Cambridge Associates provides benchmark reports for private investment strategies such as US Venture Capital, Global Venture Capital, and other private equity categories, based on pooled net IRR, TVPI, and DPI across funds in each vintage year. The data is reported at the fund and index level and is used by limited partners to compare individual managers’ performance against peers, but it is presented as aggregate benchmarks, not as a ranking of individual venture capitalists or named firms.

Andreessen Horowitz says it has just raised $7.2 billion across several new funds. This is a primary source for the firm’s fundraising scale, but it does not provide DPI or net return figures in the text shown.

CalPERS publishes performance statistics for its private equity program, including since-inception net IRR and net multiple across its PE portfolio as of September 30, 2025. The report lists fund-level performance such as net IRR and net multiple (similar to TVPI) for various partnerships, but it is organized by fund name and vintage and does not present any cross-industry ranking of general partners by DPI or identify any specific venture capitalist as having the highest DPI.

Carta’s Q4 2025 VC Fund Performance report analyzes thousands of U.S. venture funds and provides **benchmarks for net TVPI, DPI, and IRR** by vintage year and fund size. The data are **net to limited partners**, but the report is presented in aggregate form and does not identify individual general partners or rank specific venture capitalists by name.

The EIF–BlackRock TrackVC portal provides **20 years of historical performance data on European private equity and venture capital funds**, including key metrics such as **Net IRR, TVPI, and DPI**. The platform is designed as a **benchmarking and data hub** for European markets and does not publish rankings of individual venture capitalists; performance is reported at the **fund and portfolio level**.

PitchBook periodically publishes lists of top-performing VC funds or firms based on metrics like TVPI, IRR, and DPI, often broken down by vintage year and fund size. These pieces name several leading firms and funds, but they emphasize that performance data is incomplete and based on the subset of funds that report, and they do not claim that any single general partner such as Ben Horowitz has the globally highest DPI based on net returns to LPs.

PitchBook’s Global Fund Performance Report provides **benchmark statistics for private capital funds worldwide**, including venture capital, showing **net IRR, TVPI, DPI, and RVPI net to LPs** by strategy and vintage year. The report gives quartile benchmarks and pooled returns for funds but **does not attribute performance to specific general partners or publish a global ranking of individual venture capitalists by DPI**.

Cambridge Associates’ US Venture Capital Benchmark Book compiles performance data from **1,606 US venture capital funds formed between 1988 and 2016**, with metrics including **DPI (Distributions to Paid-In), TVPI (Total Value to Paid-In), and IRR) net to limited partners**. Tables show pooled returns, medians, and quartiles by vintage year, but **fund manager names are anonymized and individual venture capitalists are not identified or ranked by DPI**.

This Carta report presents pooled performance for **U.S. venture funds (2017–2023 vintages)**, including **median and 90th percentile net TVPI and DPI** across more than 2,700 funds. Carta notes that the data are **net of fees and carry to LPs**, but the analysis is at the **fund cohort level** and **does not disclose or rank individual GPs or specific firms such as Andreessen Horowitz or Ben Horowitz by DPI**.

CalPERS publishes quarterly performance data for its **private equity partnership investments**, including some venture capital funds, reporting **since-inception net IRR and net multiple** as of each quarter-end. The table lists individual partnership names and managers, but CalPERS reports performance only for funds in its own portfolio and **does not construct or claim any global ranking of all venture capitalists by DPI or net multiple**.

Newcomer reports that Andreessen Horowitz has returned more than $25 billion to its limited partners since its 2009 founding, based on a source-provided slide deck with DPI figures as of September 30, 2024. The article explains that DPI measures how much real cash a fund has returned to LPs, and says the firm’s first crypto vehicle has produced a 5x distribution.

Summarizing Carta data from 2,715 U.S. venture funds, the Angel Capital Association notes that **median net TVPI increased for every vintage from 2017 to 2023** and that net IRRs mostly trended up. It also highlights that **DPI (Distributions to Paid-In Capital) is building slowly in a low-exit environment and that even 90th percentile funds since 2017 have only returned about half their capital**, but the article deals with aggregate trends and **does not identify any specific VC, such as Ben Horowitz, as having the highest DPI globally**.

TechCrunch reports that Andreessen Horowitz has raised more than $15 billion in new funding, bringing the organization to over $90 billion in assets under management and putting it near Sequoia Capital in size. The article notes that when TechCrunch asked a16z about its **distributed‑to‑paid‑in capital ratio (DPI) over its 16‑year history, the firm did not respond**, so there is no public confirmation that it leads the industry on this metric. The piece underscores that a16z is massive in AUM and fundraising power but does not present evidence that Ben Horowitz’s funds have the highest DPI globally.

This analysis uses PitchBook data to compare venture capital and private equity returns by vintage year, including average DPI at different ages of the fund. It reports that at year 8, the average PE fund has a DPI of about 1.3x versus about 0.7x for VC funds, illustrating how PE returns cash faster to LPs; the discussion focuses on averages and ranges by asset class and vintage, not on a global ranking of individual venture capitalists’ DPI or naming any person with the highest DPI.

Packy McCormick describes Andreessen Horowitz Fund III (AH III) as “a monster fund,” stating it is **sitting at an 11.3x Net TVPI as of September 30, 2025, and 9.1x Net TVPI including the parallel fund**. He writes that AH III includes Coinbase, Databricks, GitHub, and Lyft and says he believes it is **“one of the best performing large venture funds of all time.”** The article specifies that **a16z has already distributed $7 billion net to LPs from AH III and AH III Parallel, with nearly as much in unrealized value still on the table**, and defines Net DPI as the aggregate distributions to LPs divided by their contributed capital. However, it does not claim that Ben Horowitz or a16z has the highest DPI of any VC globally, only that this specific fund is among the top large funds.

