venture ecosystem factbook: chicago - pitchbook · pitchbook 2017 venture ecosystem factbook:...

2017

Venture EcosystemFactBook:

Chicago

Credits & ContactPitchBook Data, Inc.

JOHN GABBERT Founder, CEO

ADLEY BOWDEN Vice President,

Market Development & Analysis

ContentGARRETT JAMES BLACK Manager, Custom

Research & Publishing

REILLY HAMMOND Data Analyst

JENNIFER SAM Senior Graphic Designer

Contact PitchBook pitchbook.com

RESEARCH

[email protected]

EDITORIAL

[email protected]

SALES

[email protected]

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.

Introduction 3

Chicago in the US Venture Ecosystem 4

Economy 5

Investment Activity 6-10

Exits & Fundraising 11-12

League Tables 13

The PitchBook PlatformThe 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.

Contents

2 PITCHBOOK 2017 VENTURE ECOSYSTEM FACTBOOK: CHICAGO

Well-positioned, yet underserved at the late stageIntroduction

Third in our series of reports focused on exploring US venture ecosystems at a

more granular level, the Chicago FactBook offers multiple contextual datasets

woven together with analysis of the current domestic venture environment.

When it comes to venture capital, analysis can be particularly challenging

given the nature of the model, especially when it comes to quantification of

risk. Moreover, if the past 20 years of financial history have taught us anything,

it’s that overreliance on quantitative methods and modeling can be uniquely

dangerous. Hence our preference for frameworks of analysis that, while

benefiting from quantitative grounding, remain primarily qualitative. One of our

preferred frameworks for analyzing datasets at a certain level of geographic

granularity is that of the ecosystem, wherein the overlapping cycles of

fundraising and investment reinforce each other via key nodes of informational

flow.

Consequently, in the following pages, we trace the evolution of the Chicago

venture scene over the past decade through an ecosystem lens. Especially as

the Chicago venture ecosystem has been growing steadily, it appears to be

approaching a level where, as one venture capitalist put it, local entrepreneurs

may no longer do a “tour of duty” in Silicon Valley before returning. Furthermore,

Chicago’s corporate landscape is intriguing given the role of human capital in

a venture ecosystem. Multiple Fortune 500 companies call the city home, and

yet, likely due to their particular sector, many don’t acquire local startups at an

anticipated clip as of yet. Regardless, the fact senior or high-level employees

and talented individuals in general are readily available has and will continue to

be key. The company you keep matters, after all. With that and recent healthy

fundraising levels, plus continued outside investor interest, Chicago’s VC

ecosystem looks poised for continued growth—barring tail risk—without one

seminal, transformative turning point as of yet.

We welcome your feedback and questions—reach out to us at

[email protected]. I’d like to thank Hyde Park Angels, Origin Ventures,

Adams Street Partners, ARCH Venture Partners, Alex Meyer of HBS Angels

of Chicago, Illinois Venture Capital Association, the Polsky Center for

Entrepreneurship & Innovation, Chicago Ventures, KDWC Ventures, John Pletz,

Hyde Park Venture Partners and the National Venture Capital Association, among

others, all of whom assisted in the production of this report.

GARRETT JAMES BLACK

Manager, Custom Research & Publishing

Look up a company.

And its cap table.

And its investors.

And its EBITDA

multiples.

And its board

members.

In seconds.

The PitchBook Platform

has the data you need

to close your next deal.

Learn more at

pitchbook.com


http://pitchbook.com/news/search?media-types=NP&tags=venture-ecosystem

mailto:mailto%40reports.com?subject=PitchBook%202017%20Venture%20Ecosystem%20FactBook%3A%20Chicago

Chicago in the US Venture EcosystemSnapshot of Chicago MSA’s size within the US venture ecosystem as a whole

In early August 2016 we released the

first US Venture Ecosystem: FactBook,

the largest PitchBook report ever and

a compendium of venture and relevant

economic datasets for the top 12 (by

overall venture activity) metro areas

within the US. As a recap, we have

reproduced the table ranking the size

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

Census Bureau definition and delineation of metropolitan statistical areas.

