Although the number of women-owned businesses keeps growing, startups led by women continue to fall behind their male counterparts when it comes to raising venture funding.

That’s why former executive teamed up with , a veteran and marketing executive, to found , an -registered, funding portal.

The platform, also called AQi, gives women-led businesses — those that are at least 50% women-owned — a way to raise capital through , a securities framework aimed at opening up startup investing.

Launched in 2024, AQi seeks to help female entrepreneurs reach everyday investors by simplifying regulatory disclosures and business documentation. As a member of the , the platform has passed a rigorous federal vetting process and agrees to operate under strict oversight to protect investors and ensure transparency.

˝űÂţĚěĚĂ News recently spoke with Huyck and Konwinski to hear more about what led them to start AQi, why they think women don’t need to give up board seats early on, and how they want to help female entrepreneurs raise and hold on to more equity.

This interview has been edited for clarity and brevity.

˝űÂţĚěĚĂ News: What is your platform’s mission and what led you to launch this company?

Huyck: I spent 21 years at PayPal, where I mentored women through a partnership with the . It was there I learned about the $5 trillion gap in global GDP resulting from women entrepreneurs lacking access to capital.

In the U.S., while women start nearly half of all businesses, they receive only 2% of venture capital and less than 20% of small business loans. I wanted to build an innovative system to solve this. I considered starting a fund, but many already exist. Instead, I wanted to create a crowdfunding platform exclusively for women, providing an additional avenue to raise money. The economic irony is that women entrepreneurs earn 78 cents for every dollar invested, compared to 31 cents for men. It simply didn’t make sense, and I wanted to build a system that truly enables women.

Konwinski: To add to that, we are a very distinct entity. We are not a broker-dealer; we are an SEC-registered and FINRA-member crowdfunding platform. Following the 2012 JOBS Act, Reg CF (Regulation Crowdfunding) was created to allow nonaccredited investors to invest in private, early-stage companies. There are about 50 active platforms in the U.S., but we are the only one founded by women, owned by women, and exclusively serving women-owned businesses.

Beyond just providing a neutral platform, we act as a “quarterback.” We help entrepreneurs navigate the process — whether they are just starting or ready for a “glow-up” — by providing access to accountants, lawyers and marketing firms. We are creating a community where women can get the resources they need to build their businesses without competing for attention in male-dominated tech circles.

How does your platform differ from sites like ?

Konwinski: Kickstarter and are for charitable gifting. We are not asking for charity; we are facilitating investments. We are on par with platforms like or , but our fee structure is more founder-friendly. On platforms like Kickstarter, you might only keep about 60% of the funds raised. Our success fee is only 6.5%. When investors invest in these businesses, they receive equity in return. Furthermore, there is a clear social return: Studies show that for every dollar a woman earns in her business, she creates significant economic benefit for her community and family.

How many businesses have you helped raise capital for thus far?

Huyck: We spent our first year building the technology and another six months on the rigorous SEC and FINRA registration process. We believe this high level of regulation is critical to ensuring investor trust. We currently have a pipeline of 20 businesses. We closed our first campaign earlier this month and have two more launching in the coming weeks.

Since Reg CF has a $5 million cap per 12-month period, how do you position yourselves for high-growth startups? And do you view this as a permanent alternative to traditional venture capital, or a bridge?

Huyck: I don’t see the VC space changing soon because it is heavily reliant on “pattern matching,” where investors look for people and paths that resemble previous successes. Until that breaks, women founders face significant barriers. Crowdfunding is a vital, viable alternative.

Konwinski: I would challenge the notion that $5 million isn’t enough. For many of the companies we work with, that is a strong runway for 18 to 24 months. Because Reg CF allows for rolling raises, a company can raise up to $5 million every 12 months. We see companies use this to reach a significant milestone and then potentially pursue a Series A later. We aren’t trying to be a broker-dealer for Series A deals. We are here for those who get “ghosted” by VCs or don’t want to leverage their homes to secure an SBA loan.

Does a distributed ownership structure with many unaccredited investors create a “messy” cap table that scares off traditional VCs?

Huyck: We utilize special-purpose vehicles. This consolidates all Reg CF investors into a single line item on the company’s cap table, often with a lead investor managing voting rights. This keeps the cap table clean.

Konwinski: Additionally, one of the greatest benefits of our model is that founders retain autonomy. VCs often demand board seats, veto rights and up to 20% equity. With us, founders usually give up only 5%-10% equity, allowing them to maintain control of the company they built from the ground up.

Without the pressure of a VC board, how do you help founders maintain operational discipline? And what do exit horizons look like?

Konwinski: Women entrepreneurs are natural “hustlers” who are inherently self-motivated. They are also excellent at collaborating and leveraging their community rather than operating with ego. Many of the founders we work with are Gen X, balancing business with family, and they have developed an incredible ability to multitask and execute.

Huyck: We also encourage founders to bring on advisers rather than giving up board seats too early. As for exit strategies, many women founders are mission-driven and haven’t historically been forced to consider an exit. We provide the guidance to help them think through those horizons — whether that’s acquisition or long-term growth — so they can make informed decisions rather than being forced into a timeline by traditional VC pressure.

Finally, how does your platform compare to other equity crowdfunding sites like Wefunder?

Konwinski: It is apples-to-apples in terms of our SEC/FINRA licensing. Where we differ is our value proposition: we provide a “concierge” service. On many larger platforms, you are processed through an AI-driven, automated checklist. We are building relationships, talking to our founders, and acting as their partner throughout the process.

Related reading:

• The Portion Of US VC Funding That Went To Female Founders Hit A New Peak In 2023, Thanks To Massive AI Deals
• How Female Founders Can Access Capital In A Tight VC Funding Market
• Is There A Gender Bias in Funding? Yes. Here’s How Female Founders Can Overcome

Illustration:

The share of U.S. venture funding going to companies with Black founders in 2025 remained low, even as overall startup investment ticked slightly higher, ˝űÂţĚěĚĂ data shows.

