ACA Angel Funders Report 2020–2025
- Genaro Malpeli
- Sep 21
- 9 min read
If you're interested in understanding how angel capital is evolving in the United States, the Angel Funders Report (AFR) from the Angel Capital Association (ACA ) is one of the most systematic and consistent sources available. It's not the only one—there are also AngelList, Carta, PitchBook, etc.—but it does offer a structured look at how angel groups operate year by year: how much they invest, at what stages, with what vehicles, and how trends change over time.
In this article you will find an in-depth and structured look at:
1. What happened year by year
A clear summary of the context, key figures, most active stages, most used instruments, and key strategic insights for each year.
2. How the market evolved in these five years
From the 2021 peak to the 2024 normalization: how much was invested, how valuations changed, what happened to check sizes, and how legal instruments mutated. Spoiler alert: the seed became king .
3. What are the “groups” within the ACA?
Who invests? How are they organized? How many members are there per group? How big are they? Here I explain how the ACA network works internally, and how many investors it mobilizes year after year.
4. All about SPVs
Yes, this is the heart of the post. What is a SPV, when do groups use it, at what stages do they appear most, what type of instrument is signed within it, how does it coexist with funds, networks, and sidecars, and what can we learn in Latin America to use it better?
This article is long, yes. But if you want to invest, start a group, raise capital, or simply understand how angel capital works in the most active country in the world, this post is for you .
Angel Funders Reports - Overview & Insights
2020 (2019 data)
Overview
79 groups* reported ~ $300M invested in 2019 (sample), across 1,058 deals .
Companies funded by these groups raised >$2B in total capital (all sources), with leverage of ~ 7x for every dollar of angel funding.
Seed + Series A = ~67% of the groups' investments.
Median pre-money valuation (Seed): ~$6M .
Most active sectors: Life Sciences/Healthcare , IT/Software , E-commerce/Consumer , Green/CleanTech , Fintech .
Involvement: Angels are on boards in ~40% of deals; angels contribute ~ 25% of the total capital raised by these startups.
*below we explain what the groups in ACA are about.
Insights 2019
Early-stage market discipline and high leverage: Groups create traction that translates into later rounds.
Governance as a differentiating value: Board seats explain part of the subsequent success.
2021 (2020 data)
Overview
Aggregate investment from ACA groups $4.7M .
Companies backed in 2020 raised ~$4B total (~ 6x leverage).
More deals outside the group's home region ; follow-on rates rise.
Diversity : Female CEOs account for ~1/3 of deals; minorities account for ~ 10% of total $ and 15% of the first angel check.
Insights 2020
Resilient year despite pandemic: groups maintained activity via remote processes and expanded their geographic reach .
Early signs of valuation normalization after the 2020-21 peaks (late stage), but early signs remain.
2022 (2021 data)
Overview
Post-pandemic cyclical peak : ACA estimates ~$950M invested by groups in 2021 (ACA universe). In the sample, an average of $5.3M per group.
Seed dominates : 59% of deals (and ~52% of $), well above previous years.
Frequent small tickets : 24% of deals in rounds < $1M ; many group checks < $200K .
Insights 2021
2021 marks a peak in activity: more deals, larger checks per group, and a focus on seed .
Caution is beginning to be noted towards late stages due to demanding valuations .
2023 (2022 data)
Overview
ACA estimates ~$692M will be invested by groups in 2022 (↓ vs. 2021); seed and Series A accounts for the majority.
SAFE is gaining ground in pre-seed/seed (up to 14% in seed); preferred remains the dominant instrument.
Traction mix: almost 50/50 investments between pre-revenue and revenue companies.
Insights 2022
The market is cooling (post-boom 2021): greater difficulty for follow-ons and preference for convertible structures/extensions to avoid down rounds.
Still, the core of the activity remains in seed .
2024 (2023 data)
Overview
ACA estimates ~$465M (↓ 33% vs 2022). Group average $4.37M (vs $5.54M in 2022).
Seed : 62% of deals and 52% of dollars. Median MOIC ~1.3x ; total outflows down.
Valuations 2023 vs. 2022: relatively flat in early stages; decline in late stages from 2020-21 peaks.
Diversity : 25% female CEOs; investment per member ↓ ~20% year-over-year; large groups account for much of the decline.
Insights 2023
Normalization : Checks per member and per group decrease; seed strengthens as an anchor (>50% of $).
The larger, more mature groups appear more conservative ; the medium/smaller ones remain active.
