Where US pre-seed money actually comes from
Six routes to money before you have revenue, from funds that write the first cheque to grants that cost no equity at all. Every figure came off the source, and the link on each entry goes to the exact page it was checked against.
It is a US list. Reg CF is US statute and SBIR, STTR and the state schemes are open only to US companies, most of them only to companies based in a single state. Three entries say on their own pages that they will back a company incorporated anywhere, and those are Alchemist Accelerator, AngelPad and Village Global. A further two, Y Combinator and Techstars, will invest in a founder from outside the US, but only once the company has restructured into an approved jurisdiction, which is weeks of legal work and a real cost. Silence from the rest is not a statement that they are closed to you, only that they do not say.
Raising in the UK or Europe? There is a separate UK list, held to the same standard.
- Routes listed
- 27
- Last verified
- 2026-08-03
Showing 27 of 27
Entries are tagged only where their own source states the stage. If a filter hides something you expected to see, that means the source is silent, not that the answer is no. Three are tagged the other way on purpose, because Golden Seeds, Band of Angels and MassVentures START each publish a floor you have to clear before they will look at you.
Before you have an idea or a co-founder
3 of 3Three programmes back people rather than companies. You apply as an individual, and the money arrives before there is anything to invest in. Filter for no idea yet anywhere on the page and you get these three and nothing else, which is the honest size of this part of the market.
South Park Commons
San Francisco and New York
$1M in total, being $400,000 upfront for 7 percent on a standard safe plus $600,000 guaranteed in your next external round
The structure is the interesting part. A large share of the money is not an investment at all until you have something to invest in, and the guaranteed portion in the next round means you are not walking out of the programme with a cliff in front of you. It is built for people leaving a senior job with a strong technical reputation and no company yet, which is a narrower door than it first appears.
Antler US
New York, San Francisco and Austin
Typically $500,000 to $1M as the initial commitment, plus $650,000 in partner credits
This is not the same deal as Antler's UK programme, and anyone reading a British round-up and applying in New York would be reading the wrong terms. The US page publishes the cheque and no equity percentage at all, where the UK page publishes the percentage, the note and the programme fee. Ask what the equity is before you commit to a residency, because you will not find it written down.
Afore Founders in Residence
San Francisco
$250,000 to $750,000 on customised terms
Two months, a cohort of roughly ten teams, and terms Afore describes as customised, which means there is no standard deal to compare against. Worth reading alongside Afore Capital further up this page: same firm, different stage, different terms, and going through one does not commit you to the other.
The first institutional cheque
7 of 7Funds that will lead a round when there is no product and no revenue, and that say so on their own pages rather than through a database. Read the geography lines carefully. Three of the seven rule out most of the world.
Precursor Ventures
San Francisco, investing across North America
Typically up to $500,000 in pre-seed and seed rounds
The line that earns this entry is on their philosophy page: no traction requirement. Almost nobody writes that down, because it removes the polite reason to say no. The trade is geography, since they invest in North America only, and pace, since they publish that they make 30 to 40 new investments a year, which is a lot of companies and therefore a lot of competition for attention afterwards. After the first cheque: reserves held for subsequent rounds.
Afore Capital
San Francisco
$500,000 to $2M and above, from a $500M fund
A dedicated pre-seed fund rather than a seed fund that occasionally goes early, which is a distinction worth caring about, because the second kind will pass on you for reasons the first kind expects. The approach is direct through the site. They also run the Founders in Residence programme listed in the first section, which is the earlier door into the same firm.
K9 Ventures
Palo Alto, San Francisco Bay Area teams only
$250,000 to $750,000 initially, with a stated sweet spot around $400,000, usually inside a syndicated $500,000 to $1M round where K9 takes more than 50 percent
The most specific criteria page of any fund here, and most of what it specifies is who they will not fund. Bay Area founding teams only. No safes and no convertible notes, which rules out the instrument most pre-seed rounds now use, so expect a priced round. Four to six new investments a year. Every one of those is a reason to check the fit before you spend a week on the approach. After the first cheque: reserves for Seed, Series A and Series B, but only in companies they backed at pre-seed or seed.
Hustle Fund
San Carlos, California, investing across the US, Canada and Southeast Asia
$150,000 as a first cheque
Their own FAQ is more sober than their front page. The site says hilariously early; the FAQ says the sweet spot is companies with an MVP and that they will not be the bulk of your round. Both things can be true, but plan against the FAQ. They also publish their speed, one to two meetings to a decision, which is the most useful number on the page if you are running a process.