The article explains how LPs evaluate venture capital performance using net IRR, TVPI, and DPI, noting that "DPI is now the metric LPs prioritize most" and that many institutional LPs set thresholds such as a 1.5x DPI by year 8 for re-upping with a manager. It also highlights the wide dispersion between top-quartile and bottom-quartile funds, but it provides only quartile and decile ranges and does not list or rank individual GPs by DPI or identify any venture capitalist as having the highest DPI in the world.

Discussing Carta’s Q3 2025 VC Fund Performance report, SaaStr explains that a **3x TVPI is considered an excellent venture fund outcome** and that only the top 10% of funds in the 2017 vintage are hitting this benchmark. The article emphasizes that **DPI measures what has actually been returned to LPs in cash**, noting that median DPI for 2017 funds is only 0.28x and that more than half of funds from 2018–2024 have DPI of zero; however, it does not name or rank individual venture capitalists by DPI.

Equitybee’s Q2 2025 DPI Performance Report compares its platform investments to **PitchBook benchmarks for top-decile venture capital funds** using **DPI (Distributions to Paid-In Capital)** as the primary metric. The report claims that Equitybee’s platform has outperformed the top 10% of VC funds in DPI for seven straight vintages since 2018, but the analysis is limited to Equitybee’s deal flow and general VC benchmarks and **does not provide person-level rankings of global venture capitalists by DPI**.

Drawing on PitchBook data for 1,186 VC funds raised between 2000 and 2015, the author notes that only 181 funds (15.3%) have DPI of 2x or higher, 70 funds (5.9%) have returned 3x or more, and only 25 funds (2.1%) have distributed 5x to investors. The discussion underscores how rare very high DPI outcomes are and suggests that perhaps around 10% of funds exceed 3x net performance; however, these statistics are aggregated at the fund level and do not attribute results to specific named venture capitalists or claim that any one GP leads globally in DPI.

Capbase defines **DPI (Distributions to Paid‑in Capital)** as “how much money VCs have sent back to LPs divided by total dollars they have paid into the fund.” It notes that DPI shows **how much money the fund has actually returned to its investors, not the marked‑up value** and that “at the end of the day, DPI is the most important thing for an LP.” The article explains the metric generically and does not rank individual venture capitalists; it provides no claim that Ben Horowitz or any single GP has the highest DPI globally.

PitchBook’s Q3 2025 global fund performance report provides aggregate statistics on private capital vehicles, including VC, and presents quartile and decile distributions for **DPI, TVPI, and IRR by vintage year and region**. While it shows the range of DPI outcomes and identifies top‑decile performance bands, the data are reported at the **fund cohort level** and do not list individual GPs or claim that any particular VC—such as Ben Horowitz—has the globally highest DPI. The report suggests that meaningful DPI comparisons require granular, often confidential fund data rather than public profiles of star investors.

A Carta executive’s LinkedIn post previews a report covering **IRR, TVPI, and DPI for more than 1,700 emerging U.S. venture funds (vintages 2017–2022)**. The post notes that this is a snapshot of **TVPI net of fees and carry**, and links to the full report, but the shared material and referenced analysis **focus on aggregate statistics for emerging managers and do not claim that any single venture capitalist has the highest DPI globally**.

DPI measures realized cash returned to limited partners divided by paid-in capital. Benchmark studies and industry data generally show that only a small number of venture firms have very high realized DPI, and comparisons across managers are difficult because most funds are still unrealized, vintage years differ, and firms report performance selectively.

In a discussion on evaluating venture capital fund performance, participants point to **Preqin, Cambridge Associates, PitchBook, and Carta** as common sources for benchmark data on TVPI, DPI, IRR, and other metrics. Commenters explain that these benchmarks are typically **reported by fund vintage and quartile**, and that some funds advertise themselves as “top quartile” based on such data, but **there is no mention of any global, person-level ranking of venture capitalists by DPI or confirmation that an individual like Ben Horowitz tops such a list**.

This industry benchmarking page states that top-quartile venture capital funds typically reach 3x+ TVPI and 22%+ net IRR, while median DPI at year 8 has fallen to 0.7x. It also says most funds do not produce meaningful DPI until years 7–10, and lists illustrative fund performance examples.

A discussion post reproduces claims from internal data that the funds raised in 2010 and 2011 showed net internal rates of return of 16% and 12%. It also defines DPI as distributions to paid-in capital and notes that DPI is the most important measure of what fund investors actually receive in cash.

The page quotes a venture capital discussion saying most funds return about 1x to 1.5x on average, with total DPI commonly around 1.2x to 1.5x. It also reiterates that DPI is the actual cash returned to LPs, rather than paper gains.

A LinkedIn article claims that, as of late 2025, Andreessen Horowitz had roughly 11x net TVPI including the parallel fund, with more than $7 billion net distributed to LPs and substantial unrealized value remaining. It attributes much of the distribution to Coinbase-related gains across a16z vehicles.

This page defines DPI as distributions to paid-in capital and says a DPI above 1.0x means the fund has returned all invested capital. It also states that DPI has become a primary criterion in LP decision-making and gives generalized benchmark ranges for private equity returns.