Only around $942 million — or just 0.32% of total U.S. venture funding — went to startups with a Black founder or co-founder last year, per ˝űÂţĚěĚĂ data. That’s one of the lowest shares in years, and down more than two-thirds from just three years prior.

This year has started off on a slightly rosier note, with $643 million raised by U.S.-based startups with a Black founder or co-founder as of May 20. The majority of that was raised in the first quarter, marking the most raised in a single quarter since Q2 2022, when $653 million was raised by a Black founder or co-founder.

It’s important to note that the relatively robust quarter was in large part due to an outsized round — a February $350 million Series E raise by Palo Alto, California-based . Co-founded in 2017 by chief technologist , the AI chip startup has raised a total of $1.5 billion in known funding. and co-led its latest raise.

As such, it’s not surprising that the $643 million raised so far this year was secured across just 34 deals, signaling larger deal sizes overall.

It’s important to note that the total funding raised by startups with a Black founder or co-founder so far this year is still a small percentage of the $252 billion raised by U.S.-based startups in 2026.

Last year’s total also represents a sharp decline from the record venture funding year of 2021, when investment in Black startup founders hit a high of $5.2 billion in the wake of the 2020 racial justice movement. Still, even during the peak year, investment in Black founders represented just 1.5% of U.S. venture funding, per ˝űÂţĚěĚĂ data.

, managing partner at said the decline in venture funding to Black entrepreneurs coincides with a marked shift in the political environment. “There are fewer conversations on the topic as many are afraid to speak on it directly, which is concerning,” he told ˝űÂţĚěĚĂ News via email.

Overall, Pierre-Jacques believes venture capital is about finding outliers. “That isn’t going to change for any group,” he said. “I focus on what we can do as a firm and then advocate for underserved founders.“

Notable rounds

Similar to 2025, much of the funding tally for Black-founded startups in 2026 came from a few larger rounds. Standouts include:

• SambaNova, the AI hardware and software company mentioned above. It specializes in providing infrastructure for AI and machine learning applications. Notably, tech giant reportedly in SambaNova to 8.2% following its investment in the Series E round.
• , a New York sweepstakes-based sports prediction market, picked up $75 million in a February Series B round led by at a $500 million post-money valuation. The platform has users participate in peer-to-peer wagering on sporting events.
• San Francisco-based , which is building an AI-native insurance brokerage for SMBs, also raised in February, a $47 million Series A led by . It is an alumnus of the prestigious startup accelerator .
• Live events platform in March raised a $37 million Series B led by .
• , which sells AI-driven government contracting software, raised $30 million in a January Series B round co-led by and.

Relationships and networking

Investors and founders who spoke with ˝űÂţĚěĚĂ News on the topic said that in the current AI-centric funding environment, relationships and networking have only become more important for startup founders, particularly Black and other historically overlooked entrepreneurs.

“In an age of AI, who you know matters more than ever,” Pierre-Jacques said. “There are fewer deals getting done by firms and partners. You have to build personal relationships in order to make it to the top of the stack. It isn’t just about KPI comparisons.”

is a two-time startup founder currently raising capital for his fintech startup, . He agrees with Pierre-Jacques on the importance of Black founders widening their networks as much as possible.

Spearman urged younger or Black founders who are building and raising for the first time to gain as much insight and inside knowledge as possible from other founders.

“This can save significant headaches, time and limited resources, especially during the early stages,” he said. “Black people in America have defined, and continue to shape, what it means to be in community, and I’m thankful to play a small role in that ecosystem.”

Having worked at , an Austin analytics software company, Spearman said that he built a network over time that included exited founders whom he was able to turn to as “adviser-investors.”

“These advisers can write checks, make intros and think like operators, which is sometimes better than seeking advice from VCs who haven’t been operators during the zero-to-one stages,” he said. He also recommends that new founders, particularly those in focused sectors such as fintech or insurance tech, consider attending industry-specific conferences like Money 20/20 or ITC to make connections with VCs “months and sometimes years before you’re ready to raise.”

Spearman also said Black founders should be open to sources of funding other than traditional venture capital, particularly when first starting out. Many are steered toward accelerators at the early stages, he noted.

“I don’t think this is bad counsel,” he told ˝űÂţĚěĚĂ News via email, “especially if it involves an accelerator like the one offers annually.” TenYour participated in that accelerator in 2025, which resulted in both an investment and industry connections, he said.

Looking forward, not back

The startup funding landscape has drastically changed in the span of just five years. In 2021, the aftermath of the COVID pandemic, a heated 2020 presidential election, and the high-profile killings of Black Americans including George Floyd, Breonna Taylor and Ahmaud Arbery spurred many of the largest startup investors to make high-profile pledges to back more Black and other underrepresented founders.

Now, “we are so far from 2020, not only in the pledges made but also in the social and venture landscape,” Spearman said.

Still, “rather than looking back,” he said, “I’d recommend we collectively continue to push forward to envision and co-create the world we want. For founders, that often starts with their ventures and the choice to solve a meaningful problem that other founders (and investors) may overlook.”

, co-founder of and an investor with , is frustrated that funding to Black-founded startups relative to overall venture investment funding has fallen in the past few years. That’s especially disheartening, she said, given research indicating that Black Americans are more active consumers of AI tools than the general population, with a reported 53% using such tools daily or weekly, versus 39% of people overall.

“To me, this shows early signals that the investment cycle creating wealth from AI is not flowing back to the communities using AI the most,” she said.

In 2021, Lal and started VC Unleashed, a nonprofit, to increase access to the venture capital world for both founders and aspiring investors. While the organization is open to all, Lal said, Unleashed uses its platform “to uplift underrepresented founders as much as we can to help them access capital and build their network,” including through its upcoming conference.