2025 (2024 data)
Overview
ACA estimates ~$437M (↓ 6% vs 2023). Average per group $3.7M .
Seed maintains its lead ( 56% of deals, 48% of $); median seed check ~$125K .
Pre-money valuations rise in pre-seed/seed ( ~$10M ), and fall in Series B/C+ (B ~ $19M ; C+ ~ $35M ).
Geography : Several regions with ≥ 40% of investments outside their region.
Exits : Low headcount and multiples; median MOIC 1.3x ; first-time CEOs remain highly invested.
Diversity : Female CEOs account for ~25% of deals; minorities account for ~15% of total deals (slight improvement but a structural challenge).
Insights 2024
The market is stabilizing with more investor-friendly terms; early-season pricing is recovering while late-season pricing is tightening.
Tickets per member are shrinking and distribution is skewed towards small rounds (≤$300K per deal for 35% of transactions).
Evolution 2020→2024 (5-year summary)
1) Investment cycle ($) and size by group
Peak 2021 $692M → normalization 2023 $437M.
Annual average per group: $5.3M (2021) → $4.9M (2022) → $4.3M (2023) → $3.7M (2024) .
2) Stages and structures
Seed went from ~ 33% of $ (2020) to ~50%+ steadily (2021-2024) .
Pre-seed grows (to ~5% of $ in 2024); Series C+ shrinks (≈ 3% of $ in 2024).
In instruments, preferred dominates; SAFEs gain weight in pre-seed/seed in 2022-2024.
3) Valuations
Repricing : Late-stage declines from 2022; pre-seed/seed improves in 2024 (~ $10M pre-money), reflecting competition for strong early-stage teams.
4) Group dynamics
Less $ per member (from 2022), with large groups being the most conservative; small/medium-sized groups sustain the deal flow.
More investment outside the group's own region : syndication and remote processes are consolidating.
5) Diversity and results
Female CEOs : from ~ 30% in 2020 to ~25% in 2023-2024 (better than VC, but with smaller check size ~‑21%).
Minorities : ~15% of deals in 2024 (slight increase; pipeline/selection challenge still).
Exits : Moderate volume and multiples; medium MOIC 1.3x 2023-2024.
Estimated total invested by ACA groups (USD millions) | Estimated amount |
|---|---|
2021 | ~$950M |
2022 | ~$692M |
2023 | ~$465M |
2024 | ~$437M |
% of capital invested in the Seed stage | % of USD invested in Seed |
2020 | ~32–33% |
2021 | ~49–52% |
2023 | ~52% |
2024 | ~48% |
Pre-money valuations (estimated medians) | Pre-seed | Seed | Series B |
2023 | ~$5M | ~$8M | ~$25M |
2024 | ~$10M | ~$10M | ~$19M (↓) |
What is a “group” in the AFR
“Group” = an angel group (an organized network of investors; it can operate as a network, a fund, or a network-fund hybrid). In 2024 (AFR 2025), we see that hybrids tend to close larger tickets; pure networks are leaner and more numerous, and pure funds are less common.
Count of reporting groups by year (AFR sample)
2019: 85 groups
2020: 77
2021: 72
2022: 65
2023: 69
2024: 69
Source: “Angel Investment Summary” table from AFR 2025.
Typical membership sizes
Median group size across ACA membership : 55 members.
Median group size in the AFR sample (those reporting data): 85 members.
By type of organization (AFR 2023) :
Networks: medium 50 members;
Funds: median 60 ;
Network+fund hybrids: median 100 ; and the mix of structures is approximately 72% networks , 15% funds , 13% hybrids .
Investment per member
In 2024, the average investment per member was USD 54k (median USD 22k ).
The average investment per group was USD 3.7M .
Updated member rank estimate
There is no "single official number" of total ACA members within the 2025 AFR; but with the pieces above, a reasonable range can be estimated:
In 2024, they reported 69 groups.
Conservative scenario (median of all ACAs): 69 groups × 55 members ≈ 3,795 members.
Baseline scenario (AFR sample median): 69 × 85 ≈ 5,865 members.
Alternative check (“active members” heuristic): If an average group invests $3.7M and the average member contributes $54k , there are ~ 69 “active” investors per group (3.7M/54k), i.e. ~ 4,760 active investors across 69 groups. Since not all members invest every year, assuming assets are ~60–80% of the total, the total number of members per group would be ~ 86–115 ; multiplied by 69 groups ⇒ ~5,900–7,900 members.
