The first question investors asked me in my early months of pitching was, 鈥淲here are you from?鈥�

The accent gave me away every time.

Following the failed 2020 revolution in Belarus, I moved my company, , to Estonia. I arrived in Estonia with no English, no network and no understanding of the Western startup world. I spent months studying the language, practicing daily to improve my pronunciation and confidence.

Even with my very basic English, I started pitching immediately. I met an angel who decided to invest after just one pitch. Only half a year after our relocation, we closed our first round of $250,000.

In today鈥檚 market, where early-stage capital is shrinking, your ability to communicate is as critical as your product. Forty-four percent of U.S. unicorn founders are immigrants, and many of them started as outsiders. You may not 鈥渓ook the part,鈥� but that doesn鈥檛 have to stop you from raising money. It certainly didn鈥檛 stop me.

From that experience, here are three lessons that I believe are highly valuable for any founder aiming to stand out.

Position yourself as a problem solver, not a capital-raiser

Investors meet hundreds of founders each year. Most of them open with how much they鈥檙e raising, not why they exist. When I started framing myself as someone obsessed with solving a real communication problem, not someone asking for capital, everything changed.

People invest in clarity and conviction. Instead of limiting myself to talking about market size or monetization, I illustrated the problem: how speech anxiety, accents and vocal tension limit people鈥檚 confidence globally. When your story is rooted in a genuine mission, your accent, location or background stops being a liability and becomes part of the proof.

Use body language to communicate confidence

How you carry yourself speaks louder than your words. Investors read it instantly. For example, if you lean back when challenged, it looks defensive. That鈥檚 why when I answer questions, I lean slightly forward, smile and nod. It signals that I鈥檓 engaged and listening instead of trying to protect myself.

Confidence also shows up in stillness. When you know your material, you don鈥檛 need to over-gesture. Remember that the goal is not to perform, but to connect. Smile first, listen fully and never interrupt. These small actions create a sense of trust long before you start talking about numbers.

The studies we relied on in product development show that voices with a lower pitch are perceived as 40% more confident and authoritative. Founders don鈥檛 need to fake that, but they can train it, the same way they can train their pitch deck.

Use pitch competitions as leverage

As I worked on my communication skills, pitch competitions became my springboard. They didn鈥檛 guarantee investment, but they built momentum. And in three first years, we won six: , , StartupFair, AWS AI Challenge, the European AI Startup Program by , and . Those events brought us $700,000 and connections that led directly to our seed round.

Beyond the funding, there鈥檚 enormous value in visibility. By participating in these competitions, you get feedback, credibility and stage time. All of that accelerates learning and helps you make your story resonate across languages, markets and personalities.

When you don鈥檛 sound like an insider, raising capital is about clarity, control and presence. Investors may notice your accent in the first five seconds, but if you master those next five minutes, they鈥檒l remember your idea, not where you came from.

Founders are obsessed with anxiously trying to get in front of investors, but anxiety kills a sale. You’ve already heard the advice from a startup mentor: practice your pitch, find your own mentors, and get feedback on your ideas.

In my experience, ideas and passion are key, but it’s your polished soft skills that actually let you show that passion to anybody.

is the co-founder and CEO of , a soft skills AI coaching startup. The company has more than 4 million downloads and 50,000 subscribers worldwide. His journey is deeply personal; he was bullied for unclear diction at school, which inspired his mission to help people communicate better. After being forced to flee his home country following the 2020 revolution, Lahoika arrived in Estonia with minimal command of English and used his own app to train his voice, securing his first round of funding within just six months. The winner of the AI Challenge and x European AI Startup Program, Vocal Image recently raised a $3.6 million seed round led by (France) and scaled to more than $14 million ARR.

Related reading:

• The Immigrant Edge: How Foreign-Born Entrepreneurs Drive America鈥檚 Unicorn Boom
• New To Silicon Valley? What I Wish I鈥檇 Known As An Immigrant Founder Back In 2017

Illustration:

This report was produced through a collaboration between the California Partners Project, illumyn Impact and 附近上门.聽

Executive summary

If social media has taught us anything, it鈥檚 that new technologies can have widespread and often unanticipated effects. They can change not only how we work but also how we think and how we relate to each other.

Artificial intelligence has an unprecedented potential to shape our future in exciting and unforeseeable ways. As business leaders and government agencies around the world grapple with the responsibility of managing the risks that accompany the promised rewards of AI, one immediate and place to start is building a diverse board of directors. Yet our research indicates that, on that front, AI company boards fall woefully short.

Boards that fail to reflect a wide range of experiences and viewpoints are not well-positioned to oversee companies whose products may determine how bank loan applications are evaluated, how healthcare issues are diagnosed, or how educational resources are allocated. Although no single measure can ensure responsible AI development, diverse board leadership is vital for companies creating technologies that will fundamentally reshape how we live, work and interact.

Within this study, we look at gender diversity, which is reasonably measurable, as a proxy for diversity of perspectives, life experience, areas of expertise and other demographics. To understand the gender mix on AI boards, we analyzed the board composition of more than 140 AI companies headquartered in California, where venture-backed AI development is concentrated. Our study focused on 102 private companies that have raised at least $50 million in cumulative funding. As we鈥檝e seen time and again, transformative innovations are as likely to come from today鈥檚 nascent startups as they are from established industry leaders. Governance of these companies during their high-growth, pre-IPO period is as it is after they go public. We also looked at the boards of 39 publicly traded AI companies for comparative purposes.