When asked if she could change one structural aspect about how venture capital operates to improve outcomes for Black founders, Lal said it would be moving the conversation upstream from general partners at VC firms to those firms’ limited partners.

“GPs deploy capital that LPs give them, and if a pension fund or endowment isn’t asking its VC managers about founder portfolio composition with the same rigor it applies to sector concentration or stage exposure, that absence gets transmitted all the way down to the founder level,” she wrote via email. “Questions on founder demographics, asked consistently and at scale, would do more to shift behavior than anything else.”

Related ˝űÂţĚěĚĂ queries:

Related reading:

• Share Of Startup Funding For Black Founders Hits Multiyear Low
• Funding To Black Startup Founders Quadrupled In Past Year, But Remains Elusive

Methodology

The data contained in this report comes directly from ˝űÂţĚěĚĂ, and is based on reported data provided by our partners, venture partners, our community network and news sources. The data in this report is focused on the U.S. market for underrepresented minorities, namely Black-/African-American-founded companies.

˝űÂţĚěĚĂ’s dataset is constantly expanding, but there are gaps. A company may not have founders listed, or the Diversity Spotlight data may not be updated on its ˝űÂţĚěĚĂ profile.

We do believe we are missing companies, especially at the early stages of funding.

If you notice missing data, please reach out to spotlight@crunchbase.com or verify with your company email to update your company’s Diversity Spotlight tags directly onsite.

˝űÂţĚěĚĂ, like all databases of private-market transactions, experiences some reporting delays. The data for 2025 and 2026 will increase over time relative to previous years. As data is added to ˝űÂţĚěĚĂ over time, some of the numbers in this report may shift.

Illustration:

The first question investors asked me in my early months of pitching was, “Where are you from?”

The accent gave me away every time.

Following the failed 2020 revolution in Belarus, I moved my company, , to Estonia. I arrived in Estonia with no English, no network and no understanding of the Western startup world. I spent months studying the language, practicing daily to improve my pronunciation and confidence.

Even with my very basic English, I started pitching immediately. I met an angel who decided to invest after just one pitch. Only half a year after our relocation, we closed our first round of $250,000.

In today’s market, where early-stage capital is shrinking, your ability to communicate is as critical as your product. Forty-four percent of U.S. unicorn founders are immigrants, and many of them started as outsiders. You may not “look the part,” but that doesn’t have to stop you from raising money. It certainly didn’t stop me.

From that experience, here are three lessons that I believe are highly valuable for any founder aiming to stand out.

Position yourself as a problem solver, not a capital-raiser

Investors meet hundreds of founders each year. Most of them open with how much they’re raising, not why they exist. When I started framing myself as someone obsessed with solving a real communication problem, not someone asking for capital, everything changed.

People invest in clarity and conviction. Instead of limiting myself to talking about market size or monetization, I illustrated the problem: how speech anxiety, accents and vocal tension limit people’s confidence globally. When your story is rooted in a genuine mission, your accent, location or background stops being a liability and becomes part of the proof.

Use body language to communicate confidence

How you carry yourself speaks louder than your words. Investors read it instantly. For example, if you lean back when challenged, it looks defensive. That’s why when I answer questions, I lean slightly forward, smile and nod. It signals that I’m engaged and listening instead of trying to protect myself.

Confidence also shows up in stillness. When you know your material, you don’t need to over-gesture. Remember that the goal is not to perform, but to connect. Smile first, listen fully and never interrupt. These small actions create a sense of trust long before you start talking about numbers.

The studies we relied on in product development show that voices with a lower pitch are perceived as 40% more confident and authoritative. Founders don’t need to fake that, but they can train it, the same way they can train their pitch deck.

Use pitch competitions as leverage

As I worked on my communication skills, pitch competitions became my springboard. They didn’t guarantee investment, but they built momentum. And in three first years, we won six: , , StartupFair, AWS AI Challenge, the European AI Startup Program by , and . Those events brought us $700,000 and connections that led directly to our seed round.

Beyond the funding, there’s enormous value in visibility. By participating in these competitions, you get feedback, credibility and stage time. All of that accelerates learning and helps you make your story resonate across languages, markets and personalities.

When you don’t sound like an insider, raising capital is about clarity, control and presence. Investors may notice your accent in the first five seconds, but if you master those next five minutes, they’ll remember your idea, not where you came from.

Founders are obsessed with anxiously trying to get in front of investors, but anxiety kills a sale. You’ve already heard the advice from a startup mentor: practice your pitch, find your own mentors, and get feedback on your ideas.

In my experience, ideas and passion are key, but it’s your polished soft skills that actually let you show that passion to anybody.

is the co-founder and CEO of , a soft skills AI coaching startup. The company has more than 4 million downloads and 50,000 subscribers worldwide. His journey is deeply personal; he was bullied for unclear diction at school, which inspired his mission to help people communicate better. After being forced to flee his home country following the 2020 revolution, Lahoika arrived in Estonia with minimal command of English and used his own app to train his voice, securing his first round of funding within just six months. The winner of the AI Challenge and x European AI Startup Program, Vocal Image recently raised a $3.6 million seed round led by (France) and scaled to more than $14 million ARR.

Related reading:

• The Immigrant Edge: How Foreign-Born Entrepreneurs Drive America’s Unicorn Boom
• New To Silicon Valley? What I Wish I’d Known As An Immigrant Founder Back In 2017

Illustration:

This report was produced through a collaboration between the California Partners Project, illumyn Impact and ˝űÂţĚěĚĂ. 

Executive summary

If social media has taught us anything, it’s that new technologies can have widespread and often unanticipated effects. They can change not only how we work but also how we think and how we relate to each other.

Artificial intelligence has an unprecedented potential to shape our future in exciting and unforeseeable ways. As business leaders and government agencies around the world grapple with the responsibility of managing the risks that accompany the promised rewards of AI, one immediate and place to start is building a diverse board of directors. Yet our research indicates that, on that front, AI company boards fall woefully short.

