We place the CEOs, CTOs, and CMC and Quality leadership teams behind biotech companies taking platforms from Series A through clinical readout, BLA, and exit. CMC and Quality leadership is our specialty. Executive search is our craft.
We have made 112+ CMC and Quality leadership placements since 2018, working with biotech founders, boards, and the venture firms backing them.
We are powered by 3 core beliefs:
The report follows.
What happens when you analyze 25,402 biotech VC deals across 1,952 investors from 2019 to 2026? You get a clear picture of which firms come back for round two — and which write one check and stop. We sorted every investor with a meaningful biotech portfolio on a single metric: their follow-on rate, the percentage of their portfolio companies in which they participate in two or more rounds. Tier 1 sits at 50% or higher. Tier 2 covers 30 to 49%. Tier 3 sits below 30%. Grant agencies excluded. Minimum portfolio: five companies.
of the 372 biotech investors meeting our minimum portfolio threshold follow on in fewer than half of their portfolio companies. Only 48 — about one in seven — re-invest in 50% or more of what they back.
Of the 372 investors meeting the minimum threshold, here is how the universe breaks down.
Follow-on rate = percentage of an investor's portfolio companies in which they participated in two or more rounds at distinct dates. Grant-only agencies (NIH and sub-institutes, NSF, US Department of Defense, BARDA, ARPA-H, others) excluded — grant funding cycles are not comparable to venture follow-on behavior. Minimum portfolio for inclusion: five companies in this dataset. Smaller portfolios produce less statistically robust rates — a 71% rate from a 7-company portfolio is one outcome away from 57%, while a 56% rate from 85 companies is far more stable. Sample-size confidence is tagged on each row: Robust (n≥25), Standard (n=15-24), Adequate (n=10-14), Limited (n=5-9). Of the 372 firms, 105 sit at Robust or Standard, 77 at Adequate, and 190 at Limited — about half the universe is in the noisier band, which reflects the long tail of specialist and emerging-manager funds. Tier boundaries: Tier 1 at 50% or higher, Tier 2 from 30 to 49%, Tier 3 below 30%. The 30% Tier 3 boundary is set to eliminate a methodological grey zone between 25 and 30% — firms re-upping in fewer than three of every ten portfolio companies are effectively single-round participants. The dataset covers venture biotech transactions from 2019 to 2026, compiled by Phase 3 Search.
Three visualizations covering the full 372-firm universe.
Distribution of firm types across the three tiers (shown universe).
Highest follow-on rates among long-term participants.
Every shown investor plotted. Portfolio breadth on the X axis, follow-on rate on the Y. Bubble size = total deal volume. Color = tier.
Conviction and outcome are different metrics. Follow-on rate (X axis) measures multi-round participation. Exit rate (Y axis) measures the share of portfolio companies acquired or taken public. Each tier occupies a different region — and the two metrics do not correlate as strongly as a simple "good investor / bad investor" frame would suggest.
Tier 3 firms (red) cluster low-left on follow-on but spread vertically on exit rate — including several at 75%+ exits. They enter at the exit stage by design. Tier 1 firms (green) cluster mid-to-high on follow-on with mid-range exit rates — they hold across the lifecycle, including through failures. Tier 2 firms (amber) sit in between on both axes.
The numbers behind the two ends of the tier list.
| Behavior | Tier 1 · Long-term | Tier 3 · Single-round |
|---|---|---|
| Firms in tier | 48 | 213 |
| Median follow-on rate | 58.5% | 17% |
| Firms with 0% follow-on (n≥10) | 0 | 8 |
| Average rounds per portfolio company (median firm) | 1.71 | 1.16 |
| Pooled exit rate (acquired + public, all portfolio companies) | 36% | 38% |
| Typical structures represented | Venture vehicles, corporate VCs with long mandates | Crossover funds, hedge funds, pharma corporate BDs, public-market vehicles, late-stage PE |
On exit rate. Tier 3's higher pooled exit rate is not a sign of better investing — it is a structural artifact. Crossover funds, hedge funds, and public-market vehicles enter at or near the exit stage by design. They are selecting companies that are already tracking to liquidity. Tier 1 firms hold across the lifecycle, including through failures. Follow-on rate measures conviction over time. Exit rate measures outcome at the company level. They are different metrics measuring different things.
Firms ranked by participation count at each stage in the dataset. Different firms concentrate activity at different stages.
Phase 3 Search is a global life sciences executive search firm. We are not investors. We do not advise on capital. Our craft is search — building the leadership teams that take biotech companies from Series A through clinical readout, BLA, and exit. This report is part of the capital intelligence work we publish for the founders, boards, and investors we serve.
Every engagement begins with a diagnostic. Before we define a search profile, we work with the board and CEO to understand the company's stage, dominant operational risk, and the leadership mandate the role actually carries — not the one written on a job description. The right hire is the one calibrated to the work that needs doing now whilst preparing for what is around the corner.
We are CMC and Quality leadership search specialists, with a broader executive search practice spanning the technical and operational leadership that biotech platforms need at every stage.
Working with biotech founders, boards, and the venture firms backing them. 112+ CMC and Quality leadership placements since 2018.
A 31-page board governance framework for evaluating technical leadership alignment in biopharma. Maps how CTO emphasis profiles shift across five stages of development. Covers CRL valuation data, board governance gaps, KPIs, and a board-ready calibration tool.
Built with an advisory panel of 15 CTOs and two managing-partner-level life sciences consultants. The panel's organizations have launched 120+ commercial products.
Download the framework →Purely observational — what the numbers show, without interpretation of what a CEO should do with them.
Across the 372 firms meeting the minimum threshold, 324 have follow-on rates below 50%. Only 48 are at 50% or higher. The median across the full universe is 25%.
Merck, Frazier Life Sciences, Franklin Templeton, Mirae Asset Capital, Regeneron Ventures, Ridgeback Capital, AbbVie, and Blue Owl Capital. All sit in Tier 3. All are structurally crossover, PE, pharma BD, or public-market vehicles.
SR One (54%), Illumina Ventures (53%), GV/Google Ventures (50%), Roche Venture Fund (50%), Taiho Ventures (50%), and Pfizer Ventures (47% — at the Tier 2 boundary) re-invest at rates similar to financial VCs. Direct pharma BD activity from Merck, AbbVie, Sanofi, Novartis, and Bristol Myers Squibb shows under 22% follow-on across all five.
RA Capital (128 portfolio companies, 34% follow-on), Cormorant (71, 30%), and Orbimed (96, 50%) demonstrate the pattern. Funds with the broadest deal footprints find it mathematically harder to sustain high follow-on rates — the law of large numbers caps the percentage.
SOSV concentrates 72% of activity at Seed. ARCH participates in 122 Series A rounds and Orbimed in 132 — the highest Series A participation counts in the dataset. RA Capital participates in 114 Series B rounds. Deerfield concentrates 30% of its portfolio at Series C. T. Rowe Price concentrates at Series D and E. Stage breakdown is in the section above.
Now that you have the framework, the structural analysis, and the patterns — drill into the data. The full universe — every firm with five or more biotech portfolio companies in this dataset. Type any firm name. Filter by tier, investor type, or sample-size confidence. Click any row for the underlying data.
We can run any firm not in the shown universe, pull deeper analysis on a specific syndicate, or talk about an upcoming CMC, CTO, CEO, or VP-level search. Send us a note.