[michael_fine]

Isn't measuring by average valuation a little dissonant with how the valuations play out? If startup valuations follow a power law, and most of the money is made from a few successful exits, wouldn't it make more sense to judge incubators by say, their top 10%, while also showing the total number of startups for comparison?

[pg]

If you're measuring them as investors, you want the average, because if (as all these incubators do) they invest roughly the same amount in every startup, then average is money out divided by money in.

[startupfounder]

Even saying it is about the average valuation doesn't take into account the age of the accelerator. This is the real problem I see.

What is the average valuation of each class after the same time period? For example, the first class of YC vs. TS vs. SC vs. etc. after 1, 3 and 5 years?

This would show us the speed of growth of each accelerator compared to other accelerators when they were the same age. Even if YC has a higher average valuation now there might be an accelerator out there that has better valuation growth, but it is hidden because we are comparing baby apples to apples almost ready to harvest (sneaky apples to apples reference).

So yes average, but average comparing apples to apples.

Oooo... time for an apple :)

[pg]

Yeah, actually, come to think of it the right metric might be valuation divided by age in years.

[rudiger]

What about the founders? They don't have the liberty of hedging their bets, so for them it can be a raw deal.