Five Beliefs About Female Founders That Don't Survive Contact With Data
Female Founders Reality Check 3: When numbers tell a different story
FEMALE FOUNDERS INSIGHTS
Zhivka Nedyalkova
11/11/20256 min read
Every field develops its own conventional wisdom—those things 'everyone knows' that guide daily decisions. In venture capital, several long-standing beliefs about female founders have shaped how investors evaluate opportunities and allocate capital. Recently, researchers have begun testing these beliefs systematically. The results are illuminating.
Take the 2024 performance data: female-founded companies generated 78 cents in revenue per dollar raised, compared to 31 cents for male-founded startups. Yet all-female founding teams received only 1% of total U.S. venture capital, down from 2% the previous year. In Europe, all-female teams secured €814 million while all-male teams received €38.3 billion. Something interesting is happening here—a consistent gap between measured outcomes and investment patterns.
What follows examines five widely-held beliefs about female founders, not to challenge the people who hold them, but to see how well they align with what researchers have actually measured over the past decade.
Belief 1: The Confidence Gap Explains Application Rates
The story is widely told: women only apply for jobs when they meet 100% of qualifications, while men apply at 60%. The statistic originated from Hewlett Packard's internal observations and became shorthand for explaining why women don't pursue certain opportunities—including venture funding. The implication: if women were more confident, they'd apply more often and succeed more.
But when researcher Tara Sophia Mohr actually studied this phenomenon (link below), she found something different. The issue wasn't confidence—it was whether people believed the qualifications were truly required or negotiable. When job postings clarified which requirements were flexible, application rate disparities narrowed significantly.
This reframe matters because it shifts focus from individual psychology to systemic clarity. The 'confidence gap' narrative places responsibility on women to change their mindset. The 'qualification perception' finding suggests that clearer communication about what's actually required—and what's aspirational—creates more equitable outcomes.
Belief 2: Women Don't Think Big Enough
A common observation in pitch rooms: female founders present more conservative financial projections than their male counterparts. This gets interpreted as lack of ambition—thinking too small, playing it safe, limiting growth potential. The implication: women need to be bolder in their vision.
But the performance data tells a different story. In 2024, female-founded companies reached unicorn status (valuations over $1 billion) in a median time of 4.2 years in the U.S., compared to 4.5 years for all U.S. startups. Female founders also exit 6 months faster on average—7.9 years versus 8.5 years. In Europe, three new female-founded companies achieved unicorn status in 2024, and female founders' round sizes increased by 7% across all stages. When those 'conservative' projections actually materialize while others' hockey-stick forecasts don't, the question becomes: is it thinking small, or thinking accurately?
The paradox reveals how we evaluate boldness versus realism. Aspirational projections signal ambition and get rewarded with capital. Realistic projections that founders actually hit get coded as lack of vision. But from an investor's perspective, accuracy in forecasting should be valuable—it demonstrates market understanding and execution capability.
Belief 3: It's a Pipeline Problem
The pipeline explanation suggests there simply aren't enough women starting companies yet. Given time, as more women enter entrepreneurship, the funding numbers will naturally improve. It's a patient view: the system is working, it just needs more supply.
But the trend lines reveal something else. Early-stage financing for female founders dropped from 26.5% of first financings in 2020 to 20.5% in 2024 in the U.S. That's not a developing pipeline—that's a narrowing one. Meanwhile, women represent 13,2% of startup founders in 2024, but all-female founding teams receive only 1% of venture capital funding in the U.S. In Europe, female founders raised €5.76 billion in 2024—but this represents only 12% of total European VC capital. In Germany, one of Europe's largest startup ecosystems, all-female teams received just 1% of investment volume, securing only €43 million compared to €6.2 billion for all-male teams.
The mathematics here matters: if 13,2% of founders are women but only 1% of capital reaches all-female teams, that's not a supply problem—it's an allocation pattern. The pipeline exists. Access to capital within that pipeline is the constraint.
Belief 4: Female Founders Are More Risk-Averse
In venture capital, aggression often gets mistaken for ambition. When female founders demonstrate more conservative cash management, it gets coded as risk-aversion—a personality trait that supposedly limits their companies' growth potential.
The data shows something more nuanced. Female-founded companies maintain a 15% lower burn rate—$270,000 per month compared to $320,000 for U.S. startups overall. But this efficiency correlates with superior outcomes: they generate 78 cents in revenue per dollar raised versus 31 cents for male-founded startups, exit 6 months faster on average, and in 2024 represented 24.3% of total U.S. VC exits—a record high.