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,

rankedTotal VC funds raised

since 2006Total VC invested since

2010Total # of VC rounds

since 2010Total exit value since 2010

San Francisco #1 $117.6 billion $101.4 billion 9,710 $90.8 billion

San Jose #2 $35.5 billion $43.3 billion 4,152 $63.5 billion

New York #3* $43.6 billion $33.9 billion 6,174 $17.6 billion

Boston #4 $41.2 billion $30.7 billion 3,664 $28.7 billion

Los Angeles #5 $2.7 billion $21.3 billion 3,403 $11.2 billion

Seattle #6 $7.6 billion $8.4 billion 1,717 $6.7 billion

Chicago #7 $3.4 billion $8.3 billion 1,348 $9.95 billion

Washington, DC #8 $4.8 billion $8.2 billion 1,416 $7.4 billion

San Diego #9 $1.5 billion $9.4 billion 1,317 $8.7 billion

Austin #10 $1.9 billion $6.6 billion 1,376 $3.7 billion

Philadelphia #11 $3.0 billion $4.8 billion 1,003 $5.4 billion

Atlanta #12 $1.15 billion $5.0 billion 837 $7.8 billion

#1

#2

#1

#3

#4

#5

#6

#7

#8

#9

#10

#11

#12

#1 #1

#2

#2 #2#4

#3

#5

#6

#7

#8

#9

#10

#11

#12

#3

#4

#5

#7

#8

#6

#9

#10

#11

#12

#4

#3

#5

#6

#7

#10

#9

#12

#11

#8

of the 12 venture ecosystems below, to

provide some context for how Chicago

stacks up. The most striking thing at

the outset is that Chicago, despite

its overall size, is in the middle of the

rankings. There are many reasons for

that result, ranging from historical to

geographic. As with any ranking that

could be prone to raising hackles, it

is critical to note that size does not

correlate with health. Moreover, the

Bay Area and Valley predominate

to such a degree that it is clear the

VC industry currently remains highly

concentrated.


Relatively healthyChicago’s current economic condition & recent trends

Chicago contrasts with Illinois as a

whole when it comes to economic

growth. Cook and Collar counties

accounted for close to 87% of

private-sector jobs added in the state

since the depths of the recession.

Especially as they pertain to the

entrepreneurial/startup ecosystem,

most statistics point to relative health

in Chicago, with sentiment waxing

positive among employers and income

growing slightly faster than prices.

One negative statistic in the table to

the right testifies to one of the likely

reasons recent CBRE research ranked

Chicago 13th in terms of tech-talent

market health in North America: The

population of millennials declined by

5% between 2009 and 2015. (That

migration resembles Illinois’s, with

114,000 lost to domestic migration

against a total population of 12.9

million, the highest rate in the region.)

13th out of 50 is still more than

healthy, and, moreover, Chicago is still

relatively much cheaper to operate in

than many other large markets, and

as a consequence of its size remains

remarkably diverse. Moreover, multiple

large businesses have been moving

their headquarters to the city—ADM,

Conagra Brands, Caterpillar—although

that signals more in terms of business

appeal than increased employee

counts. All in all, the Chicago economic

scene is a welcoming environment

without being a blockbuster growth

success. One potential area of concern

noted during the course of background

research was pending Illinois House

Bill 3393, which would levy a 20%

tax on fees earned from investment

management. Should a comparable

federal bill pass, the measure will cease

to exist1.

1 Note: Per the Illinois Venture

Chicago metropolitan statistical area (MSA)Select

statistics

Civilian labor force, March 2017 3.7 million

College students per 1,000 residents, 2015 74.2

Population growth, Cook County, July ‘16-July ‘17 -0.41%

Employment growth, March ‘16-March ‘17 0.8%

Change in unemployment rates, not seasonally adjustedMarch ‘16-March ‘17

-1.8%

Compensation cost change, 12-month, not seasonally adjusted, March ‘16-March ‘17

2.5%

Wages & salaries change, 12-month, not seasonally adjusted, March ‘16-March ‘17

2.7%

Approximate range of change in annual fair market rents, 1-4 bedrooms, FY 2016-FY 2017

4.8%-5.5%

Consumer price index (urban) annual percentage change, March 2017 2.0%

2017 ranking for startup activity, 2017 ranking for entrepreneurial growth 31, 30