Our analysis revealed a striking lack of gender diversity among the people who govern some of the world鈥檚 most influential AI startups. Women comprise only 15% of the boards of private AI companies. More than 40% of these private boards don鈥檛 have any women directors.

Two root causes contribute to this gender disparity 鈥� one structural and one behavioral. First, investors and founders collectively hold the majority of private company board seats, and women are still underrepresented in those categories. Second, when appointing independent directors, boards often limit their consideration to familiar candidates instead of seeking qualified experts outside their immediate networks.

The good news: There are plenty of executive women and people of color on the cutting edge of AI innovation who are ready to bring their voices and operating expertise to the boardroom.

Companies that prioritize building a diverse board need only to look beyond their existing networks to find a wealth of AI board talent. Consider this precedent: Five years ago, one-third of all had no women board members. With focus and effort, all-male boards are now the rare exception.

Given the rapid pace of AI development, companies need to act now, while the technology and its applications are still emerging. CEOs and board members who bring more women and people of color into their boardrooms will help create a productive and healthy AI-powered future for all of us.

Key findings

Among the AI companies headquartered in California included in our study:

• 15% of private company board members are women;
• 43% of private company boards don鈥檛 include any women directors;
• Women who serve on private company boards are most likely to hold an independent director seat;
• 26% of private company boards don鈥檛 include any independent directors; and
• Publicly traded companies typically have more gender-diverse boards than private companies, but still average only two women per eight-person board.

Women average just one seat in AI boardrooms

Across all of the California-based AI private companies studied, women hold an average of one seat on a six-person board. Among 102 private companies, only five boards (5%) have an equal or greater number of women than men in the boardroom.

More than 40% of private AI companies have all-male boards

Among the over 100 privately held AI companies headquartered in California included in our study, 44 (43%) don鈥檛 have any women in the boardroom.

Gender diversity is slightly higher on the boards of companies with more capital. Among those with cumulative funding of at least $50 million but less than $100 million, 62% have all-male boards. For companies with at least $100 million in funding, that number drops to 32%. This shift likely stems from the addition of independent directors who bring operational and market expertise.

Among publicly traded companies, women hold an average of two board seats, double the average among private company boards. suggests that, to capture the full economic benefits of diversity, boards should include at least three women directors. Just half of the public companies we studied meet that threshold.

For private company boards, independent director appointments offer the fastest route to diversity

Most private company board seats (72%) are held by company executives (the CEO and co-founders, typically) and early investors. Women hold only 10% of these board seats, a reflection of the underrepresentation of women among venture capital investors and the entrepreneurs they fund. Women hold less than in venture capital firms. Companies with women-only founders secured just 3% of AI venture funding in 2023, a number stagnant since 2015.

More than half (55%) of the women directors included in our study hold independent board seats. That is, they are neither tied to the company鈥檚 founding or management team nor investors in the company. Whereas public companies must have a minimum number of independent directors, private companies have no such requirements. Therefore, independent directors are typically added later in a company鈥檚 lifecycle, often as part of preparation for an IPO. The percentage of companies without any independent directors decreases as the level of funding increases 鈥� from 36% for those with $50 million to $99 million to 21% for those with $100 million or more.

Our findings suggest that women are more likely to be appointed to private company AI boards as the second independent director. On boards with only one independent director, women hold 17% of those independent director seats. Among companies with more than one independent director, 67% had at least one woman in that role.

Summary

Women are underrepresented on the boards of AI companies 鈥� especially high-growth, earlier-stage startups. While board diversity is not a panacea, it is one essential element for the companies developing technology with the potential to influence society in profound ways.

To increase the number of women board members, companies should:

• Accelerate the appointment of independent directors;
• Commit to adding directors who expand the diversity of perspectives, skills and experiences on the board; and
• Reach outside existing networks to identify well-qualified candidates.

Companies don鈥檛 need to trade off technical expertise and governance experience to bring diverse voices into their AI boardrooms. They simply need to look beyond their immediate networks.

Methodology

This study follows the methodology utilized in the .

Leveraging the 附近上门 database, we identified 409 companies in the AI industry with headquarters in California. Among them were 40 publicly traded companies and 369 privately held companies with at least $50 million in cumulative funding as of July 1, 2024. To ensure that each company鈥檚 board profile was current, we included only companies that publish their board of directors on their website.

We then referenced company website data, 附近上门 profiles and other publicly available information to characterize the board members. The study included only board directors; board observers and/or advisers were excluded from the data set. For private company boards, we segmented board members according to type of board seat: executive, investor or independent. In the few cases in which founders and past executives remained on the board despite no longer having an operating role at the company, we classified them as 鈥渆xecutive directors鈥� in recognition of their original relationship to the company. We identified gender by referencing professional profiles on 附近上门 and, when not available, other sites.

