Aman Narang

So, it turns out there is actually no meaningful correlation between how quickly a generational startup gets to $100M in ARR and the magnitude of its eventual success. Decided to pull this data because every time you turn a corner in SF, there is another VC debating whether the "triple-triple-double-double-double" paradigm is dead because a handful of ripping AI startups are sucking the air out the room for everyone else. That would suggest that nuking to $100M overnight is the only way to win But if the past is any indicator, that’s probably… not true. There have always been companies that blow traditional growth benchmarks out of the water and ones that grow more steadily over time. (We’ve all seen the “Fastest to $100M” charts). But when you actually compare that speed to the size of eventual outcomes, there is really no correlation. In fact, if you look at the value of these companies at their respective peaks, there is actually a slightly inverse relationship between speed and success. So, a couple takeaways: (1) $100M is a milestone (albeit an important one), but it’s not the final destination. We are talking about truly generational companies. At that level of scale, the real north star looks more like ten billion than hundreds of millions, and in case you forgot, $100M is just 1% $10B. (2) Speed is not the only playbook. Time to $100M isn’t destiny, and some of the biggest outcomes took longer to get there while others around them grew faster. To be abundantly clear, getting to $100M that quickly is an extremely impressive feat and indicative of companies building incredible products. That should not be discounted, and we will 100% continue to look for these kinds of investments. Too far in the other extreme is also true (limping to 100M with decelerating growth is probably not… great). But none of that detracts from the fact that it is a long road to success in this industry. There are many ways up the mountain, and it takes time to build something enduring!

1,697

120 Comments

Product-market fit genuinely feels different...and it'll show up in the data Demo to close rates are the easiest thing to look at for product-market fit right now. Vertical AI startups in our portfolio are seeing 50%+ demo to close rates, even with brand new account executives selling the product. It's happening in every market from AI takeoffs to AI CSR/Voice software to AI procurement solutions. When you see a demo to close rate over 50% chances are you have a jaw dropping customer experience and you should put your foot on the gas. If you're seeing something dramatically lower in mid-market or SMB ACV categories, it's worth revisiting your product and/or your pitch.

61

14 Comments

The smartest YC founders I know are NOT raising VC money. Here are FIVE unique things they're doing instead: 1) Firing their least technical co-founder. 2) Importing/exporting used Herman Miller chairs. 3) Selling their YC office hours on Craigslist. 4) Auctioning screenshots of their Stripe dashboard as art. 5) Using Central to eliminate nonsense HR/finance work and focusing on profitability - centralhq.com What else am I missing?

173

39 Comments

🚀 Hey! Series As and Bs: Feeling some operational growth pains, right? It’s Live! Scaling Teams with Andy Walsh 🎙️ Ever wondered what it really takes to scale a team at speed without the growing pains? 😵‍💫 I promise it's possible! Example of the last one prior to my CoS at Techstars days: 2019: 10 months of sales - 4 to 18 people = $8m in ARR. Raised $1.3m 2020: 18 to 32 people = $34m in ARR. Raised $1.2m Andy and I just dropped his 3rd podcast episode of Method where we unpack one of my 5 Pillars of Scaling: the secrets to scaling teams effectively—without the chaos. We covered: ✅ The biggest challenges founders faced in 2024 (and what’s ahead in 2025) ✅ Why intentionality is a founder’s greatest asset ✅ How OKRs keep teams aligned during rapid growth With my experience scaling 27 global companies from 0 and being a Chief of Staff at Techstars (4.1k Portfolio companies globally) & Kyndryl (Fortune 241), we dive into the real strategies that make or break a growing team. From hiring the right people 🏆 to candidate user journeys to building a culture that actually lasts even if remote which starts with onboarding 💪, we touch upon the must-knows (and a few things we wish we knew sooner!). Plugging in some of my favorite partners for HR Ops and TA: Tim Frazier, Charmaine Green-Forde, SPHR, SHRM-SCP, Tianna Johnson, Regina Angeles, Alex Pavlou, Morgan Williams, Emma Leeds, M.S. HR (She/Her) Lesya Arnold Catch the full episode - link in comments 🎧✨ Give it a listen, and let me know—what’s been your biggest challenge in scaling a team? ⬇️ #innovation #technology #venturecapital #startups

59

18 Comments

Yes, I’ve read the Culper short report on AppLovin. My thoughts: No, it’s not revelatory. Pre-loads and one-click installs on Android are common practice. Digital Turbine and ironSource offer similar products. App developers pay on app open. In fact, there’s no way to confirm the install absent an open. AppLovin also offers ROAS bidding. The notion that Google Play would be unaware of any malicious activity by AppLovin, the largest in-app broker ad network, is not credible. AppLovin is more than a decade old. Just because you’ve never heard of it doesn’t mean it’s a young company. Regarding front-running Meta spend: given the scale of AppLovin’s eCommerce advertisers’ Meta spend, they can necessarily measure incrementality. They wouldn’t scale on AppLovin if they didn’t see incrementality. I also don’t see how genuine front-running would be possible in an auction for in-app inventory. Further, it’s obvious why performance across the channels would be correlated. Full disclosure: I have a small, long-dated call position on AppLovin that amounts to <5% of my PA (notional). I have no commercial relationship with the company.

296

31 Comments

Samsara, ServiceTitan, and Procore Technologies have a combined valuation of $40B+ —and founders with wildly different industry experience. Yet VCs still debate whether it's needed to build great vertical software. As always, my stance is: It depends. The better question is: What type of founder are you, and what's your path to understanding your customers deeply? Some investors are adamant that you must have deep industry experience to build successful vertical software. Others claim outsiders have the advantage. Both camps love to cherry-pick examples that prove their point. But I've been advising and investing in vertical software companies for over two decades, and I think that's enough exposure to confidently conclude that founders of all backgrounds can be successful. Take these 3 examples (Samsara, ServiceTitan, Procore). They're some of the most successful vertical SaaS companies today. Some of the founders come from deep industry experience, but others have a background that would surprise you. → Procore's founders came from construction backgrounds and built a $10B+ company selling to their former industry. They'd lived the pain points they were solving for. → On the opposite end of the spectrum, Samsara's founders had zero experience in trucking or heavy industries. These MIT grads had just sold Meraki to Cisco for a billion dollars and were looking for their next challenge. They picked fleet management and transportation—two industries they knew nothing about. Today, Samsara is worth more than $20B. → Then there's Service Titan, which charted a middle path. The Stanford-educated founders didn't work in the trades themselves, but they grew up watching their parents run HVAC and painting businesses in Southern California. They bonded over their shared background and built a $10B+ company serving those same trades. So it's unreasonable to say that a founder's experience is the determining variable of success. Instead, what all 3 of these stories have in common is founders who deeply understood customer problems and built exceptional products to solve them. Industry outsiders often bring fresh perspectives and aren't constrained by "how things have always been done." Industry insiders have instant credibility and know which problems matter most. Those with adjacent experience can bridge both worlds. As an investor, I back founders regardless of their industry background. What matters most to me is their ability to build, learn rapidly, and maintain fanatical customer obsession. Where do you stand on the industry experience debate? I'd love to hear your thoughts.

35

10 Comments