S&P/Case-Shiller IL-Chicago Home Price Index, February 2017 140.87

Job growth ranking among top 200 MSAs from 2010-2015, 2016 88

Employer confidence increase, 2Q 2016-2Q 2017 7%

Year-over-year percentage change in business barometerMarch ‘16-March ‘17

7.6%

Current-dollar GDP, 2015 $641 billion

One-year change in Zillow Home Value Index, one-year forecast 6.4%, 2.6%

Sources: US Bureau of Labor Statistics, HUD FY 2017 Fair Market Rents, PayScale, Brookings Institution,

US Bureau of Economic Analysis, The Kauffman Index, Illinois Science & Technology Coalition, The

Milken Institute Center for Jobs & Human Capital, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, Society for Human

Resource Management, World Business Chicago, Zillow, CBRE (Hyde Park Angels’ analysis)

According to analysis by Hyde Park Angels, it costs tech firms approximately 42% more to operate in San Francisco than it does in Chicago.

Capital Association, HB3393 did not end up moving forward but a comparable bill SB1719 recently was passed by the Senate and is currently assigned to the Revenue & Finance Committee in the House. IVCA notes that SB1719 is not tied to any federal measure, unlike HB3393. Further details are available here.


http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp?DocNum=1719&GAID=14&DocTypeID=SB&SessionID=91&GA=100#actions

Quarterly momentum has been subsiding

Chicago MSA venture activity

Source: PitchBook. *As of 4/30/2017

VC invested remains on pace relative to historical totals

Chicago MSA venture activity

A gentle, temporary pullbackAn overview of Chicago’s venture investment activity

Amid a general decline in VC

transaction volume driven by a slide

in early-stage deals nationwide,

Chicago could prove different

From a cyclical standpoint, the

nationwide backdrop of subsiding

venture financing volume suggests we

are merely in the investing cycle’s later

stages, particularly as VC invested,

median deal sizes and post-valuations

remain substantial. On a yearly basis,

therefore, Chicago’s relative health

stands out considerably, as both VC

invested and deal volume were steady

from 2015 to 2016. Although quarterly

figures indicate a decided slackening

of momentum as of late, it is especially

critical to note that it takes a long time

to build a venture ecosystem, so the

robust increase in venture funding over

the past decade is the more important

point to highlight. Given the level of

dataset granularity, temporality plays a

more significant role as well.

$457

$478

$921

$254 $1

,079

$2,0

55

$790

$708

$1,4

94

$1,3

27

$1,2

78

$335

65 6485

53

124

165

200 230

274

239240

51

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017*

Deal Value ($M)

# of Deals Closed

13

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

$0.0

$200.0

$400.0

$600.0

$800.0

$1,000.0

$1,200.0

$1,400.0

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 1Q 2Q

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017*

Deal Value ($M) # of Deals Closed



The “Midwest discount” still helps soften any potential

inflation given the scaling venture scene

Median venture financing size ($M) in Chicago MSA

Late-stage outliers can still propel numbers high,

though as sample sizes grow figures should correct

Median venture post-valuation ($M), Chicago MSA

Lower costs of doing business still

help mute deal metrics’ inflation, with

a few notable outliers

It’s simply cheaper for venture-backed

startups to operate in Chicago, in a

manifestation of the region’s generally

lower costs dubbed “the Midwest

discount”. Accordingly, median figures

for deal size and valuations can remain

less inflated than those observed on

the coasts—although outliers at the

late stage still exist, as is evident from

the charts below, and steady increases

over the past few years were certainly

recorded. Important consequences

can ensue: Capital efficiency can be

greater at times; vastly accelerated

ramp-ups can be somewhat hampered,

particularly when it comes to obtaining

specialized talent in some segments;

and syndication is often necessary for

some of the larger early-stage rounds.

On an anecdotal basis, however, the

collaborative nature of Chicago VC is

still largely intact. A note regarding

the follow-on case study below: The

extent to which that seeded cohort

of 2010 garnered follow-on rounds is

testament to a healthy progression

up the capital stack, though skewed

by the few, most successful repeat

fundraisers.