Boards that fail to reflect a wide range of experiences and viewpoints are not well-positioned to oversee companies whose products may determine how bank loan applications are evaluated, how healthcare issues are diagnosed, or how educational resources are allocated. Although no single measure can ensure responsible AI development, diverse board leadership is vital for companies creating technologies that will fundamentally reshape how we live, work and interact.

Within this study, we look at gender diversity, which is reasonably measurable, as a proxy for diversity of perspectives, life experience, areas of expertise and other demographics. To understand the gender mix on AI boards, we analyzed the board composition of more than 140 AI companies headquartered in California, where venture-backed AI development is concentrated. Our study focused on 102 private companies that have raised at least $50 million in cumulative funding. As we’ve seen time and again, transformative innovations are as likely to come from today’s nascent startups as they are from established industry leaders. Governance of these companies during their high-growth, pre-IPO period is as it is after they go public. We also looked at the boards of 39 publicly traded AI companies for comparative purposes.

Our analysis revealed a striking lack of gender diversity among the people who govern some of the world’s most influential AI startups. Women comprise only 15% of the boards of private AI companies. More than 40% of these private boards don’t have any women directors.

Two root causes contribute to this gender disparity — one structural and one behavioral. First, investors and founders collectively hold the majority of private company board seats, and women are still underrepresented in those categories. Second, when appointing independent directors, boards often limit their consideration to familiar candidates instead of seeking qualified experts outside their immediate networks.

The good news: There are plenty of executive women and people of color on the cutting edge of AI innovation who are ready to bring their voices and operating expertise to the boardroom.

Companies that prioritize building a diverse board need only to look beyond their existing networks to find a wealth of AI board talent. Consider this precedent: Five years ago, one-third of all had no women board members. With focus and effort, all-male boards are now the rare exception.

Given the rapid pace of AI development, companies need to act now, while the technology and its applications are still emerging. CEOs and board members who bring more women and people of color into their boardrooms will help create a productive and healthy AI-powered future for all of us.

Key findings

Among the AI companies headquartered in California included in our study:

• 15% of private company board members are women;
• 43% of private company boards don’t include any women directors;
• Women who serve on private company boards are most likely to hold an independent director seat;
• 26% of private company boards don’t include any independent directors; and
• Publicly traded companies typically have more gender-diverse boards than private companies, but still average only two women per eight-person board.

Women average just one seat in AI boardrooms

Across all of the California-based AI private companies studied, women hold an average of one seat on a six-person board. Among 102 private companies, only five boards (5%) have an equal or greater number of women than men in the boardroom.

More than 40% of private AI companies have all-male boards

Among the over 100 privately held AI companies headquartered in California included in our study, 44 (43%) don’t have any women in the boardroom.

Gender diversity is slightly higher on the boards of companies with more capital. Among those with cumulative funding of at least $50 million but less than $100 million, 62% have all-male boards. For companies with at least $100 million in funding, that number drops to 32%. This shift likely stems from the addition of independent directors who bring operational and market expertise.

Among publicly traded companies, women hold an average of two board seats, double the average among private company boards. suggests that, to capture the full economic benefits of diversity, boards should include at least three women directors. Just half of the public companies we studied meet that threshold.

For private company boards, independent director appointments offer the fastest route to diversity

Most private company board seats (72%) are held by company executives (the CEO and co-founders, typically) and early investors. Women hold only 10% of these board seats, a reflection of the underrepresentation of women among venture capital investors and the entrepreneurs they fund. Women hold less than in venture capital firms. Companies with women-only founders secured just 3% of AI venture funding in 2023, a number stagnant since 2015.

More than half (55%) of the women directors included in our study hold independent board seats. That is, they are neither tied to the company’s founding or management team nor investors in the company. Whereas public companies must have a minimum number of independent directors, private companies have no such requirements. Therefore, independent directors are typically added later in a company’s lifecycle, often as part of preparation for an IPO. The percentage of companies without any independent directors decreases as the level of funding increases — from 36% for those with $50 million to $99 million to 21% for those with $100 million or more.

Our findings suggest that women are more likely to be appointed to private company AI boards as the second independent director. On boards with only one independent director, women hold 17% of those independent director seats. Among companies with more than one independent director, 67% had at least one woman in that role.

Summary

Women are underrepresented on the boards of AI companies — especially high-growth, earlier-stage startups. While board diversity is not a panacea, it is one essential element for the companies developing technology with the potential to influence society in profound ways.

To increase the number of women board members, companies should:

• Accelerate the appointment of independent directors;
• Commit to adding directors who expand the diversity of perspectives, skills and experiences on the board; and
• Reach outside existing networks to identify well-qualified candidates.

Companies don’t need to trade off technical expertise and governance experience to bring diverse voices into their AI boardrooms. They simply need to look beyond their immediate networks.

Methodology

This study follows the methodology utilized in the .

Leveraging the ˝űÂţĚěĚĂ database, we identified 409 companies in the AI industry with headquarters in California. Among them were 40 publicly traded companies and 369 privately held companies with at least $50 million in cumulative funding as of July 1, 2024. To ensure that each company’s board profile was current, we included only companies that publish their board of directors on their website.

We then referenced company website data, ˝űÂţĚěĚĂ profiles and other publicly available information to characterize the board members. The study included only board directors; board observers and/or advisers were excluded from the data set. For private company boards, we segmented board members according to type of board seat: executive, investor or independent. In the few cases in which founders and past executives remained on the board despite no longer having an operating role at the company, we classified them as “executive directors” in recognition of their original relationship to the company. We identified gender by referencing professional profiles on ˝űÂţĚěĚĂ and, when not available, other sites.