About the authors

Co-founded by California First Partner and Olivia Morgan in partnership with the people of California, the is dedicated to championing gender equity across the state and ensuring our state鈥檚 media and technology industries are a force for good in the lives of all children. The California Partners Project tracks and spotlights women鈥檚 representation on corporate boards and offers an Inclusive Boards Playbook Series developed in partnership with 鈥檚 with strategies for board refreshment and culture-building. For more information about the nonprofit organization, visit . Connect with the California Partners Project on and .

is a predictive intelligence solution that forecasts private-market movements using the unique combination of live private company data, AI and market activity from more than 80 million users. It helps investors, dealmakers and analysts be the first to find and act on opportunities. To learn more, visit and follow 附近上门 on and .

(formerly Him For Her) is a social impact organization with a mission to diversify the board ecosystem, which is building and shaping the future: from healthcare, to AI, to climate change and beyond. Drawing from its ever-growing referral-based talent network of 8,000+ under-networked executives, a third of whom are women of color, makes highly curated introductions that bring fresh expertise into the boardroom. illumyn Impact is proud to partner with 100+ leading private equity and venture capital firms. A 501c3 corporation, illumyn Impact operates through the generosity of its founding partners , , , , , , Starboard Value and Tiger Global Impact Ventures, and supporters like and , , , and . Its sister organization,, supports underrepresented executives in some of the world鈥檚 largest companies through its corporate boardroom excellence fellowship program.

Illustration:

Recently, a stat comparison went viral:

• average viewership: 189,000/game
• average viewership: 120,000/game
• NWSL broadcast deal: $60 million/year
• MLS broadcast deal: $250 million/year

On the surface, it鈥檚 hard to argue with those numbers. If we鈥檙e comparing per-game viewership, it is clear the numbers don鈥檛 line up. NWSL average viewership per game is higher than that of the MLS, yet the MLS is making more than 4x as much as the NWSL in broadcast deals.

But this isn鈥檛 just about math. It鈥檚 about leverage, legacy and the business models we鈥檝e inherited.

To close this gap, we have to understand why it exists.

Mind the gap

When signed its $2.5 billion, 10-year deal with MLS, it wasn鈥檛 simply buying eyeballs 鈥斅爄t was strategically acquiring content IP. The deal secured global exclusivity, in-house production control, a subscription engine (MLS Season Pass), and category ownership within its platform.

By contrast, the NWSL鈥檚 $60 million per year deal 鈥斅爏plit across , , and 鈥� is monumental for a 12-year-old league. But it鈥檚 structured around traditional advertising, linear windows and shared production responsibilities. With fewer monetizable layers, the resulting deal was a lower headline number.

That $60 million per year figure includes production costs, marketing and value-in-kind contributions. Industry insiders estimate the actual cash to the league is closer to $35 million or $40 million.

Digging beyond the headline numbers reveals a key consideration: MLS has 30 teams each playing 34 regular-season matches, while the NWSL has 14 teams each playing 26. So even with the NWSL鈥檚 higher per-game viewership, the MLS produces nearly 3x the total amount of content hours.

Many buyers are still conditioned to value volume over engagement. Therein lie the conditions contributing to the conundrum.

Outdated valuation models

We need to shift our focus to the fact that the audience has moved, and the valuation models haven鈥檛.

The NWSL鈥檚 189,000 average viewership in 2024-2025 reflects explosive growth. Just a few years ago, viewership hovered under 100,000. And unlike legacy leagues, 36% of NWSL鈥檚 audience is male, proving broader crossover appeal.

Yet, buyers are still pricing women鈥檚 sports like it鈥檚 2012.

In 2007, a 13-team MLS was in its 12th year and averaged just 96,000 viewers per game, nearly half of where NWSL is today at the same point in its life cycle.

Somehow, media buyers are anchoring to MLS鈥� 2007 risk profile when assessing NWSL鈥檚 2025 opportunity. That is a blatant mistake that, unfortunately, suggests a lack of awareness of the full potential of women鈥檚 sports as an asset class. They are entirely different from the men鈥檚 model and cannot be compared to old men鈥檚 figures from a bygone era.

The -WNBA deal tells a similar story. The new NBA media deal, reportedly worth $76 billion over 11 years, allocates just $2.2 billion to the WNBA. That鈥檚 less than 3%, despite WNBA viewership surging 96% year over year on ESPN and triple digits on .

Again, this isn鈥檛 about performance. It鈥檚 about who had leverage, how risk was priced, and what decision-makers were conditioned to value.

It鈥檚 a misconception that the rise of women鈥檚 leagues threatens legacy properties. In actuality, they expand the total addressable audience. There鈥檚 no need to treat them as a zero-sum game; Caitlin Clark鈥檚 arrival didn鈥檛 stop the 2025 Super Bowl from setting a new U.S. TV record with 127.7 million viewers.

The real risk is underpricing growth just because it doesn鈥檛 fit the old template. So, where does that leave us?

Missed opportunities

If we keep pricing based on history instead of momentum, we鈥檒l continue to miss the biggest upside of this era. The market is failing to recognize what鈥檚 actually happening on the ground, from viewership to fan engagement, and continuing to look for easy comps against old metrics that aren鈥檛 truly comparable.

As an investor and operator, I鈥檝e seen what happens when you bet on markets others deem 鈥渘iche.鈥� Years ago, women鈥檚 health companies like ,, and began as 鈥渆dge case鈥� investments and are now redefining categories. The need was always there. The system just hadn鈥檛 caught up.