$0.8$1.4

$4.7 $4.7

$7.2

$11.0

$0.0

$2.0

$4.0

$6.0

$8.0

$10.0

$12.0

$14.0

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017*

Angel/Seed Early-stage VC Late-stage VC


$6.0 $8.0$19.6

$37.5

$54.5

$143.8

$0.0

$20.0

$40.0

$60.0

$80.0

$100.0

$120.0

$140.0

$160.0

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017*

Angel/Seed Early-stage VC

Late-stage VC

Median venture financing size ($M) in Chicago MSA by

early-stage series

$0.8$1.1**

$4.1$4.7**

$8.6

$5.1**

$0

$2

$4

$6

$8

$10

$12

$14

$16

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017*

Angel/Seed Series A Series B


**Indicates small sample size so not statistically significant as of yet.

Case study: Tracking Chicago MSA-headquartered

companies seeded in 2010 and follow-on financing

rates by company count & financing type

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

0

1

2

3

4

5

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Late Stage

Early Stage

C

B

A

Seed

Angel

% of ini�al cohort receivingfollow-on funding

Source: PitchBook. *As of 4/30/2017. In cases where the precise series of

the financing is unknown, the stage is labeled instead.


Chicago MSA VC activity (#) by round size Chicago MSA VC activity ($M) by round size

With no sign of slowing, considerable

efforts support the startup

environment

Incubators and accelerators such

as 1871 Chicago, the Polsky Center

and Lightbank remain active in

encouraging local entrepreneurs.

Different data providers on overall

startup activity paint somewhat

different pictures, with Kauffman

ranking the Chicago MSA as 31st out of

the 40 largest US metro areas.

Source: PitchBook. *As of 4/30/2017Source: PitchBook. *As of 4/30/2017

0

50

100

150

200

250

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017*

Under $500K $500K-$1M

$1M-$5M

$5M-$10M

$10M-$25M

$25M+

$0

$500

$1,000

$1,500

$2,000

$2,500

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017*

Under $500K $500K-$1M

$1M-$5M $5M-$10M

$10M-$25M $25M+

Startups with founders affiliated with University of Chicago by academic

year of founding

24

36

61

42

91

14

22

26

4

6

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

2011-2012

2012-2013

2013-2014

2014-2015

2015-2016

# of inac�ve/acquired/non-ac�ve

# of startups

Source: Polsky Center for

Entrepreneurship & Innovation

Seed corrected between in 2015 from a peak, now is

steady

Chicago MSA VC activity (#) by series

A surge last year in Series A VC invested portends

subsequent raises

Chicago MSA VC activity ($) by series

Source: PitchBook. *As of 4/30/2017 Source: PitchBook. *As of 4/30/2017

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017*

Seed Series A Series B Series C Series D+

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017*

Seed Series A Series B Series C Series D+


Due in part to fixed costs, software predominates

Chicago MSA VC activity (#) by sector

A plurality of VC is invested in software

Chicago MSA VC activity ($) by sector


A steady if slow decline since 2012

First-time financings in Chicago MSA

The city itself attracts most activity

City of Chicago-only venture activity

$103

$198

$173

$108

$213

$138

$120

$34

56

68

109101

96

86

78

8

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017*

Deal Value ($M)

# of Deals Closed

$451

$1,5

05

$377

$609

$1,0

92

$1,0

45

$1,0

35

$266

89

125

156

191

210

178

187

44

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017*

Deal Value ($M) # of Deals Closed


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100% So�ware

Pharma & Biotech

Other

Media

IT Hardware

HC Services & Systems

HC Devices & Supplies

Energy

Consumer Goods &Recrea�onCommercial Services

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100% So�ware

Pharma & Biotech

Other

Media

IT Hardware

HC Services & Systems

HC Devices & Supplies

Energy

Consumer Goods &Recrea�onCommercial Services

Source: PitchBook. *As of 4/30/2017Source: PitchBook. *As of 4/30/2017

The Illinois Science & Technology

Coalition notes that according to their

survey in the Illinois Innovation Index,

state universities produced more than

800 startups from 2012 to 2016, nearly

100% more than recorded from 2009

to 2013. Contrasting that statistic

with diminishing first-time financing

flow in the Chicago MSA, it’s clear a

mild decline in the volume of rounds

of the smallest size categories may

have contributed to the decline. As

risk heightened in tandem with even

gently elevating median financing

sizes, those first-time checks were

written less frequently. As confirmed

during background research, some

of the fledgling VC funds that initially

targeted smaller, local businesses

have experienced subsequent success

and consequently raised larger funds,

targeting Series A more explicitly.

Does sector diversity help or hinder?

