Analysis of unicorn startup founders
Unicorn startup founders typically average 33-34 years in the U.S. and 29-31 in Europe. Key factors for success include education, experience, diversity, funding, and psychological traits.
Read original article
The analysis of unicorn startup founders reveals several key characteristics that contribute to their success. Founders in the U.S. typically start their companies at an average age of 33-34, while European founders are slightly younger, averaging 29-31. Notably, the mean age across all startup founders in the U.S. is 42. A significant portion of unicorn CEOs hold STEM degrees, with 49% in the U.S. and 30% in Europe. Many founders have prior experience, with 50% having worked at startups and a similar percentage being serial entrepreneurs. The data also highlights the importance of diversity, with 62% of U.S. unicorns having immigrant founders and 38% featuring at least one non-white founder. Female representation is increasing in the U.S., reaching 17% of new unicorns in 2023, while Europe lags behind at 5%. The seed funding landscape shows that top venture capital firms play a crucial role, with 28% of U.S. unicorns and 24% of European unicorns receiving funding from top VC seed funds. Psychological traits such as self-belief and a lack of a backup plan are also noted as common among successful founders. Overall, the analysis underscores the multifaceted nature of startup success, influenced by age, education, experience, diversity, and funding.
- U.S. unicorn founders average 33-34 years old; European founders are 29-31.
- 49% of U.S. unicorn CEOs have STEM degrees; 62% of U.S. unicorns have immigrant founders.
- Female founders represent 17% of new U.S. unicorns; only 5% in Europe.
- Top VC firms significantly impact funding for unicorn startups.
- Psychological traits like self-belief are common among successful founders.
Related
12 commentsAnother interesting point, and this is likely outside the scope you are wanting to do, is to do democraphics -> positive personal financial outcome (ie: people who successfully landed it). The past few years has shown it isn't difficult to start a 'startup' but still difficult to get a positive financial outcome for the people who founded it. I am not saying it will change or one group is better, just curious to see how the demographics hold or if all the "elite school" and "elite employer" ends up washing out where it becomes a coinflip.
From my personal experience, people who went to "elite schools" and/or "elite employers" for an extended period aren't as good of a fit as people who are more 'underdog' background (more startup experience, no big school name or maybe even any college, etc). The Harvard / etc junk in my opinion is just Zuckerbergs/Gate overfitting by VCs (some are great, some are awful; essentially the same as any other school).
Prestigious people are essentially handed capital. This drives most of the funding at the very early stage. A random founder with no connections or background needs an MVP product with real traction, and even then may raise on worse terms than a stanford/harvard grad.
Raising venture funding can be thought of as a career path. Its not entrepreneurship. VC backed founders are more similar to hedge fund managers, they essentially get paid out a percentage of the capital they manage, assuming they manage it well. Raise 20M, you are bound to build a business with some revenue.
The bet is that if they fund 20 Harvard grads, one of them might be like Gates. Even if the rest are duds. The math still kind of works out, they need an outlier.
That really hits home for me. I decided to start my current company (https://ipcopilot.ai) when I had already been out of work 3 months, I had 4-6 months runway when I left my prior role. Meaning, I had 1-3 months left before I couldn't pay my mortgage when I incorporated my company.
My responsibilities were high: 3 kids, wife due with another baby in 60 days, no source of income, and an estimated 45-60 days of runway. I passed up two mid-six figure jobs to start this business. My wife just said "better make this work", which fair enough haha.
I was able to get 3 funding offers in 45 days & signed the paperwork for funding the day my 4th child was delivered (1 hr after). 48 days after my first VC meeting. Barely able to make my mortgage payment (my co-founder offered to lend me money).
Obviously, didn't tell the VCs how up against the wall I was, but to say it was stressful is an understatement. That said, everything worked out well and business has been doing great. I had to make it work, there literally wasn't another choice. And if this sounds insane, it kind of was, but I saw the opportunity and took it. I'm also sure I would have figured it out if things didn't work out as well, but inexplicably I knew it would work out. Might also play into the: "Unlimited self-belief"... haha
The top university factor is probably bias. I mean those schools are good and lots of good people come from them, but people from those schools are also more likely to get funding and other things like top tier employees and co-founders. That's going to create an outsized effect.
Solo founders being older makes a lot of sense because to be successful as a solo founder you need a deeper skill set. You really need to be both technical and business/sales until you can get far enough to hire for the ones you are weaker on.
• Presence of one or more mentors in their life
• Exposure to successful adult role models in childhood
• Financial ability to survive for extended period of time without income
• Access to talent in their personal network
Bootstrapping a simple startup that eventually generates enough revenue to sustain the founders and perhaps a small team of ICs, is much more common than unicorn companies (they call them unicorns for a reason). Those companies are successful in my book.
How is this not contradictory?
There's a difference in "No plan B" if you have a family or network that you can fall back on, or if it means you'll end up as a homeless person.