Women鈥檚 sports are following the same arc. The difference is that this time, the world is watching and demanding more. We just have to catch the attention of those making these deals to ensure they hear our demands or forge ahead with breaking into those spaces and making our own decisions.

This moment where many are realizing the math isn鈥檛 adding up is a signal to those bold enough to build and brave enough to change how we define value to seize the biggest opportunity in sports today. Don鈥檛 miss it.

is the co-founder and managing partner of and Muse Sport, as well as the chair of the and owner of SailGP Italia. Muse Capital is a consumer technology fund investing in companies that should exist, especially those transforming how we care, live and play. Muse Sport is an advisory business that provides strategic capital, operational support and commercial partnerships to emerging sports properties and infrastructure opportunities. A recognized force in sports, women鈥檚 healthcare and tech-enabled consumer innovation, Grazioli-Venier鈥檚 investment philosophy bridges purpose and performance, focusing on underserved markets with global scale potential.

Illustration:

Executive Summary

Since 2019, when we began benchmarking board diversity among U.S.-based private companies, we鈥檝e seen a significant increase in the percentage of women directors (from 7% to 17%) and a reduction in the number of all-male boards (from 60% to 32%). The improvements we observed over the early years of our six-year tracking study have since plateaued. Recent analysis of the boards of 807 private, venture-backed companies with at least $100 million in cumulative funding reveals no meaningful change compared to the prior year.

As noted in our 2023 report, private company board development likely continues to suffer from a lack of prioritization in light of the relatively and early-stage venture deals in 2024. Without the forcing function of an impending IPO or ready access to capital, CEOs and their boards tend to focus on operational challenges rather than board recruitment.

Several trends point to the potential for renewed momentum in the years to come, notably:

• Younger companies tend to have boards with more gender diversity;
• The percentage of women who hold investor-director board seats has increased significantly; and
• Fewer women directors are the only women in the boardroom, further extending the board network to a broader pool of candidates.

As venture funding increases and the IPO market improves, we expect to see another inflection point in the percentage of women on high-growth private company boards.

Key Findings

• Women hold 17% of board seats among the companies studied, up from 7% in our original study in 2019.
• Between 2019 and 2024, women gained two-thirds of a board seat (0.65); they now represent roughly 1.2 out of 6.9 board members.
• Nearly a third (32%) of companies don鈥檛 have any women on their boards, an improvement from 60% in 2019.
• 23% of company boards include a woman of color, up from 19% in 2020.
• Women hold 28% of independent director seats, 13% of investor director seats, and 10% of executive director seats, up from 19%, 5% and 4%, respectively, in 2019.
• 32% of directors are the only women on their boards, down from 44% in 2020.
• Proportionately fewer companies founded since 2015 have all-male boards (26%) compared with companies founded prior to 2016 (37%).
• The boards of these younger companies are significantly more likely to include a woman investor (17%) than those of older companies (10%).

Methodology

This tracking update largely reproduced the methodology employed with our prior studies published in December 2019, March 2021, March 2022, March 2023 and March 2024. For this update, we analyzed 807 of the most heavily funded private U.S.-based companies to understand the composition of their boards as of Q4 2024 鈥� one year after the prior study and four years after the original.

Leveraging the 附近上门 database, we identified 2,829 U.S.-based private companies founded since 2003 with cumulative funding of at least $100 million as of June 30, 2024. To ensure that each company鈥檚 board profile was current, we included only companies that publish their board of directors on their website.

We then referenced company website data, 附近上门 profiles and other publicly available information to characterize the board members. The study included only board directors; board observers and/or advisers were excluded from the data set. For each company we segmented board members according to type of board seat: executive, investor or independent. In the few cases in which founders and past executives remained on the board despite no longer having an operating role at the company, we classified them as 鈥渆xecutive directors鈥� in recognition of their original relationship to the company. We identified gender by referencing professional profiles on 附近上门 and, when not available, other sites. For racial/ethnic identity, we leveraged self-identification information where available and supplemented that with contextual information and visual identification. As reflected by data collection, people of color include Black or African American, American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, Hispanic or Latino. Those with MENA backgrounds are not included among people of color.

About the Authors

(formerly Him For Her) is a social impact organization with a mission to diversify the board ecosystem, which is building and shaping the future: from healthcare, to AI, to climate change and beyond. Drawing from its ever-growing referral-based talent network of 8,000+ under-networked executives, a third of whom are women of color, makes highly-curated introductions that bring fresh expertise into the boardroom. illumyn Impact is proud to partner with 100+ leading private equity and venture capital firms. A 501c3 corporation, illumyn Impact operates through the generosity of its founding partners , , , , , , Starboard Value and Tiger Global Impact Ventures; and supporters like and , , , and . Its sister organization,, supports underrepresented executives in some of the world鈥檚 largest companies through its corporate boardroom excellence fellowship program.

is a predictive intelligence solution that forecasts private market movements using the unique combination of live private company data, AI, and market activity from more than 80 million users. It helps investors, dealmakers, and analysts be the first to find and act on opportunities. To learn more, visit and follow 附近上门 on and .

Illustration:

The venture capital industry is consolidating rapidly, As capital becomes concentrated among fewer players, underrepresented founders 鈥� particularly women-led startups 鈥� are facing even greater challenges when it comes to securing funding.

Even though women-led startups consistently show lower failure rates and higher returns, startups with only female founders still consistently receive less than 2% of VC funding. This is largely due to implicit biases and pattern recognition. Investors often favor founders who resemble past successes 鈥� typically male-led companies. Larger firms, in particular, prioritize established networks and lower-risk investments. That makes it even harder for entrepreneurs of diverse backgrounds to break into these circles.

Adding to this challenge is rising inflation and economic uncertainties, which have created a greater reliance on bridge rounds and insider-led funding. This trend disproportionately benefits well-connected founders, while underrepresented entrepreneurs who 鈥� in a vicious cycle 鈥� often lack a deep investor network, are left at a significant disadvantage.

Alternative funding

As operational costs rise, startups need more capital, yet with fewer firms actively investing, securing additional funding is increasingly difficult. Furthermore, large VC firms are shifting their focus toward capital-intensive industries such as AI and biotech, leaving fewer opportunities for diversity to succeed in other high-potential sectors such as consumer, healthcare and sustainability.

For underrepresented founders navigating this shifting landscape, it鈥檚 crucial to explore alternative funding sources such as grants, revenue-based financing and corporate venture partnerships. Strengthening mentorship networks and engaging with diversity-focused investment funds can also be vital in expanding access to capital.

Ultimately, institutional investors and LPs must push for greater transparency in diversity metrics and actively support funds that prioritize diverse founders. Despite the significant barriers posed by VC consolidation, women and minority entrepreneurs continue to demonstrate remarkable resilience. By advocating for equitable funding and expanding access to alternative capital, underrepresented founders can work toward securing the investment they need to thrive in 2025 and beyond.

is the founding partner of , where she and her team are active investors in founders that exhibit compelling medical technology, deep technology and beyond. Previously, her experience included working in financial services on the sell-side at Lehman Brothers and Matrix Partners. She passionately and deliberately mentors and searches for female-led companies and believes that investing in women is the best way to bring more women into leadership roles. At her helm, Excelestar Ventures has been named one of the top 100 Women-Led Businesses in Massachusetts by . She is also the managing partner of the Boston Chapter. She is a graduate of and .

Illustration:

Although they make up the majority of Silicon Valley鈥檚 tech workforce, people of Asian descent remain significantly underrepresented in leadership roles: 27% at , 30% at , and 25% at , according to .

The disparity is even starker for East Asians, who face pronounced barriers to advancement due to pervasive stereotypes around leadership style and cultural biases that favor Western communication norms.

This bias extends beyond corporate leadership and into venture funding. Despite their strong track record, East Asian founders don鈥檛 receive investment proportional to their success. If they鈥檙e excelling at building and scaling tech companies, why aren鈥檛 more of them household names?

In my experience, unconscious bias persists in entrepreneurial communities, making it harder for East Asian founders 鈥� whether foreign-born or native-born聽 鈥� to break through. The paradox is clear: East Asians are instrumental to Silicon Valley鈥檚 success, yet they remain overlooked when it comes to leadership and venture funding.

One community that understands these challenges best is the broader immigrant entrepreneur ecosystem. Many immigrant groups, such as South Asians and Middle Easterners, embrace assertive, risk-taking and relationship-driven norms that align more closely with U.S. entrepreneurial culture.

By learning from these approaches 鈥� whether in self-promotion or investor rapport 鈥� East Asian founders can better navigate the biases that have historically held them back.

Tackle cultural myths

The experiences shared by the broader immigrant community can help East Asian founders face certain unique challenges. These two biases often create obstacles.

• Bias #1: The 鈥淢odel Minority鈥� Myth: The perception that Asians are self-sufficient and don鈥檛 need support, which leads to fewer targeted opportunities and mentorship.
• Bias #2: Weaker leadership and sales skills: The assumption that East Asians lack the charisma, decisiveness or persuasion needed to lead companies.

Overcoming these stereotypes requires founders to recognize how they may be perceived and proactively amplify their strengths, but that doesn鈥檛 typically happen in a vacuum.

When I was in business school, I took a course on 鈥渃ross-cultural communication鈥� and learned how cultural norms can heavily shape how you present yourself. In an exercise where we lined up students from different countries by outward confidence, it was no surprise that the Israeli and Lebanese students were ranked the highest.

Spending time with founders from other cultural backgrounds can offer East Asian entrepreneurs insights on leaning into and embracing one鈥檚 own identity as an asset in the founder journey. The community is also an understanding space for them to seek out more guided mentorship.

Meet investors who acknowledge your potential

As a VC focused entirely on immigrant founders, I鈥檝e seen firsthand how difficult it can be for this group 鈥� especially those from East Asian backgrounds 鈥� to communicate certain aspects of their vision and leadership potential. Many come from cultures where humility is a core value.

Seeking out VCs who are immigrants themselves, or who actively support immigrant founders, can provide both practical guidance and psychological support. These investors understand the cultural nuances that shape founders鈥� communication styles and can offer tailored advice on how to navigate investor meetings, refine storytelling and emphasize leadership potential in a way that resonates with their audience.

They may also be more inclined to back you but, even if they don鈥檛 invest, building relationships with these investors is invaluable. Good places to start include funds that focus on immigrant founders, as well as Asian American-focused firms such as and .

The broader immigrant community in the U.S. has been shaped by shared struggles, creating a close-knit network that thrives on mutual support. East Asian founders can learn a lot from how immigrant groups have overcome barriers in business and beyond.

is a general partner at , a VC firm backing exceptional immigrant founders. He specializes in supply chain tech, fintech and digital health.

Illustration:

Despite female founders, Latin America still represents a growth opportunity for women entrepreneurs.

According to , the rate of small businesses founded by women in Latin America is 鈥� higher than most regions, but focused within .

Thankfully, LatAm already has what other regions lack: a natural impulse by women to want to start businesses. The challenge, however, lies in how to bring that drive into the formal technology startup ecosystem.

While some progress has been made, the public and private sector can implement strategies to support women tech entrepreneurs, such as emphasizing building community, promoting access to new technologies, and establishing responsible metrics for investing in women-led startups.

Building community

While show women-led startups generate twice as much revenue per dollar invested as their male counterparts, women accounted for just of all tech startup founders in 2023.

The good news is that regionally, LatAm has of female founders, particularly in countries like Colombia, Chile, Ecuador, Guatemala and Panama. However, collaboration among those in that community, and inspiring the next generation of female entrepreneurs, remain challenges.

A few organizations are doing this already, including and . And has organized programs aimed at bolstering support for female entrepreneurs in countries like .

But overall, strong local and regional communities of female entrepreneurs are nascent. Latin America鈥檚 tech community can do a better job of building support and information sharing networks.

This includes: dedicated conferences; digital dashboards for VCs which list women entrepreneurs; entrepreneurship-focused podcasts and social media channels; public and private accelerator programs dedicated to female founders; and more mentorship programs for female business school and STEM students.

Making sure young Latinas can see women in tech leadership roles can help break down and help usher in a bigger generation of female entrepreneurs.

Promoting digitalization

Like many developing economies, access to technology is a problem in LatAm. My team鈥檚 research financial constraints limit entrepreneurs鈥� access to digital technologies, which is crucial to the value creation process.

Furthermore, to data, only 36% of micro, small and medium enterprises in LatAm have their own website and only 16% use e-commerce tools. In Mexico, the figures are even lower.

This lack of access to technology represents a significant challenge for LatAm women in particular, given their propensity to found companies within the informal sector.

Public and private sector leaders must better support digitalization in Latin American economies. Training programs for women focused on e-commerce and communications tech can help them better access in LatAm.

Some of these initiatives already exist. Chile鈥檚 “Digitaliza tu Pyme” program; Colombia鈥檚 Digital Business Transformation Centers; and Costa Rica鈥檚 Intelligent Community Centers are examples. Here in Mexico, hosts its own business development center for small and medium enterprises, which promotes digitalization.

Increased access to technology and skills will catapult the Latin American women鈥檚 entrepreneurial spirit into the digital age.

Access to financing

In Latin America, of women entrepreneurs cannot access financial support. As a result, women end up launching businesses with their own savings, assuming massive risk.

More recently, public development banks, or , have attempted to provide women access to financial tools, offering low interest loans and working capital.

For example, the 鈥檚 and the increase access to financing for women from developing countries. Nonprofits like also offer a variety of services to women entrepreneurs, including loans, business training and technical assistance.

While these initiatives are important, they aren鈥檛 enough to close the access to finance .

VCs and angels should establish internal metrics to ensure a percentage of funding in LatAm is directed toward female founders. Such investments will pay off in the long run, as show that the return on investments into companies with female co-founders outperformed those with only men leadership teams by 63%.

For all its hardships, LatAm has been blessed with women who take action to better their economic circumstances through entrepreneurship. Their natural inclination to found businesses can be better channeled into the growth of the region鈥檚 tech sector by providing female entrepreneurs with the community, financial support and digital tools necessary to succeed.

鈥� is the leader of the tech and scientific-based Entrepreneurship Center of Excellence at 鈥�, one of Latin America’s leading engineering universities. A Ph.D. candidate in entrepreneurship, she has presented her research in the field at leading institutions including 鈥�, and others.

Illustration:

Only around $730 million 鈥� or 0.4% of all funding 鈥� went to startups with a Black founder or co-founder last year, per 附近上门 . That鈥檚 the lowest share in years, and down more than two-thirds from just three years ago.

For a sense of how the numbers have fluctuated, below we chart annual funding to Black-founded startups since 2020, along with total reported rounds.

Cleantech and health take in largest rounds

Much of the funding tally for Black-founded startups in 2024 came from a few larger rounds. Standouts include:

• , a startup that transforms CO鈧� into jet fuel and other useful products, picked up a $200 million Series C in September, led by , and . (The company also raised $445 million in project financing and credit, though only the Series C was included in our annual funding totals.)
• , a provider of Medicare Advantage health plans with a focus on improving health outcomes in diverse populations, raised $140 million in September from investors including and .
• , a developer of autonomous electric aircraft, raised $40 million in a February Series B led by .
• , a provider of outpatient addiction treatment, landed $30 million in a February Series D led by .
• , a provider of tools to automate accounting, budgeting and forecasting, secured $25 million in an April financing.

Black founders are underrepresented

Despite these larger fundings, however, Black founders continue to be exceptionally underrepresented relative to their numbers.

鈥淭here鈥檚 a lot of work to do on addressing biases,鈥� said , founding partner and managing director of , a venture fund investor operating on the principle that bias hinders optimal financial performance.

Per Dodson, the proportionately low funding totals demonstrate that investors appear to be passing on promising entrepreneurs due to racial bias.

Demographics support this take. Today, more than 48 million Americans self-identify as Black, , representing 14.4% of the U.S. population.

If funding share was in line with population, one would expect companies with a Black founder or co-founder to attract more than 14.4% of all funding (given that startups commonly have more than one founder). In reality, of course, it鈥檚 nowhere near that level.

Black Americans are also starting businesses at a steady clip. Per the , as of 2020, accounted for $141.1 billion in annual sales and employed 1.3 million people.

The cohort, however, does not appear to be a major recipient of the AI funding boom. None of the U.S. artificial intelligence startups that raised $100 million or more in funding last year were Black-founded companies, per 附近上门 data.

DEI efforts face political backlash but maintain some private sector support

The fall in funding share for Black founders also comes amid an increasingly hostile political climate around government and private sector efforts to promote diversity in hiring and investment decision-making.

In its initial days, the administration shuttered DEI-related programs at government agencies and sought to curtail funding to entities promoting 鈥渨oke鈥� ideologies, a term interpreted as encompassing many diversity efforts.

In the private sector, meanwhile, reactions to the changed climate are mixed. Several large companies, including and , recently announced plans to curtail or wind down DEI-related efforts. Others, including and , have said they plan to continue their commitments.

In the startup investment arena, diversity-focused venture funds did not rank among the larger small or midsized vehicles to close last year. The weak showing came amid a broader drop-off in the number of U.S. small and midsized funds closing on fresh capital.

Diversity-focused investors have faced legal challenges as well. In one high-profile case, venture capital firm said last fall that it would for Black women business owners as part of a settlement in a lawsuit alleging discrimination.

What will 2025 have in store?

Of course, we have no idea how funding tallies will play out in the coming year. Obviously, that also doesn鈥檛 prevent us from speculating.

In the case of Black founders, it seems reasonable to expect some growth in funding share, if only because last year鈥檚 proportion was so low. Given that Black founders have a proportionately higher representation in the healthcare industry, strong funding for this sector could also help boost totals.

Methodology

The data contained in this report comes directly from 附近上门, and is based on reported data provided by our partners, venture partners, our community network and news sources. The data in this report is focused on the U.S. market for underrepresented minorities, namely Black-/African-American-founded companies.

附近上门鈥檚 dataset is constantly expanding, but there are gaps. A company may not have founders listed, or the Diversity Spotlight data may not be updated on its 附近上门 profile. We do believe we are missing companies, especially at the early stages of funding.

If you notice missing data, please reach out to spotlight@crunchbase.com or verify with your company email to update your company鈥檚 Diversity Spotlight tags directly onsite.

附近上门, like all databases of private-market transactions, has a documented pattern of reporting delays. The data for 2024 will increase over time relative to previous years. As data is added to 附近上门 over time, some of the numbers in this report may shift.

Related 附近上门 Pro list:

Related reading:

• Startup Funding Regained Its Footing In 2024 As AI Became The Star Of The Show
• Fewer Small And Midsize Venture Funds Are Closing This Year

Illustration:

That鈥檚 not exactly surprising. The DEI movement has been under fire for a while from a large political faction that includes newly inaugurated .

Last week, Trump began his term with an executive order to end DEI programs in federal agencies. The administration put federal employees working on such programs on , with the expectation that they will soon be fired.

Thus far, it鈥檚 unclear what the administration鈥檚 anti-DEI stance means for private-sector efforts around diversity and inclusion. Large cap companies still commonly a chief diversity officer or similar role. Mission statements around promoting diversity and also remain popular at and other prominent brands.

Even so, the cultural shift around DEI is undeniable. And that鈥檚 visible in the chilly environment for venture funding in the space.

DEI used to be a description favorite

It wasn鈥檛 always so. From roughly 2020 to early 2023, diversity initiatives were de rigueur, and a sizable crop of startups raised funding for businesses aimed wholly or in part at helping employers achieve their goals.

Using 附近上门 , we put together a list of 19 companies funded in the past five years that appear to fit this description.

As we mentioned, the level of focus on DEI efforts varies among the listed companies.

Some carved out brands heavily associated with diversity hiring. For example, recruiting platform raised a $50 million Series C at a $400 million valuation in 2021, with a stated 鈥渢o set the industry standard for increasing diversity in Corporate America.鈥�

Another, , which works with organizations to hire, retain and promote underrepresented talent, secured over $30 million in a 2022 financing. In tandem, it pitched a plan to build a portal for HR leaders to learn best practices from DEIB, or diversity, equity, inclusion and belonging, experts.

Others promoted diversity-related offerings alongside other features. For instance, when talent sourcing platform announced a at a $1.2 billion valuation, it focused on its AI capabilities but also talked up its utility in diversity recruiting.

Or when talent marketplace its Series B funding in 2021, the company summarized its core offering as 鈥渄eep AI personalization and a commitment to diversity and inclusion.鈥�

But while descriptions of their business models varied, there was a common trend among startups to, when possible, highlight in funding announcements how their offerings might advance DEI goals.

Not so much now

That鈥檚 not so much the case now.