About the authors

Co-founded by California First Partner and Olivia Morgan in partnership with the people of California, the is dedicated to championing gender equity across the state and ensuring our state’s media and technology industries are a force for good in the lives of all children. The California Partners Project tracks and spotlights women’s representation on corporate boards and offers an Inclusive Boards Playbook Series developed in partnership with ’s with strategies for board refreshment and culture-building. For more information about the nonprofit organization, visit . Connect with the California Partners Project on and .

is a predictive intelligence solution that forecasts private-market movements using the unique combination of live private company data, AI and market activity from more than 80 million users. It helps investors, dealmakers and analysts be the first to find and act on opportunities. To learn more, visit and follow ˝űÂţĚěĚĂ on and .

(formerly Him For Her) is a social impact organization with a mission to diversify the board ecosystem, which is building and shaping the future: from healthcare, to AI, to climate change and beyond. Drawing from its ever-growing referral-based talent network of 8,000+ under-networked executives, a third of whom are women of color, makes highly curated introductions that bring fresh expertise into the boardroom. illumyn Impact is proud to partner with 100+ leading private equity and venture capital firms. A 501c3 corporation, illumyn Impact operates through the generosity of its founding partners , , , , , , Starboard Value and Tiger Global Impact Ventures, and supporters like and , , , and . Its sister organization,, supports underrepresented executives in some of the world’s largest companies through its corporate boardroom excellence fellowship program.

Illustration:

Recently, a stat comparison went viral:

• average viewership: 189,000/game
• average viewership: 120,000/game
• NWSL broadcast deal: $60 million/year
• MLS broadcast deal: $250 million/year

On the surface, it’s hard to argue with those numbers. If we’re comparing per-game viewership, it is clear the numbers don’t line up. NWSL average viewership per game is higher than that of the MLS, yet the MLS is making more than 4x as much as the NWSL in broadcast deals.

But this isn’t just about math. It’s about leverage, legacy and the business models we’ve inherited.

To close this gap, we have to understand why it exists.

Mind the gap

When signed its $2.5 billion, 10-year deal with MLS, it wasn’t simply buying eyeballs — it was strategically acquiring content IP. The deal secured global exclusivity, in-house production control, a subscription engine (MLS Season Pass), and category ownership within its platform.

By contrast, the NWSL’s $60 million per year deal — split across , , and — is monumental for a 12-year-old league. But it’s structured around traditional advertising, linear windows and shared production responsibilities. With fewer monetizable layers, the resulting deal was a lower headline number.

That $60 million per year figure includes production costs, marketing and value-in-kind contributions. Industry insiders estimate the actual cash to the league is closer to $35 million or $40 million.

Digging beyond the headline numbers reveals a key consideration: MLS has 30 teams each playing 34 regular-season matches, while the NWSL has 14 teams each playing 26. So even with the NWSL’s higher per-game viewership, the MLS produces nearly 3x the total amount of content hours.

Many buyers are still conditioned to value volume over engagement. Therein lie the conditions contributing to the conundrum.

Outdated valuation models

We need to shift our focus to the fact that the audience has moved, and the valuation models haven’t.

The NWSL’s 189,000 average viewership in 2024-2025 reflects explosive growth. Just a few years ago, viewership hovered under 100,000. And unlike legacy leagues, 36% of NWSL’s audience is male, proving broader crossover appeal.

Yet, buyers are still pricing women’s sports like it’s 2012.

In 2007, a 13-team MLS was in its 12th year and averaged just 96,000 viewers per game, nearly half of where NWSL is today at the same point in its life cycle.

Somehow, media buyers are anchoring to MLS’ 2007 risk profile when assessing NWSL’s 2025 opportunity. That is a blatant mistake that, unfortunately, suggests a lack of awareness of the full potential of women’s sports as an asset class. They are entirely different from the men’s model and cannot be compared to old men’s figures from a bygone era.

The -WNBA deal tells a similar story. The new NBA media deal, reportedly worth $76 billion over 11 years, allocates just $2.2 billion to the WNBA. That’s less than 3%, despite WNBA viewership surging 96% year over year on ESPN and triple digits on .

Again, this isn’t about performance. It’s about who had leverage, how risk was priced, and what decision-makers were conditioned to value.

It’s a misconception that the rise of women’s leagues threatens legacy properties. In actuality, they expand the total addressable audience. There’s no need to treat them as a zero-sum game; Caitlin Clark’s arrival didn’t stop the 2025 Super Bowl from setting a new U.S. TV record with 127.7 million viewers.

The real risk is underpricing growth just because it doesn’t fit the old template. So, where does that leave us?

Missed opportunities

If we keep pricing based on history instead of momentum, we’ll continue to miss the biggest upside of this era. The market is failing to recognize what’s actually happening on the ground, from viewership to fan engagement, and continuing to look for easy comps against old metrics that aren’t truly comparable.

As an investor and operator, I’ve seen what happens when you bet on markets others deem “niche.” Years ago, women’s health companies like ,, and began as “edge case” investments and are now redefining categories. The need was always there. The system just hadn’t caught up.

Women’s sports are following the same arc. The difference is that this time, the world is watching and demanding more. We just have to catch the attention of those making these deals to ensure they hear our demands or forge ahead with breaking into those spaces and making our own decisions.

This moment where many are realizing the math isn’t adding up is a signal to those bold enough to build and brave enough to change how we define value to seize the biggest opportunity in sports today. Don’t miss it.

is the co-founder and managing partner of and Muse Sport, as well as the chair of the and owner of SailGP Italia. Muse Capital is a consumer technology fund investing in companies that should exist, especially those transforming how we care, live and play. Muse Sport is an advisory business that provides strategic capital, operational support and commercial partnerships to emerging sports properties and infrastructure opportunities. A recognized force in sports, women’s healthcare and tech-enabled consumer innovation, Grazioli-Venier’s investment philosophy bridges purpose and performance, focusing on underserved markets with global scale potential.