Bloomberg Beta
San Francisco and New York
Typical first cheque $500,000 to $1M, no minimum, and they have written cheques as small as $25,000
Their website redirects to an operating manual on GitHub, open sourced, carrying the cheque sizes, the fund size and the questions they will ask in diligence. Their stated reason is that founders told them having the facts in the open saved everyone time. Read it next to BoxGroup in the cut list, which publishes nothing at all, and you have the two poles of this market in one comparison. After the first cheque: a $75M opportunity fund invests later in companies they already back.
Homebrew
North and South America only, and your market has to start there too
$100,000 to $500,000, which is 90 percent of what they do
They stopped raising outside money and now invest their own, which they say in as many words, and it changes what you are dealing with: no fund clock, no LP pressure, and their stated position of no ownership targets, first cheque or last cheque or anywhere in between. The geography line is a hard gate rather than a preference and rules out a European or Asian company however good the fit looks otherwise. After the first cheque: the other 10 percent is larger, up to $25m or more, or later stage.
Village Global
Invests globally, across sectors
$500,000 to $3m
The pitch is the network rather than the money: several hundred founders and operator angels, and named LPs including Reid Hoffman, Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos. Treat that list as what it is, a signal about who backs the fund, not about who will take your call. They are one of the few funds here that invests globally, which matters if you are outside the US and tired of reading geography clauses.
Accelerators that publish their terms
9 of 9The most comparable section on this page, because a fixed offer is the whole point of an accelerator. Where a programme publishes the amount and the percentage in the same sentence you can price it against the others. Where it publishes only the amount, this page says so.
Y Combinator
Mountain View and San Francisco
$500,000, split as $125,000 for a fixed 7 percent and $375,000 on an uncapped MFN safe
The split matters more than the total. The fixed 7 percent is priced at acceptance and the rest converts later on an uncapped safe with a most favoured nation clause, so the true cost depends on a round you have not raised yet. No fees are charged to companies, stated on the same page. The line most round-ups omit: they invest in US, Canada, Cayman and Singapore corporations only, so a company incorporated anywhere else has to restructure first.
PearX
Menlo Park and San Francisco
$250,000 to $2M per company, plus over $1M in cloud credits available
Twelve weeks, cohorts of around twenty, and a range wide enough at the top end that it is worth asking early where in it you would sit. The spread is the thing to negotiate, not the existence of an offer.
Forum Ventures
New York, Toronto, remote cohorts
$100,000 for 7.5 percent on a standard post-money safe
B2B only, which is a real filter rather than a preference, and the cheque is written on day one of the programme rather than at the end, so the money is not contingent on how the twelve weeks go. The terms are a post-money safe at a published percentage, which is as comparable as this market gets.
Techstars
Programmes in cities across the US and worldwide; invests in US corporations or foreign equivalents
$220,000 on acceptance, being $20,000 on a post-money convertible equity agreement for 5 percent common stock plus $200,000 on an uncapped MFN safe
The equity is common stock, which puts Techstars behind the founders and employees on a sale rather than ahead of them, and that is a genuinely founder-friendly choice rather than a marketing line. Two details on the same page that no round-up carries: Asia-Pacific programmes put less into the safe for the same percentage, and a company incorporated in a country they have not approved must reorganise into a US structure before the money can move. Both convertibles trigger on a priced round of at least a million dollars. After the first cheque: no stated follow-on fund. A side letter gives Techstars pro rata rights to invest in your later rounds.
gener8tor Investment Accelerator
Programmes in cities across the US, sorted by geography and by industry
$100,000 over a twelve-week investment-for-equity programme
Five to six companies a cohort, which is small enough that the concierge claim is at least arithmetically possible. What is not published in one place is the equity: the amount is the same everywhere, the terms are set per programme and shown on that programme's own page. So the number to ask for is the one attached to the city or industry you are applying to, not a house standard. Their free programme, gBETA, is listed below and is the usual route in.
gBETA
Cities across the United States
No investment. Seven weeks, free, and no equity taken
This one hands over no money at all, and it is here because this page is about what you give up as well as what you get. Seven weeks, no fee, no equity, paid for by the sponsors and civic partners who want companies started in their city. gener8tor runs it as the front door to its own paid accelerator above, which is the catch the FAQ does not name, and it is a mild one. After the first cheque: the stated goal is that graduates go on to an investment accelerator or raise a seed round.
