Quick answer
Seed VCs do not share one ownership target. Ask what percentage a fund wants, when it measures that percentage, and whether the target changes when it leads or follows. Then divide its proposed check by the post-money valuation and calculate the whole round separately. A fund's target is a negotiating constraint, not your dilution budget.
See which investors fit your startup
Add your website. We pick three investors who back companies at your stage, sector and market, with the evidence for each.
What published ownership statements actually mean
Ownership targets tell you whether an investor's intended check can fit your financing plan. A percentage needs a stage, role and measurement point before it becomes useful. The statements below cover ordinary fund investments, flexible policies and program terms. Read the last column before putting any percentage into your round model.
12inf finds and ranks VC investors for a founder's startup from public evidence. Here, that evidence helps you ask a sharper allocation question. Use the investor-fit review framework to assess the rest of the mandate alongside ownership.
Sources checked 14 October 2026. Each linked page supports its row; byFounders is a reported interview, and its exit target is explicitly separate.
| Fund and source | Ownership statement | Use in your round |
|---|---|---|
| Pear VC | 7% target in most PearX companies | PearX program; keep separate from a seed lead. |
| Founder Collective | No rigid ownership target | Ask what allocation suits this round. |
| Homebrew | No ownership target | Test check size and role directly. |
| First Round Capital | About 14% after seed; rarely below 10% | Measure after the whole seed round. |
| Y Combinator | 7% through $125K SAFE, plus equity from $375K uncapped MFN SAFE | Both instruments affect eventual ownership. |
| Asymmetric Capital Partners | Fund II targets 20% | Vehicle-specific early-stage target. |
| Techstars | 5% common via $20K CEA, plus $200K uncapped MFN SAFE | The fixed component is not the full stake. |
| Episode 1 Ventures | 10–20% lead; 5–10% follower | Choose the intended role before calculating. |
| Hoxton Ventures | 10–20% aim; explicitly flexible on ownership | Compare the proposed check with the target. |
| byFounders | 10–20% at exit, reported in an interview | Exit target; exclude from entry comparisons. |
| Basis Set Ventures | 10–15% in typical pre-seed/seed lead or co-lead investments | Applies to typical lead/co-lead investments. |
| Moxxie Ventures | 10% target at pre-seed/seed | Compare with your post-money valuation. |
| Intelligence Ventures | Roughly 1% at entry | Entry target; check the actual allocation. |
| Harlem Capital | 10%+ for priced or capped pre-seed/seed rounds | A lower-bound target, not a fixed percentage. |
| PAX Momentum Ventures | 5% target including 0.25% for the GTM program | Program component is included, not extra. |
The useful distinction is the obligation each statement creates for your plan. Homebrew's flexibility leaves the allocation open to discussion. Episode 1's role-specific policy means you must settle the lead-versus-follower question first. An exit-stage aspiration describes a different point in a company's life from a stake immediately after seed.
Turn a target into check-size math
For a simple priced round, divide the investor's check by the post-money valuation to find its new stake. Divide the entire round by that same valuation to find the share issued for all new money. Keep those calculations separate, then add existing instruments and any option-pool change to the complete capitalization model.
Consider a fictional $2M round at a $10M post-money valuation. The pre-money valuation is $8M. An investor putting in $1M receives 10%; all the new-money investors together receive 20%. An existing holder starting at 60% falls to 48% in this simplified case. These calculations assume no converting securities, option-pool increase, fees funded with equity or secondary transactions.
Now suppose the same investor requires 15%. At the same post-money valuation, its check must be $1.5M. If its check stays at $1M instead, the implied post-money valuation is about $6.67M; with the total round still $2M, the implied pre-money is about $4.67M. That changes the economics for everyone, so review the complete round before agreeing.
Carta's explanation of share dilution, checked 14 October 2026, explains why valuation basis, convertible instruments and option pools matter. The arithmetic here is a worked example, not a proposed valuation for your company. Use the check-size and round-fit worksheet to compare the amount with your actual allocation.
Copy this ownership discussion worksheet
Fill in the inputs before your next investor conversation, then ask the investor to confirm the measurement point. Keep both an investor-specific stake and a whole-round dilution line. If the investor's amount or role changes, update the same worksheet so that everyone discusses one financing plan rather than several inconsistent versions.
Company and milestone: [product; milestone funded by this round]
Round currency and total new money: [currency; amount]
Investor's proposed check: [amount]
Investor's role: [lead / co-lead / participant]
Published ownership statement and source: [wording; URL; checked date]
Target measured: [at entry / after whole round / later; confirm]
Proposed post-money valuation: [amount]
Investor stake = investor check / post-money valuation
All-new-money stake = total new money / post-money valuation
Implied pre-money = post-money valuation - total new money
Other dilution to model: [SAFEs / notes / option pool / other]
Question: Can you support this allocation and ownership at this role?
Next action and date: [requested confirmation or revised round model]Copy this example to use it in your own tools.
Use the round-to-milestone planning process to defend the amount you need. If accommodating the fund means raising more, identify what the extra capital funds and whether that is a useful change. A larger check should have a job in the operating plan.
Resolve the mismatch before negotiating everything else
An allocation mismatch is worth discussing early because the available choices are concrete: change the check, valuation, role or investor. Explain which elements of your plan can move and why. Ask whether a published target is an aspiration, a typical outcome or a requirement for this particular vehicle and investment committee.
For a lead, establish who proposes terms and coordinates the process using the lead-investor qualification checklist. For a participant, confirm that the proposed amount leaves room for the anchor and other commitments. Do not reduce an existing allocation merely because another fund describes a bigger preferred stake.
Compare candidate amounts with the published pre-seed and seed check ranges. For discovery, the US seed investor list provides sourced mandates; each candidate still needs an allocation conversation. Bring your round amount and intended role to Find investors for your startup.
Bring the worksheet to the first investor meeting question menu to confirm ownership, role and conditions.
FAQ
How much equity do seed investors take?
There is no single percentage established by this sample. Use each investor's stated target and proposed check, then calculate the combined effect of the whole round. A lead's desired stake and total founder dilution answer different questions.
Is an ownership target the same as a minimum?
Only if the fund says so. A typical range, ideal stake and firm lower bound carry different meanings. Ask which one governs the investment under discussion and retain the answer beside the source.
Does a fund with no ownership target invest without taking equity?
No. An explicit absence of a target describes flexibility about the stake. It does not mean free capital or establish the instrument and terms of your eventual agreement.
Can I compare accelerator percentages with a seed VC target?
Compare the complete package first. Additional convertible instruments, program conditions and the point at which the percentage is measured can change the outcome. The fixed percentage alone is not a complete ownership model.
Can two investors both target the same stake?
They can, if their checks and the entire financing fit that structure. Model both allocations together, retain enough room for other commitments, and inspect the resulting ownership of existing holders before agreeing to either.
Method and limits
As of 14 October 2026, 15 of 110 reviewed legacy records contain an ownership statement. All are listed; missing fields are not zero. The London catalog has no structured ownership field, so its larger population supplies no additional targets. Public pages were rechecked for these rows; program, flexible and exit scopes stay separate. No average or market-wide range is inferred. Round arithmetic is fictional.
Prepared with AI assistance from linked public sources. Named source records and fictional worked scenarios are identified in the article.
From shortlist to first meeting
Everything in Launch, plus help with the first email and the first call.
- Deck review
- First emails built on each investor's recent deals
- Meeting prep, phone numbers and CSV export