Illustration:

Executive Summary

Since 2019, when we began benchmarking board diversity among U.S.-based private companies, we’ve seen a significant increase in the percentage of women directors (from 7% to 17%) and a reduction in the number of all-male boards (from 60% to 32%). The improvements we observed over the early years of our six-year tracking study have since plateaued. Recent analysis of the boards of 807 private, venture-backed companies with at least $100 million in cumulative funding reveals no meaningful change compared to the prior year.

As noted in our 2023 report, private company board development likely continues to suffer from a lack of prioritization in light of the relatively and early-stage venture deals in 2024. Without the forcing function of an impending IPO or ready access to capital, CEOs and their boards tend to focus on operational challenges rather than board recruitment.

Several trends point to the potential for renewed momentum in the years to come, notably:

• Younger companies tend to have boards with more gender diversity;
• The percentage of women who hold investor-director board seats has increased significantly; and
• Fewer women directors are the only women in the boardroom, further extending the board network to a broader pool of candidates.

As venture funding increases and the IPO market improves, we expect to see another inflection point in the percentage of women on high-growth private company boards.

Key Findings

• Women hold 17% of board seats among the companies studied, up from 7% in our original study in 2019.
• Between 2019 and 2024, women gained two-thirds of a board seat (0.65); they now represent roughly 1.2 out of 6.9 board members.
• Nearly a third (32%) of companies don’t have any women on their boards, an improvement from 60% in 2019.
• 23% of company boards include a woman of color, up from 19% in 2020.
• Women hold 28% of independent director seats, 13% of investor director seats, and 10% of executive director seats, up from 19%, 5% and 4%, respectively, in 2019.
• 32% of directors are the only women on their boards, down from 44% in 2020.
• Proportionately fewer companies founded since 2015 have all-male boards (26%) compared with companies founded prior to 2016 (37%).
• The boards of these younger companies are significantly more likely to include a woman investor (17%) than those of older companies (10%).

Methodology

This tracking update largely reproduced the methodology employed with our prior studies published in December 2019, March 2021, March 2022, March 2023 and March 2024. For this update, we analyzed 807 of the most heavily funded private U.S.-based companies to understand the composition of their boards as of Q4 2024 — one year after the prior study and four years after the original.

Leveraging the ˝űÂţĚěĚĂ database, we identified 2,829 U.S.-based private companies founded since 2003 with cumulative funding of at least $100 million as of June 30, 2024. To ensure that each company’s board profile was current, we included only companies that publish their board of directors on their website.

We then referenced company website data, ˝űÂţĚěĚĂ profiles and other publicly available information to characterize the board members. The study included only board directors; board observers and/or advisers were excluded from the data set. For each company we segmented board members according to type of board seat: executive, investor or independent. In the few cases in which founders and past executives remained on the board despite no longer having an operating role at the company, we classified them as “executive directors” in recognition of their original relationship to the company. We identified gender by referencing professional profiles on ˝űÂţĚěĚĂ and, when not available, other sites. For racial/ethnic identity, we leveraged self-identification information where available and supplemented that with contextual information and visual identification. As reflected by data collection, people of color include Black or African American, American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, Hispanic or Latino. Those with MENA backgrounds are not included among people of color.

About the Authors

(formerly Him For Her) is a social impact organization with a mission to diversify the board ecosystem, which is building and shaping the future: from healthcare, to AI, to climate change and beyond. Drawing from its ever-growing referral-based talent network of 8,000+ under-networked executives, a third of whom are women of color, makes highly-curated introductions that bring fresh expertise into the boardroom. illumyn Impact is proud to partner with 100+ leading private equity and venture capital firms. A 501c3 corporation, illumyn Impact operates through the generosity of its founding partners , , , , , , Starboard Value and Tiger Global Impact Ventures; and supporters like and , , , and . Its sister organization,, supports underrepresented executives in some of the world’s largest companies through its corporate boardroom excellence fellowship program.

is a predictive intelligence solution that forecasts private market movements using the unique combination of live private company data, AI, and market activity from more than 80 million users. It helps investors, dealmakers, and analysts be the first to find and act on opportunities. To learn more, visit and follow ˝űÂţĚěĚĂ on and .

Illustration:

The venture capital industry is consolidating rapidly, As capital becomes concentrated among fewer players, underrepresented founders — particularly women-led startups — are facing even greater challenges when it comes to securing funding.

Even though women-led startups consistently show lower failure rates and higher returns, startups with only female founders still consistently receive less than 2% of VC funding. This is largely due to implicit biases and pattern recognition. Investors often favor founders who resemble past successes — typically male-led companies. Larger firms, in particular, prioritize established networks and lower-risk investments. That makes it even harder for entrepreneurs of diverse backgrounds to break into these circles.

Adding to this challenge is rising inflation and economic uncertainties, which have created a greater reliance on bridge rounds and insider-led funding. This trend disproportionately benefits well-connected founders, while underrepresented entrepreneurs who — in a vicious cycle — often lack a deep investor network, are left at a significant disadvantage.

Alternative funding

As operational costs rise, startups need more capital, yet with fewer firms actively investing, securing additional funding is increasingly difficult. Furthermore, large VC firms are shifting their focus toward capital-intensive industries such as AI and biotech, leaving fewer opportunities for diversity to succeed in other high-potential sectors such as consumer, healthcare and sustainability.

For underrepresented founders navigating this shifting landscape, it’s crucial to explore alternative funding sources such as grants, revenue-based financing and corporate venture partnerships. Strengthening mentorship networks and engaging with diversity-focused investment funds can also be vital in expanding access to capital.

Ultimately, institutional investors and LPs must push for greater transparency in diversity metrics and actively support funds that prioritize diverse founders. Despite the significant barriers posed by VC consolidation, women and minority entrepreneurs continue to demonstrate remarkable resilience. By advocating for equitable funding and expanding access to alternative capital, underrepresented founders can work toward securing the investment they need to thrive in 2025 and beyond.

is the founding partner of , where she and her team are active investors in founders that exhibit compelling medical technology, deep technology and beyond. Previously, her experience included working in financial services on the sell-side at Lehman Brothers and Matrix Partners. She passionately and deliberately mentors and searches for female-led companies and believes that investing in women is the best way to bring more women into leadership roles. At her helm, Excelestar Ventures has been named one of the top 100 Women-Led Businesses in Massachusetts by . She is also the managing partner of the Boston Chapter. She is a graduate of and .

