Every investor database sells the same implicit promise: type in what you are building, receive the people who will fund it. The promise is comfortable and it is false, and a founder who believes it spends their first month writing to firms that were never going to reply.

FundDaddy filters a register of investors by the constraints of a round — cheque size, stage, sector, geography, investor type, instrument. It is worth being precise about what comes back.

A match is an overlap, not a judgement#

When a firm appears in your results, one thing has happened: the record on file for that firm overlaps with the constraints you set. Their recorded cheque range includes your raise. Their recorded stage includes yours. Their recorded geography includes where you are.

That is a statement about two sets of facts. It is not a statement about whether the firm is deploying this quarter, whether the partner who cared about your sector is still there, or whether they have already backed a direct competitor and cannot look at you.

None of those things are knowable from a register, by us or by anyone else. They are knowable from the firm — which is the point of the list. It exists to get you to a small enough number of firms that finding out becomes possible.

Where the evidence actually comes from#

Records are assembled from public websites, public registers, structured imports and enrichment work, and some fields are corrected by the people they describe. That produces uneven coverage, and the unevenness is not random.

Some facts are published, most are not#

A firm’s website will usually say what stage it invests at and roughly what it writes. It will rarely say what it declined last year, how much dry powder is left in the current fund, or that the seed practice quietly stopped taking new positions in March. The first category is in the register. The second is not in any register.

Silence is not absence#

A missing value means the field was never recorded — not that the firm does not have one. A firm with no stated cheque range has not told the internet its cheque range. Filtering hard on a field will exclude every record where nobody wrote the answer down, which is a different population from the one you meant to exclude.

This is why the register distinguishes between a value that is known and a value that is empty, and says so on the record rather than defaulting the gap to something plausible.

Freshness varies by field#

Names, websites and headquarters change slowly. Stage focus, active funds and team composition change quickly. A record can be simultaneously correct about what a firm is and out of date about what it is currently doing.

How to use a list like this#

The queue is only worth building if you then work it. In order:

  • Narrow on the constraints you are certain of first — cheque size and stage — before adding sector and geography. Each additional filter removes records that are missing that field, not only records that fail it.
  • Read the firm’s own current writing before you read anything we hold about them. Their most recent posts tell you what they are actually looking at.
  • Check the application route. Firms that publish one usually mean it, and a cold email to a general address is a worse use of the same effort.
  • Record why you kept or dropped each name. The reasoning is what makes the second pass faster than the first, and it is the part no database can hold for you.

What we will not claim#

We do not know which investors will fund you. We do not rank firms by likelihood of investing, because we have no evidence that would support such a ranking and generating one would mostly encode which firms have the best websites.

What the register can honestly do is narrow a large, uneven market to a set of firms whose stated constraints do not immediately rule you out, and keep the supporting record beside the follow-up so that research and outreach do not drift apart. That is a smaller promise. It is one the data can carry.