This raises a definitional question: when lower burn rates correspond with faster exits and higher returns, is that risk-aversion or financial discipline? Capital efficiency gets valued in downturns but questioned in booms—particularly when exhibited by female founders. Yet for investors, runway extension and capital preservation typically signal sophistication, not timidity.
Belief 5: More Female VCs Will Solve Everything
A logical assumption: if women investors naturally understand and support women founders, increasing female representation among VCs will close the funding gap. It's an appealing solution because it suggests the problem is simply about pipeline at the investor level.
Research from Harvard Business School reveals something more complex. When studying investor-entrepreneur interactions at startup competitions, researchers found that both male and female investors asked male entrepreneurs predominantly promotion-focused questions about growth and opportunity (67% of questions), while asking female entrepreneurs predominantly prevention-focused questions about risk and defense (66% of questions). This pattern held regardless of the investor's gender.
The funding implications are substantial: entrepreneurs who received promotion-focused questions raised an average of $7.9 million, while those asked prevention-focused questions raised $500,000. That's not a small variance—it's a $3.8 million difference per question orientation. Female VCs do invest in female founders at 2.3 times the rate of male VCs, but the systematic evaluation framework appears to transcend individual investor identity.
Currently, women hold approximately 17% of decision-making roles at VC firms with over $50 million in assets under management in the U.S.—essentially unchanged from recent years. In Europe, the picture is remarkably similar: only 15% of decision-makers at European firms with €50 million or more in AUM are women, down slightly from 15.2% in 2023. At smaller European firms (under €50 million AUM), this drops to just 12.3%. More female investors helps, but if the underlying evaluation frameworks remain consistent, representation alone won't eliminate systematic patterns in how founders are assessed and funded.
The Meta-Belief: 'We Need More Data'
Perhaps the most persistent belief is that the evidence remains inconclusive—that we need more time, more studies, more proof before drawing conclusions about these patterns.
But the research spans more than a decade and includes studies from Boston Consulting Group, Harvard Business School, McKinsey, the Kauffman Foundation, First Round Capital, and PitchBook. The findings remain remarkably consistent: female founders deliver superior ROI (35% higher according to Kauffman), generate more revenue per dollar invested (78 cents versus 31 cents per BCG), achieve faster exits, reach unicorn status quicker, and maintain more efficient burn rates.
When data consistently contradicts existing mental models, the typical response isn't to question the models—it's to question the data. In this case, we have convergent evidence from multiple independent sources using different methodologies, all pointing in the same direction. The pattern isn't emerging; it's established.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These Female Founders beliefs serve a function—they make a pattern that defies economic logic feel rational and explainable. They're not lies, they're unexamined assumptions that have calcified into conventional wisdom. Testing them against a decade of research doesn't assign blame; it reveals where perception and evidence have diverged.
The cost isn't abstract. McKinsey estimates $100-200 billion in unrealized value annually. When performance and investment move in opposite directions this consistently, it stops being a pipeline problem or a confidence issue. It becomes a question of what we're choosing to see—and what we're choosing to overlook.
The research is there. BCG, Harvard, PitchBook—over a decade of data pointing in the same direction. Markets are supposed to be efficient at recognizing opportunity. This one's been documented and measured. What happens next says less about female founders than it does about how we respond when the numbers don't match the narrative.
Key Sources:
• Boston Consulting Group & MassChallenge (2018): 'Why Women-Owned Startups Are a Better Bet'
https://www.bcg.com/publications/2018/why-women-owned-startups-are-better-bet
• PitchBook (2024): 'All In: Female Founders in the VC Ecosystem' (US & European Reports)
https://pitchbook.com/news/reports/2024-all-in-women-in-the-vc-ecosystem
• Kanze et al. (2018): 'Male and Female Entrepreneurs Get Asked Different Questions by VCs', Harvard Business Review
• Female Founders Fund (2024): Annual performance analysis
• Female Innovation Index 2025 (Female Foundry & Dealroom)
https://www.maddyness.com/uk/2025/03/04/female-innovation-index-2025
• EY Startup Barometer 2025 (Germany)
https://techfundingnews.com/female-founders-receive-only-4-of-funding-in-germany-experts-explain-why
• Kauffman Foundation: Research on female founder ROI
• Founders Forum Group (2025): 'Women in VC & Startup Funding: Statistics & Trends'
https://ff.co/women-funding-statistics-2025
• Mohr, T.S.: Research on job qualification perception
https://hbr.org/2014/08/why-women-dont-apply-for-jobs-unless-theyre-100-qualified
• PitchBook European All In Report (2024)