Illustration:

Although they make up the majority of Silicon Valley’s tech workforce, people of Asian descent remain significantly underrepresented in leadership roles: 27% at , 30% at , and 25% at , according to .

The disparity is even starker for East Asians, who face pronounced barriers to advancement due to pervasive stereotypes around leadership style and cultural biases that favor Western communication norms.

This bias extends beyond corporate leadership and into venture funding. Despite their strong track record, East Asian founders don’t receive investment proportional to their success. If they’re excelling at building and scaling tech companies, why aren’t more of them household names?

In my experience, unconscious bias persists in entrepreneurial communities, making it harder for East Asian founders — whether foreign-born or native-born  — to break through. The paradox is clear: East Asians are instrumental to Silicon Valley’s success, yet they remain overlooked when it comes to leadership and venture funding.

One community that understands these challenges best is the broader immigrant entrepreneur ecosystem. Many immigrant groups, such as South Asians and Middle Easterners, embrace assertive, risk-taking and relationship-driven norms that align more closely with U.S. entrepreneurial culture.

By learning from these approaches — whether in self-promotion or investor rapport — East Asian founders can better navigate the biases that have historically held them back.

Tackle cultural myths

The experiences shared by the broader immigrant community can help East Asian founders face certain unique challenges. These two biases often create obstacles.

• Bias #1: The “Model Minority” Myth: The perception that Asians are self-sufficient and don’t need support, which leads to fewer targeted opportunities and mentorship.
• Bias #2: Weaker leadership and sales skills: The assumption that East Asians lack the charisma, decisiveness or persuasion needed to lead companies.

Overcoming these stereotypes requires founders to recognize how they may be perceived and proactively amplify their strengths, but that doesn’t typically happen in a vacuum.

When I was in business school, I took a course on “cross-cultural communication” and learned how cultural norms can heavily shape how you present yourself. In an exercise where we lined up students from different countries by outward confidence, it was no surprise that the Israeli and Lebanese students were ranked the highest.

Spending time with founders from other cultural backgrounds can offer East Asian entrepreneurs insights on leaning into and embracing one’s own identity as an asset in the founder journey. The community is also an understanding space for them to seek out more guided mentorship.

Meet investors who acknowledge your potential

As a VC focused entirely on immigrant founders, I’ve seen firsthand how difficult it can be for this group — especially those from East Asian backgrounds — to communicate certain aspects of their vision and leadership potential. Many come from cultures where humility is a core value.

Seeking out VCs who are immigrants themselves, or who actively support immigrant founders, can provide both practical guidance and psychological support. These investors understand the cultural nuances that shape founders’ communication styles and can offer tailored advice on how to navigate investor meetings, refine storytelling and emphasize leadership potential in a way that resonates with their audience.

They may also be more inclined to back you but, even if they don’t invest, building relationships with these investors is invaluable. Good places to start include funds that focus on immigrant founders, as well as Asian American-focused firms such as and .

The broader immigrant community in the U.S. has been shaped by shared struggles, creating a close-knit network that thrives on mutual support. East Asian founders can learn a lot from how immigrant groups have overcome barriers in business and beyond.

is a general partner at , a VC firm backing exceptional immigrant founders. He specializes in supply chain tech, fintech and digital health.

Illustration:

Despite female founders, Latin America still represents a growth opportunity for women entrepreneurs.

According to , the rate of small businesses founded by women in Latin America is — higher than most regions, but focused within .

Thankfully, LatAm already has what other regions lack: a natural impulse by women to want to start businesses. The challenge, however, lies in how to bring that drive into the formal technology startup ecosystem.

While some progress has been made, the public and private sector can implement strategies to support women tech entrepreneurs, such as emphasizing building community, promoting access to new technologies, and establishing responsible metrics for investing in women-led startups.

Building community

While show women-led startups generate twice as much revenue per dollar invested as their male counterparts, women accounted for just of all tech startup founders in 2023.

The good news is that regionally, LatAm has of female founders, particularly in countries like Colombia, Chile, Ecuador, Guatemala and Panama. However, collaboration among those in that community, and inspiring the next generation of female entrepreneurs, remain challenges.

A few organizations are doing this already, including and . And has organized programs aimed at bolstering support for female entrepreneurs in countries like .

But overall, strong local and regional communities of female entrepreneurs are nascent. Latin America’s tech community can do a better job of building support and information sharing networks.

This includes: dedicated conferences; digital dashboards for VCs which list women entrepreneurs; entrepreneurship-focused podcasts and social media channels; public and private accelerator programs dedicated to female founders; and more mentorship programs for female business school and STEM students.

Making sure young Latinas can see women in tech leadership roles can help break down and help usher in a bigger generation of female entrepreneurs.

Promoting digitalization

Like many developing economies, access to technology is a problem in LatAm. My team’s research financial constraints limit entrepreneurs’ access to digital technologies, which is crucial to the value creation process.

Furthermore, to data, only 36% of micro, small and medium enterprises in LatAm have their own website and only 16% use e-commerce tools. In Mexico, the figures are even lower.

This lack of access to technology represents a significant challenge for LatAm women in particular, given their propensity to found companies within the informal sector.

Public and private sector leaders must better support digitalization in Latin American economies. Training programs for women focused on e-commerce and communications tech can help them better access in LatAm.

Some of these initiatives already exist. Chile’s “Digitaliza tu Pyme” program; Colombia’s Digital Business Transformation Centers; and Costa Rica’s Intelligent Community Centers are examples. Here in Mexico, hosts its own business development center for small and medium enterprises, which promotes digitalization.

