par Equity | 50 | 38 | 76.0% | 37.1 | 1.02 (0.70–1.35) | In line with vintage |
| Fuel Ventures | 108 | 85 | 78.0% | 83.2 | 1.02 (0.80–1.24) | In line with vintage |
| SFC Capital | 520 | 407 | 78.0% | 399.3 | 1.02 (0.92–1.12) | In line with vintage |
| Foresight Ventures VCT Plc | 65 | 48 | 73.8% | 47.3 | 1.01 (0.73–1.30) | In line with vintage |
| Deepbridge | 72 | 55 | 76.4% | 54.5 | 1.01 (0.74–1.28) | In line with vintage |
| Wayra UK | 20 | 15 | 71.4% | 15.0 | 1.00 (0.49–1.50) | In line with vintage |
| AlbionVC | 40 | 30 | 75.0% | 30.0 | 1.00 (0.64–1.36) | In line with vintage |
| Foresight Group EIS | 43 | 32 | 74.4% | 32.2 | 0.99 (0.65–1.34) | In line with vintage |
| Downing Ventures | 26 | 19 | 73.1% | 19.6 | 0.97 (0.53–1.41) | In line with vintage |
| Blackfinch Ventures | 37 | 27 | 69.2% | 28.1 | 0.96 (0.60–1.33) | In line with vintage |
| Kindred Capital | 50 | 37 | 74.0% | 38.4 | 0.96 (0.65–1.27) | In line with vintage |
| Ada Ventures | 33 | 24 | 72.7% | 25.3 | 0.95 (0.57–1.33) | In line with vintage |
| Seedrs | 101 | 73 | 72.3% | 77.1 | 0.95 (0.73–1.16) | In line with vintage |
| Sustainable Ventures | 56 | 40 | 70.2% | 42.5 | 0.94 (0.65–1.23) | In line with vintage |
| Seedcamp | 86 | 62 | 72.1% | 66.2 | 0.94 (0.70–1.17) | In line with vintage |
| Crowdcube | 66 | 45 | 68.2% | 48.1 | 0.94 (0.66–1.21) | In line with vintage |
| Founders Factory | 50 | 36 | 70.6% | 38.6 | 0.93 (0.63–1.24) | In line with vintage |
| Entrepreneurs First | 57 | 40 | 70.2% | 43.4 | 0.92 (0.64–1.21) | In line with vintage |
| IQ Capital | 38 | 26 | 68.4% | 28.3 | 0.92 (0.57–1.27) | In line with vintage |
| Hambro Perks | 43 | 30 | 69.8% | 32.7 | 0.92 (0.59–1.25) | In line with vintage |
| Notion Capital | 78 | 53 | 66.3% | 58.2 | 0.91 (0.67–1.16) | In line with vintage |
| Carbon13 | 53 | 38 | 71.7% | 41.9 | 0.91 (0.62–1.20) | In line with vintage |
| Ignite Accelerator | 24 | 16 | 66.7% | 17.8 | 0.90 (0.46–1.34) | In line with vintage |
| Antler UK | 58 | 39 | 67.2% | 43.4 | 0.90 (0.62–1.18) | In line with vintage |
| Hoxton Ventures | 67 | 46 | 68.7% | 51.2 | 0.90 (0.64–1.16) | In line with vintage |
| Molten Ventures | 23 | 15 | 65.2% | 16.8 | 0.89 (0.44–1.35) | In line with vintage |
| Jenson Funding Partners | 40 | 27 | 67.5% | 30.5 | 0.88 (0.55–1.22) | In line with vintage |
| Emerge Education | 39 | 26 | 66.7% | 29.7 | 0.88 (0.54–1.21) | In line with vintage |
| Guinness EIS | 25 | 16 | 64.0% | 18.6 | 0.86 (0.44–1.28) | In line with vintage |
| Calculus Capital | 29 | 18 | 62.1% | 21.8 | 0.83 (0.44–1.21) | In line with vintage |
| Built Ventures | 29 | 17 | 58.6% | 22.0 | 0.77 (0.41–1.14) | In line with vintage |
| Techstars London | 75 | 45 | 58.4% | 58.4 | 0.77 (0.55–1.00) | Below vintage norm |
| Outward VC | 24 | 13 | 54.2% | 17.7 | 0.73 (0.33–1.13) | In line with vintage |
Method and limitations
- Status is the daily live Companies House check where available, falling back to the curated snapshot status.
- Expected actives use indirect standardisation against the whole-corpus survival rate for each company's incorporation year.
- The interval is a Poisson approximation on the observed active count, so small portfolios produce deliberately wide ranges.
- Companies held by more than one fund count once in the baseline and once within each fund they appear in.
- No investment amount, valuation, exit or return data is held, so this cannot describe financial performance.
How CompanyBeacon handles source dates · Fund portfolio comparison