Back

Looking at the evolution of their fund focus is fascinating. You can clearly see how they've followed market trends - starting with consumer/mobile in the early 2010s, shifting to SaaS/B2B around 2015-2017, and now heavy on fintech/healthtech/AI. What's clever about their strategy is maintaining the early-stage focus even as fund size grew. Most VCs drift to later stages as they raise bigger funds, but Accel has stayed disciplined. This consistency is probably why they've outperformed. Worth noting that Fund VII (2025) hasn't closed yet - that's likely a prediction or target rather than a fact.

What's missing from this analysis is how Accel's India strategy fits into their global playbook. They've essentially replicated their US early-stage approach in India, but with more emphasis on B2B SaaS that can scale globally. Their results in India actually outperform their US fund in many respects. The 10x growth in fund size isn't just impressive - it's extraordinary given how young the Indian startup ecosystem is. For comparison, Sequoia took much longer to scale their India operations to this level. I'd argue Accel has been the most consistently successful global VC firm operating in India over this period.

AI astrology startup? SERIOUSLY? This is peak bubble behavior. Accel used to have a reputation for backing solid, sustainable businesses, not pseudo-science cash grabs. This signals they're getting desperate for returns as the Indian tech ecosystem matures. Also worth noting that their biggest wins (Flipkart, Freshworks) were from their earlier, smaller funds. As their fund size has grown, their ability to pick winners seems to be diluting. They're writing bigger checks into later stages which fundamentally changes their risk profile and incentives.

Everyone loves to praise Accel's track record, but let's talk about their massive failures too. Remember Housing.com? Accel backed them in 2014 and we all know how that disaster ended with the CEO drama and fire sale. Or TaxiForSure that got crushed by Ola and Uber? For every Flipkart and Swiggy success story, there are dozens of failed investments they conveniently never mention. Their "hit rate" is probably around 10-15% at best - typical VC smoke and mirrors to only highlight the winners while quietly writing off the losers. Also, that $325M for Fund IV in 2015 looks like a typo, should be $325M not just $325.