Increased access to technology and skills will catapult the Latin American women’s entrepreneurial spirit into the digital age.

Access to financing

In Latin America, of women entrepreneurs cannot access financial support. As a result, women end up launching businesses with their own savings, assuming massive risk.

More recently, public development banks, or , have attempted to provide women access to financial tools, offering low interest loans and working capital.

For example, the ’s and the increase access to financing for women from developing countries. Nonprofits like also offer a variety of services to women entrepreneurs, including loans, business training and technical assistance.

While these initiatives are important, they aren’t enough to close the access to finance .

VCs and angels should establish internal metrics to ensure a percentage of funding in LatAm is directed toward female founders. Such investments will pay off in the long run, as show that the return on investments into companies with female co-founders outperformed those with only men leadership teams by 63%.

For all its hardships, LatAm has been blessed with women who take action to better their economic circumstances through entrepreneurship. Their natural inclination to found businesses can be better channeled into the growth of the region’s tech sector by providing female entrepreneurs with the community, financial support and digital tools necessary to succeed.

​ is the leader of the tech and scientific-based Entrepreneurship Center of Excellence at ​, one of Latin America’s leading engineering universities. A Ph.D. candidate in entrepreneurship, she has presented her research in the field at leading institutions including ​, and others.

Illustration:

Only around $730 million — or 0.4% of all funding — went to startups with a Black founder or co-founder last year, per ˝űÂţĚěĚĂ . That’s the lowest share in years, and down more than two-thirds from just three years ago.

For a sense of how the numbers have fluctuated, below we chart annual funding to Black-founded startups since 2020, along with total reported rounds.

Cleantech and health take in largest rounds

Much of the funding tally for Black-founded startups in 2024 came from a few larger rounds. Standouts include:

• , a startup that transforms COâ‚‚ into jet fuel and other useful products, picked up a $200 million Series C in September, led by , and . (The company also raised $445 million in project financing and credit, though only the Series C was included in our annual funding totals.)
• , a provider of Medicare Advantage health plans with a focus on improving health outcomes in diverse populations, raised $140 million in September from investors including and .
• , a developer of autonomous electric aircraft, raised $40 million in a February Series B led by .
• , a provider of outpatient addiction treatment, landed $30 million in a February Series D led by .
• , a provider of tools to automate accounting, budgeting and forecasting, secured $25 million in an April financing.

Black founders are underrepresented

Despite these larger fundings, however, Black founders continue to be exceptionally underrepresented relative to their numbers.

“There’s a lot of work to do on addressing biases,” said , founding partner and managing director of , a venture fund investor operating on the principle that bias hinders optimal financial performance.

Per Dodson, the proportionately low funding totals demonstrate that investors appear to be passing on promising entrepreneurs due to racial bias.

Demographics support this take. Today, more than 48 million Americans self-identify as Black, , representing 14.4% of the U.S. population.

If funding share was in line with population, one would expect companies with a Black founder or co-founder to attract more than 14.4% of all funding (given that startups commonly have more than one founder). In reality, of course, it’s nowhere near that level.

Black Americans are also starting businesses at a steady clip. Per the , as of 2020, accounted for $141.1 billion in annual sales and employed 1.3 million people.

The cohort, however, does not appear to be a major recipient of the AI funding boom. None of the U.S. artificial intelligence startups that raised $100 million or more in funding last year were Black-founded companies, per ˝űÂţĚěĚĂ data.

DEI efforts face political backlash but maintain some private sector support

The fall in funding share for Black founders also comes amid an increasingly hostile political climate around government and private sector efforts to promote diversity in hiring and investment decision-making.

In its initial days, the administration shuttered DEI-related programs at government agencies and sought to curtail funding to entities promoting “woke” ideologies, a term interpreted as encompassing many diversity efforts.

In the private sector, meanwhile, reactions to the changed climate are mixed. Several large companies, including and , recently announced plans to curtail or wind down DEI-related efforts. Others, including and , have said they plan to continue their commitments.

In the startup investment arena, diversity-focused venture funds did not rank among the larger small or midsized vehicles to close last year. The weak showing came amid a broader drop-off in the number of U.S. small and midsized funds closing on fresh capital.

Diversity-focused investors have faced legal challenges as well. In one high-profile case, venture capital firm said last fall that it would for Black women business owners as part of a settlement in a lawsuit alleging discrimination.

What will 2025 have in store?

Of course, we have no idea how funding tallies will play out in the coming year. Obviously, that also doesn’t prevent us from speculating.

In the case of Black founders, it seems reasonable to expect some growth in funding share, if only because last year’s proportion was so low. Given that Black founders have a proportionately higher representation in the healthcare industry, strong funding for this sector could also help boost totals.

Methodology

The data contained in this report comes directly from ˝űÂţĚěĚĂ, and is based on reported data provided by our partners, venture partners, our community network and news sources. The data in this report is focused on the U.S. market for underrepresented minorities, namely Black-/African-American-founded companies.

˝űÂţĚěĚĂ’s dataset is constantly expanding, but there are gaps. A company may not have founders listed, or the Diversity Spotlight data may not be updated on its ˝űÂţĚěĚĂ profile. We do believe we are missing companies, especially at the early stages of funding.

If you notice missing data, please reach out to spotlight@crunchbase.com or verify with your company email to update your company’s Diversity Spotlight tags directly onsite.

˝űÂţĚěĚĂ, like all databases of private-market transactions, has a documented pattern of reporting delays. The data for 2024 will increase over time relative to previous years. As data is added to ˝űÂţĚěĚĂ over time, some of the numbers in this report may shift.

Related ˝űÂţĚěĚĂ Pro list:

Related reading:

• Startup Funding Regained Its Footing In 2024 As AI Became The Star Of The Show
• Fewer Small And Midsize Venture Funds Are Closing This Year

Illustration: