I’m trying to decide which VC path fits a product background. Community veterans’ takes vary: early-stage rewards pattern recognition and founder empathy; growth-stage values execution and metrics; corporate vc prizes business model fluency and cross-functional influence. My own instincts after talking to mentors: if you love sourcing and thesis-building, early-stage might fit; if you want to run diligence and scale portfolios, growth; if you prefer strategic partnerships, corporate. I worry about locking into a path too early. For PMs who picked a track, what trade-offs should I expect and how did you choose?
pick based on what you actually enjoy doing, not what looks prestigey on LinkedIn. early-stage is high variance: lots of sourcing, hand-holding, and hope. growth is metrics-heavy and often feels like product on steroids. corporate vc is politics with budgets. i’ve seen talented PMs flounder in early because they miss the patience and sourcing muscle. be honest: do you like hunting or optimizing?
and FYI, moving between tracks later is harder than you think. tread carefully.
corporate vc sounds stable but political. any quick pros/cons?
Each VC track aligns with different strengths. Early-stage suits those who enjoy hypothesis generation, founder engagement, and storytelling; success is measured qualitatively and via occasional big hits. Growth-stage favors analytical rigor, scaling playbooks, and measurable operational levers — former PMs who excel at metrics tend to transition well here. Corporate VC requires stakeholder management, strategic alignment with corporate priorities, and a tolerance for longer decision cycles. To choose, map your skills to day-to-day tasks: sourcing and conviction (early), diligence and scaling (growth), or strategic integration and KPIs tied to corporate goals (corporate). Try short exposures: volunteer to support diligence, do a scout stint, or collaborate with corporate BD to test fit before committing. Which day-to-day tasks energize you most?
you’re in a great spot — try small experiments (scout, diligence, BD) and your fit will reveal itself. trust the process!
i picked growth because i loved digging into activation funnels, but i almost joined an early fund after a few founder chats. what changed my mind was doing two diligence projects — i liked the analytical depth of growth work. remember that small stints (scouting, pro-bono memos) helped me decide without quitting my job.
Empirically, PMs with strong quantitative track records and measurable growth outcomes land growth VC roles 40% more often than early-stage roles, while those with founder networks and domain expertise trend toward early-stage. Corporate VC hires often come from product leaders with cross-functional stakeholder success and demonstrated partnership deals. If you quantify your strengths (e.g., % improvements, number of founder relationships, BD deals), you can probabilistically estimate fit and prioritize outreach accordingly.
A practical test: run three 4-week experiments — one sourcing memo for early-stage, one scaling playbook for growth, and one BD exploration for corporate VC. Score each experiment on enjoyment, output quality, and network feedback. The highest-scoring track over a month is a reasonable proxy for fit and reduces switching costs.