Conclusion
Minimum reasonable range (using only medians): ~3.8k–5.9k .
Range adjusted for “active members” vs. total base: ~5.9k–7.9k .
How and when SPVs are used throughout the investment flow
The 2025 reports (with 2024 data) accurately show by operational stage how the vehicles used by the groups (direct checks from members, SPV, fund and “network + fund” combinations) are changing:
R&D/Product development (pre-revenue) : Direct checks from members and small SPVs dominate; there are almost no fund-only deals . In "pure" R&D, 18 deals were recorded, and two-thirds were done directly or via SPVs .
Prototype/Proof-of-Concept : almost even distribution ; in 118 financings, ~ 25% for each structure ( direct, combo, fund, SPV ). This indicates that, with a tangible asset, many investors already mobilize aggregator vehicles, but others prefer direct financing.
First inflows : peak activity ( 285 deals ). SPV (89) and direct (88) are neck and neck , followed by fund-only (58) and “network + fund” (50) . This is the stage where all the mechanisms coexist .
“Shipping/live” product : deals are down ( 57 ), but SPV + live = 70% of the activity; the remainder is divided between funds and hybrids.
Expansion/Scale-up : SPVs dominate . Of 42 late-stage rounds, more than half (22) were executed via dedicated SPVs ; direct and fund combined accounted for less than 1/4 . Why? Larger tickets, need to syndicate quickly, and avoid cap table crowding .
In short: the higher the stage and size of the round, the more likely it is to see SPV ; in the early stages, "micro" SPVs appear alongside individual checks, and as the round expands, dedicated SPVs become the preferred instrument.
Who uses SPV? (and how it coexists with networks and funds)
SPVs do not define the "type of group" ; they are vehicles that any group can use. The ACA classifies groups by organizational structure :
Pure networks : 53% of groups 2024.
“Network + Fund” Hybrids : 37%.
Funds only : 11%. The network model remains dominant; hybrid models are growing because they offer diversification and the option of direct checks .
Furthermore, many groups evolve : they start out as networks , and over the years , they add a sidecar/fund to raise higher minimum tickets and accelerate diversification ; this is very consistent in the data.
In 2024 (2024 report) the percentages were similar: networks 62% , funds 14% , hybrids 25% , with hybrids doubling the median member size and median investment compared to networks/funds.
Are there “SPV-only groups”? That category doesn't appear in the reports. SPV use is transversal : pure networks, funds, and hybrids use it depending on the stage and round size . The stage-by-stage evidence (above) and the ACA taxonomy show that SPV is an instrument , not a separate “group type.”
Specific cases and practices of SPV in the reports
Commune Angels (Spotlight 2022) : A young group that, to operate more efficiently and organize its cap table , sets up a per-deal SPV under a "master LLC" . Minimum per investor: USD 5,000 ; target per company: ≥ USD 50,000 . A very educational per-deal SPV model.
Hybrids in practice : At the early stages, there were 50 “network + fund” deals (network + fund combos) coexisting with SPVs and direct deals , demonstrating the combined use of vehicles within the same group.
What instruments go “inside” an SPV?
The reports separate vehicle (e.g., SPV) from instrument (e.g., equity, convertible note, SAFE). They don't break down "what percentage of SPVs each instrument purchases," but they do clarify the use of instruments by stage among angels:
Seed / Series Seed : Priced equity and convertible notes predominate; SAFE is a minority stake in seed. (In 2023: equity 51%, convertibles 39%, SAFE 12% of the total; SAFE 39% in pre-seed ).
Pre-seed (2024): SAFE becomes mainstream (almost half of deals), appearing in ~1 in 20 Series A deals ; in later stages it remains uncommon .
Relative magnitude of angel capital (context for SPV)
At the ecosystem level, angel funding as a % of total round amounts remained at 11-15% from 2020-2024 (peaking at 15% in 2023), meaning angels catalyze but rarely fund a full round—the rest is completed by VCs, family offices, corporates, etc. This reinforces why SPVs are useful: they aggregate the group’s capital to push for a close and attract the rest of the syndicate.
Conclusion
Early (R&D/PoC) : direct checks + micro-SPV for fast validation without overhead.
First revenues/shipping : SPV, direct, fund, and hybrids coexist ; SPV is already gaining ground (70% alongside direct in shipping).
Expansion : Dedicated SPV as an instrument of choice by size/urgency and to order cap table .
Sources:
Comments