For one, we鈥檙e not seeing a lot of funding announcements for diversity-minded companies tied to hiring and retention. Most of the companies on our list above haven鈥檛 raised fresh capital since 2021 or 2022.

Additionally, funded companies seem less likely to put their DEI-related capabilities front and center. A survey of homepages of companies on our list shows that most don鈥檛 currently feature the acronym DEI.

Diversity hiring capabilities are also getting downplayed. For instance, when was acquired last year by , the deal initially described the acquiree as 鈥渁n early career talent platform that connects students with top companies.鈥� Untapped mentioned its capabilities as 鈥渁 platform to hire qualified and diverse intern and new grad talent鈥� at the bottom.

Employment startups overall are raising less capital

However, it鈥檚 not only DEI-focused companies that are getting less funding.

In 2024, funding across stages to U.S. companies in the employment, recruiting and career planning sectors totaled $988 million 鈥� down from $1.73 billion a year earlier. In 2021 鈥� the market peak 鈥� companies in those spaces raised more than $7.5 billion, per 附近上门 data.

The job market, of course, is also in a much different place than it was a few years ago. Tech industry hiring, in particular, is much more muted than during the market peak, with job seekers to find employment. Employers, meanwhile, are finding more applicants for many job postings than they can easily screen.

Overall, it鈥檚 not a bad situation for employers. But for startups in the recruiting space, DEI-focused or not, it鈥檚 not an optimal environment for fundraising.

Related 附近上门 Pro list:

Illustration:

Female founders are grossly undervalued. Though women make up 38% of business owners, startups with only female founders consistently receive just 2% to 3% of venture investment. That speaks volumes about long-standing gender biases in the entrepreneurial space.

In a system where women must already work harder to be recognized, the added complexity of pregnancy can feel like an almost insurmountable hurdle.

But having navigated a funding at my startup , while pregnant, I know firsthand that achieving your funding goals with a baby on board isn鈥檛 impossible.

Rather than an added weight, continuing to raise funding while pregnant is a testament to your passion and commitment, and a fantastic opportunity to highlight your team-building skills and long-term vision 鈥� all qualities VCs in a founder.

Maintaining transparency

Investors are putting up capital with no guarantee the startup will survive, let alone deliver a return on investment. Trust is a crucial part of the founder-investor relationship, and disclosing a pregnancy shows the honesty and openness they value.

A seasoned investor has seen it all and no startup is without its struggles. If not pregnancy, there would be a different challenge to navigate, so don鈥檛 put your fundraising plan on hold just because you鈥檙e expecting.

As long as you can demonstrate your commitment to the product and ability to deal with the challenges ahead, investors will show understanding 鈥� as Zing鈥檚 successful Series A proves, having been completed in just six months.

Will you face bias? Undoubtedly. A whopping of female founders report experiencing discrimination during the fundraising process, whether pregnant or not. Take this honesty as a blessing. You will have to work closely with this person as your business grows, so would you rather learn of their questionable opinions before or after you sign on the dotted line?

Planning for disruption

Investors are incredibly risk-averse, which is part of the reason just of venture capital funding is given to women-led startups. There鈥檚 no telling whether you will require an extended absence to focus on your health or if your appetite for entrepreneurship will wane as you navigate motherhood 鈥� but investors will want a clear picture of how it鈥檚 likely to impact their investment.

A comprehensive maternity plan 鈥斅燿etailing any expected absences, how responsibilities will be delegated while you鈥檙e away, and how the company plans to deal with any problems 鈥斅爓ill reassure investors. This will also put you in good stead to adapt quickly when issues arise.

You will face unique challenges that add to the complexity of leading a startup. For me, it was the intense cravings and constant bathroom breaks that seemed determined to interrupt crucial meetings.

But you鈥檙e a founder, so it isn鈥檛 like this is your first time dealing with the unexpected. Pregnancy is just another challenge on your company鈥檚 journey, so deal with it as you would any other.

Putting your health first

Sometimes, entrepreneurship feels like a competition to see who can work the most and sleep the least. It鈥檚 not the healthiest of lifestyles and is only made worse by the aches and pains of pregnancy. It鈥檚 incredibly taxing 鈥� and, with your little one鈥檚 health to worry about too, it鈥檚 no time to try to prove your unwavering resilience.

While you shouldn鈥檛 pause your fundraising, you should put the post-conference parties and long business trips on hold for a while. Take breaks, listen to your body, and put your health first, and you鈥檒l be back leading your team in no time. But ignoring your body will only harm your productivity and motivation, delay your return to work, and damage your startup鈥檚 prospects of achieving its funding goals.

is the CEO and co-founder of, an AI-driven personal training app. She has more than a decade of experience in launching and scaling health and fitness products. Under her leadership, Zing Coach has surpassed 1 million downloads, achieved the highest retention rate among competitors (as reported by ), and recently secured $10 million in Series A funding. In addition to her achievements in fitness tech, Parfenyuk is a passionate advocate for female leadership, actively engaging with organizations including Global Female Leaders and The Female Lead.

Related reading:

• The Portion Of US VC Funding That Went To Female Founders Hit A New Peak In 2023, Thanks To Massive AI Deals
• Is There A Gender Bias in Funding? Yes. Here鈥檚 How Female Founders Can Overcome
• These Female Founders And CEOs Raised The Biggest Rounds In 2024

Illustration: