How to build a target investor list using Crunchbase. 👇

First, you’ll need Crunchbase Pro. At $25/mo, not bad.

Then, I use Airtable, specifically the Linked Table feature.

Step 1: Go to Crunchbase and search for funding rounds (not companies), filter by relevant categories (for funded org), the right funding type (Eg seed), geo, and then do “announced after” and pick a date 2 or 3 years ago.

These are funding rounds by startups relevant to you.
Step 2: Export list to csv. Make sure you have the “investors” column in there.

Import csv to a new Airtable.
Step 3: Go to the “Investor Names” column > Edit Column Type > Link to another table > Create New (title it “Investors”).

What this does is separate the column by comma and create a new row for each investor in a new table.
Step 4: Go to linked “Investors” table. It should auto have a column w all the linked funding rounds. Create a “count” column on this.
Step 5: Sort by Count desc.

What you’ll have is a list of the most active investors in your geo/industry, sorted by activity, w reference to recent deals.
Step 6: You can repeat this search for each industry and geo separately, which will give you more granular data (Eg. “this investor invests locally AND in my sector often”).
Step 7: Once you have this list, use LinkedIn to see if you have intro paths (use LinkedIn premium and search for “current companies > add firm names” and “2nd degree connection” for intro paths.

If no luck, you can try cold emailing them. Or try to reach a portfolio founder.

You May Also Like

"I lied about my basic beliefs in order to keep a prestigious job. Now that it will be zero-cost to me, I have a few things to say."


We know that elite institutions like the one Flier was in (partial) charge of rely on irrelevant status markers like private school education, whiteness, legacy, and ability to charm an old white guy at an interview.

Harvard's discriminatory policies are becoming increasingly well known, across the political spectrum (see, e.g., the recent lawsuit on discrimination against East Asian applications.)

It's refreshing to hear a senior administrator admits to personally opposing policies that attempt to remedy these basic flaws. These are flaws that harm his institution's ability to do cutting-edge research and to serve the public.

Harvard is being eclipsed by institutions that have different ideas about how to run a 21st Century institution. Stanford, for one; the UC system; the "public Ivys".