Chicago’s sector diversity and sheer

size are oft-noted in contrast to the

fact its venture ecosystem is smaller

than that of, say, Seattle. The diversity

can prove useful in terms of recruiting

talent in certain areas such as sales,

yet what Chicago’s diversity does not

lend itself to is a prevailing narrative

centered on the strength of its tech

sector. Chicago is not necessarily


http://www.illinoisinnovation.com/filebin/III_Jan2017_PDF_V7.pdf

Investment (#) by size in Chicago MSA-based

companies with participation from investors HQ’d

outside Illinois

Investment (#) by size in Chicago MSA-based

companies with participation from investors HQ’d

outside Illinois

Investment in Chicago MSA-based companies with participation from

investors HQ’d outside Illinois

thought of as a tech city, and such

narratives do matter when it comes to

retention rates of local talent, among

other issues. The probability that a

senior software engineer will up and

move to Chicago to take a job at a

startup is potentially lower should

they perceive the chances of obtaining

other, similar jobs to be slim. That

said, the growth of Chicago’s venture

ecosystem and promising state of its

early-stage scene in particular hint

strongly it is more a matter of time

before this perception changes, as the

robustness of entrepreneurial efforts

continue amid the relative health

of Chicago’s economy. Meanwhile,

the talent pipeline is certainly still

flowing strongly, simply due to the

concentration of local universities.

Outside investors still critical to

underserved late-stage market

Select funds such as Pritzker Group

Venture Capital and Adams Street

Partners remain some of the few

players in the late-stage venture

scene. More coastal funds have been

increasing their presence, helping

plug the gap, as it were, at what

some called the locally underserved

late-stage market. (On an anecdotal

basis, some related they believed the

general startup market in Chicago

to be underserved, which could well

be the case in some pockets of the

entrepreneurial scene given overall

startup volume, but in our opinion

remains yet to be clearly established

given the advent of multiple early-

stage funds in the past few years.)

Hence the preponderance of VC

invested in larger rounds, although

since 2014 outside firms have also

been driving rounds in the middle of

the capital stack.

$763

$732

$487

$339

$998

$602

$757

$214

87

103

119

144

182

161 158

33

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017*

Deal Value ($M)

# of Deals Closed

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017*

Under $500K $500K-$1M $1M-$5M

$5M-$10M $10M-$25M $25M+

Source: PitchBook.

*As of 4/30/2017

Source: PitchBook. *As of 4/30/2017 Source: PitchBook. *As of 4/30/2017

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017*

Under $500K $500K-$1M $1M-$5M

$5M-$10M $10M-$25M $25M+


Strong foundationsDatasets of venture-backed exits and local venture fundraising in Chicago

Sustained decade highs in exits helped lead to recent fundraising success

Venture-backed exits of Chicago MSA-based companies

Interestingly, PE buyers have provided significant

liquidity in the past

Venture-backed exits ($) by type of Chicago MSA-

based companies

Unsurprisingly, corporate buyers dominate the listings

Venture-backed exits (#) by type of Chicago MSA-

based companies

Recent exit volume lays groundwork

for future recycling of talent & capital

A key point for the Chicago VC

ecosystem has been the recycling

of both human and financial capital,

after a handful of hefty exits. Groupon

cofounders Eric Lefkofsky and Brad

Keywell—whom also began VC firm

Lightbank—are perhaps the best-

known examples. Yet given high-

profile, sizable sales such as those of

CleverSafe or Fieldglass, the pipeline

of employees that cashed out or may

cash out sooner rather than later could

nurture a greater incidence of repeat

entrepreneurs, much like Chris Gladwin

of Cleversafe, who recently headed

up a new enterprise called Ocient. The

timeline for such a trend is elongated,

hence the impact of earlier successes

has been crucial. Local boosters always

long for a truly massive success story,

yet the role played by what some

would consider more modest exits

can’t be discounted.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017*Acquisi�on Buyout IPO

Source: PitchBook. *As of 4/30/2017. Note: Aggregate exit post-valuations are included to better

represent the total value created by IPOs in particular. They include IPO post-valuations, which are

calculated as total shares outstanding multiplied by offering share price.


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017*Acquisi�on Buyout IPO


$1,0

71.2

$13,

480.

7

$873

.7

$3,2

14.2

$1,2

63.6 $4

,166

.5

$889

.2

$43.

0

16

12

1921

18

26

24

4

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017*

Aggregate Exit Postvalua�on ($M)

# of Exits Closed


Total AUM resurges to new high after a decline owing

in part to exits ramping up

VC AUM in Chicago MSA

The majority of exits remain on the larger side

Venture-backed exits of Chicago MSA-based

companies (#) by size

Significant push in 2016 helped lay foundation for next investing cycle

Chicago MSA venture fundraising

A bevy of recently closed early-stage-

focused funds bodes well for the

future, even if the late-stage market

remains underserved purely on a

domestic basis

With no fewer than 10 venture funds

closed since the start of 2016 through

the end of April 2017, there is plenty

of accumulated capital waiting to

be deployed. Especially given the

range of fund sizes—Origin Ventures’

fourth, $80 million vehicle or the $66

million Chicago Ventures Fund II, for

example—the early-stage market

in Chicago is set to be well-funded.

When it comes to higher-priced

segments of the capital stack, there

simply aren’t that many large, local

players. However, as long as outside

investor interest remains active—on

quantitative and anecdotal bases it

looks set to stay robust—there remains

only to source for late-stage capital

further abroad. It took decades to

build Silicon Valley, after all—perhaps

local firms in the Chicago MSA will

raise hundreds of millions for funds in

the future, but for now, the ecosystem

is still growing steadily toward that

level.

$202

$413

$830

$88

$17

$628

$75

$230

$411

$326

$666

$95

5

4

8

5

3

9 9 9

5

8 8

2

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017*

Capital Raised ($B) # of Funds Closed

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017*

Under $25M $25M-$50M $50M-$100M $100M-$500M



$3.2

$3.4

$3.6

$3.8

$4.0

$4.2

$4.4

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Total AUM ($B)


Under 1x

1-2x 2-3x 3-5x 5-10x 10-15x 15-20x 20-25x 25-30x

19% 12% 9% 9% 19% 14% 7% 9% 2%

A hefty portion of Chicago exits commanded significant MOICs

Percentage of Chicago exits separated by multiple on invested

capital (MOIC), 2007-2017*

Source: PitchBook. *As of 4/30/2017. This table recreated and updated the same

methodology as used in this article, excepting the inclusion of buyouts in this dataset.

https://pitchbook.com/news/articles/which-us-cities-generate-the-best-vc-returns


https://pitchbook.com/news/articles/which-us-cites-generate-the-best-vc-returns

Hyde Park Angels 20

Chicago Ventures 12

Hyde Park Venture Partners 12

M25 Group 11

Service Provider Capital 9

HBS Angels of Chicago 8

Pritzker Group Venture Capital

7

Bluestein & Associates 7

Wasson Enterprise 5

Bridge Investments 5

Matter 5

Most active investors in Chicago MSA,

2016, across all stages

Venture capitalVenture 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.

ValuationsPre-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.

FundraisingThis report includes Chicago MSA-based venture capital funds that have held a final close. Funds-of-funds and secondary funds are

not included.

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

Source: PitchBook

CompanyDeal size

($M)Series/stage Sector

SpringCM $25.0 Series EAutomation/Workflow

Software

CloudCraze $20.0 Late stageBusiness/Productivity

Software

Jellyvision $20.0 Late stage Human Capital Services

Shiftgig $20.0 Series CMedia and Information

Services (B2B)

Aquilon Energy Services $19.0 Series B Database Software

Pangea $11.6 Series B Financial Software

Strategic Internet Marketing Partners

$5.0 Late stage Application Software

Jiobit $4.8 SeedWireless Communications

Equipment

Maestro Health $4.0 Series A Life and Health Insurance

Tovala $3.7 Early stage Social/Platform Software

Pak'd $3.3 Angel Food Products

OVAL Fire Products $3.2 Series B Commercial Products

Source: PitchBook

Select League TablesSelect rankings of most active investors and deals in Chicago

Select 1Q 2017 venture financings of companies headquartered in Chicago

Most recent round type

9-12 months

12-18 months

18-24 months

Angel/seed 19 55 47

A 14 20 13

B 4 12 7

Ready for the next round: companies

(#) by time since most recent round



mailto:[email protected].

See how the PitchBook Platform can

help VCs invest smarter.

[email protected]

We do pre-money valuations,cap tables,series terms,custom search,growth metrics.

You invest in the next big thing.

venture ecosystem factbook: chicago - pitchbook · pitchbook 2017 venture ecosystem factbook:...

Documents