# Proof Narrative: Venture capital funds vintage 2012-2016 have a median net IRR of 16.8% according to Cambridge Associates but 18.2% according to Preqin.

## Verdict

**Verdict: UNDETERMINED**

The claim names two specific figures from two specific sources. Neither figure could be found in any publicly accessible document. The sources are both behind subscription paywalls, and no public reproduction of these numbers exists. The claim cannot be verified or falsified from public evidence.

## What was claimed?

The claim is a concrete, source-attributed benchmark statement: VC funds that made their first investments between 2012 and 2016 have produced a median net internal rate of return of 16.8%, according to Cambridge Associates, and 18.2%, according to Preqin. The specific figures and the specific attributions matter — this is not a general claim about VC performance but a testable assertion about what two named benchmarking services have published.

## What did we find?

Cambridge Associates is one of the most widely cited VC benchmarking services in the world. It publishes a US VC benchmark report that is widely referenced by LPs, fund managers, and academics. However, the full benchmark — including per-vintage-year median net IRR tables — is available only to subscribers. The publicly available Cambridge Associates materials (including a Q3 2025 summary PDF) contain only aggregate horizon returns over 5, 10, and 20-year periods. After searching more than 30 URLs across Cambridge Associates' website, academic preprint servers (SSRN, NBER), and financial news outlets, no public document reproducing the specific figure of 16.8% for VC vintage 2012-2016 was found.

Preqin, the other benchmarking firm named in the claim, also publishes fund performance data behind a subscription wall. Its public materials — including the annual Global Alternatives Report — cite aggregate venture capital return quartiles but do not break out per-vintage-year median net IRR tables. Searching for "18.2% Preqin venture IRR" across Google, academic databases, and financial press produced no results. Neither figure appears to have been publicly cited by Preqin or reproduced in secondary sources.

The 1.4 percentage-point gap between the two figures (16.8% vs 18.2%) is worth noting. It is plausible: Cambridge Associates and Preqin use different fund universes, different vintage year conventions, and different data collection methodologies. Cambridge Associates relies heavily on voluntary reporting by fund managers; Preqin supplements this with LP filings and freedom-of-information requests to public pension funds. These differences systematically produce divergent returns estimates for the same cohort of funds. So while we cannot verify the specific numbers, their difference is the kind of discrepancy one would expect.

## What should you keep in mind?

Proprietary benchmarking databases are the dominant infrastructure for VC performance measurement — and they are not publicly verifiable. Researchers, journalists, and practitioners routinely cite figures from Cambridge Associates and Preqin without being able to provide a publicly accessible URL. This is a structural feature of the asset class: most VC fund data flows through LP filings that are either confidential or only partially disclosed, and the benchmarking firms aggregate this data into products they sell.

This means that many claims about VC fund performance — even accurate ones — will receive an UNDETERMINED verdict under this proof's public-verifiability standard. That is not a criticism of the claim or the underlying data; it is a reflection of the fact that venture capital benchmarking operates in a regime of limited public transparency.

Finally, IRR figures for vintage years like 2012-2016 continue to shift as funds mature and exit positions. A figure published in 2022 will differ from one published in 2025. The claim does not specify the as-of date of the benchmarks, which adds additional verification difficulty even for subscribers who have access to these databases.

## How was this verified?

This proof conducted targeted searches across Cambridge Associates' and Preqin's public-facing websites and documentation, searched academic preprint servers and financial news outlets for any secondary reproduction of the figures, and applied adversarial checks to all three potential routes to verification (primary sources, secondary sources, and combined citation). You can read [the structured proof report](proof.md) for the full evidence summary, review [the full verification audit](proof_audit.md) for search query details, or [re-run the proof yourself](proof.py) to reproduce the verification process.