AngelPad
In person, in the AngelPad office, every day of the programme
$120,000 in each company
The figure is published and the equity is not, anywhere on the site, and that gap is the reason to read this entry rather than a ranking. They are happy to tell you they are first in MIT's US seed accelerator rankings and that their companies have raised billions between them. What they take for the money is a question you will have to ask. Two other stated conditions matter more than they look: acceptance is under 1 percent, and you work from their office every day, so this is not a programme you do from another city.
Alchemist Accelerator
Open to companies anywhere in the world; enterprise startups only
An average of $30,000 net to the company, after the programme's tuition fee is offset against the investment, for a single-digit percentage of common equity
Read that number twice, because it is the most honest sentence on this page and it is easy to skim past. Alchemist charges tuition, then offsets it against the investment, and what lands in the company on average is the net figure. Almost everyone else quotes the gross. Alongside it they ask for a single-digit grant of common equity, varying by business, and they will take companies incorporated anywhere in the world, which is rare among US programmes and worth knowing if restructuring is the thing standing in your way. After the first cheque: alchemist may ask for the right to a minority co-investment in your follow-on round.
500 Global Flagship Accelerator
Palo Alto, California
$150,000 for a 6 percent stake, subject to terms and diligence
One of the few programmes that publishes the amount and the percentage in the same sentence, which makes it directly comparable with Y Combinator and Techstars above. The qualifier at the end of their sentence, subject to terms and diligence, is doing real work, so treat the percentage as an opening position. Note also that 500 runs many programmes and they are not the same deal: the Latin America programme publishes a different offer on its own page.
Angel groups
3 of 3Where a lot of sub-million rounds actually come from, and the section where a headline range would be a fiction: members decide individually, so there is no single cheque. What these three publish instead is the criteria, the process and the odds. Two of them want traction before they will look at you.
Band of Angels
Silicon Valley, with a Los Angeles special interest group
No published range. 150+ members investing as individuals, into 20 or more startups a year
What they publish is not a cheque, it is the funnel, and the funnel is the useful part. More than fifty companies screened a month, six invited to a screening, three selected to present at the monthly dinner. Members then invest as individuals, so there is no single decision and no single amount. Two hard facts to plan against: they state a preference for valuations or caps around ten million dollars, and they will not look at real estate, restaurants, retail or funds. Running since 1994, and the first organised high-tech angel group in the country.
Golden Seeds
US-domiciled companies only, women-led, chapters across the US
First rounds of $250,000 to $2m, at valuations typically below $10m
The most completely published criteria of any angel group here, and two of them will decide it for you before anything else does. The eligibility test is a woman in an operating C-suite role, not a woman on the cap table, and they say they weigh whether she holds real power and a fair amount of equity. On how early they go: outside bio, pharma, diagnostics and devices they want proof of concept revenue or significant pilots, and for consumer products they want trailing twelve-month net revenue over a million dollars. For most sectors this is the round after the one this page is about. US-domiciled only, and they will not invest alongside a Reg CF raise, which is worth knowing before you read the crowdfunding section below. After the first cheque: members have put $200m into 275+ companies since 2004.
TCA Venture Group
US and Canada, though roughly half of investments are Southern California
Individual members typically from $25,000, the TCA funds typically from $100,000 per company, up to several million in total
Formerly Tech Coast Angels, and still listed under the old name almost everywhere, so search for both. The most completely documented process here: everyone invests on the same term sheet, there is no application fee, and they publish the actual odds. More than a thousand companies evaluated a year, about a quarter reach screening, about a quarter of those reach due diligence, and thirty to forty get funded. That is roughly three in a hundred, published by the people doing the rejecting, and it is worth more than anything encouraging on the rest of their site. Note the floor: they ask for early traction and market validation, so this is not the first money in. After the first cheque: they fund 30 to 40 new ventures a year plus a similar number of existing portfolio companies raising growth capital.
Equity crowdfunding under Reg CF
2 of 2Statute rather than anybody's policy, and the one section where the cost to you is a published percentage rather than a negotiation. Two platforms publish what they charge a company. Two do not, and both are named in the cut list, because on a page about what money costs you that silence is the finding.
Wefunder
United States, SEC registered funding portal
Community Round costs 7.9 percent of what you raise plus $1,000 a year, and a Private Round costs the founder nothing, with the $10,000 SPV setup paid by the investors
The percentage is charged on a successful raise only, and the private-round option costs nothing, which makes this a reasonable way to formalise a friends-and-family round even if you never open it to the public. One line worth pricing before you choose the structure: their LLC option carries ongoing tax filing costs of several thousand dollars a year, which is a recurring bill rather than a one-off fee.
Netcapital
US-based companies, per Reg CF
4.9 percent of everything you raise, taken from escrow before the money reaches you
The only platform here that publishes its fee inside the contract rather than on a marketing page, and it settles an argument. Two other platforms decline to say what they charge a company, which could have been a constraint of the format. It is not. One caveat, and it is the honest half of this entry: the escrow agreement is published as a template with the escrow fees left as blanks, so the portal fee is what the portal takes and not the whole cost of the raise. Ask for the completed fee schedules before you commit.
Money that costs you no equity
3 of 3The part of the market almost no round-up covers properly, and the only part where the money is genuinely free. It is also the slowest: federal programmes run on solicitation calendars and the state schemes on a single annual window.
NSF America's Seed Fund (SBIR)
United States, federal
Up to $2 million across both phases, with recent Phase I awards at $305,000 and an average active Phase I award of $295,822
The project pitch is the reason to start here rather than with the wider programme above. It is free, it is short, and it gets you a yes or no on fit before you write a full proposal, which is the single best time-saver in federal funding. They state plainly that they take no equity. Deep tech and science-led companies only in practice, whatever the formal eligibility says. After the first cheque: phase II follows a completed Phase I.
SBIR and STTR
United States, federal, 11 agencies
Phase I up to $323,090 and Phase II up to $2,153,927, the ceilings agencies can award without asking the SBA for a waiver
Eleven federal agencies run their own solicitations against the same statutory ceilings, so this is a calendar to work rather than a door to knock on. The money is genuinely non-dilutive and the awards are large by the standards of everything else on this page. The cost is time: proposals are long, the review cycles are months, and the work has to be research and development the agency wants doing, not simply your roadmap with the serial numbers filed off.
MassVentures START
Massachusetts only, and you must already hold a federal SBIR or STTR Phase II award
$100,000 in Round 1, $200,000 in Round 2, and up to $500,000 in Round 3
It publishes something almost nobody else does, which is how many awards there are rather than only how big they are. That lets you work out your own odds instead of guessing at them. Two conditions do the gatekeeping: you must be based in Massachusetts, and you must already hold a federal SBIR or STTR Phase II award, so this is money that follows federal money rather than starting you off. The first two rounds are grants. The third is described as seed capital in a commercial spinout, which is not a grant, so read that one as equity until they tell you otherwise. One application window a year, so this is a diary entry rather than a plan for this quarter. After the first cheque: round 2 is open only to Round 1 winners from the previous year, and Round 3 only to the most successful Round 2 companies.
What didn't make it
8 removedAn organisation appears above only if it publishes something concrete about its money, either a cheque range or a fund size. Angel groups, accelerators and grant schemes are held to a different test, whether they publish their terms and eligibility, because they do not trade on cheque ranges at all. Any list that never drops anyone was not checked.
HF0
The residency for repeat founders publishes no terms at all. Its site carries a thesis page that reads, in full, 'Subtraction.', and a facts page of portfolio revenue milestones. There is no cheque size, no equity number and no eligibility rule anywhere on it, so there is nothing here that meets the standard the rest of this page is held to.
StartEngine
Publishes the federal ceiling but not its own price. Their raise-capital page states you can raise up to $5m a year through their funding portal, which is the Regulation Crowdfunding limit set by statute rather than anything StartEngine decided, and promises 'low upfront costs' without ever saying what they are. Wefunder publishes 7.9 percent plus $1,000 a year on a page anyone can read, which is the difference between the two.
BoxGroup
Publishes no figure of any kind. Their about page says they invest as early as pre-seed and as late as Series A and that they reserve capital to follow on, which is a stage, not a cheque. No range, no fund size. This one matters more than the rest: BoxGroup's cheque was one of the three figures the viral LinkedIn list got materially wrong, understating it by roughly ten times, and there is nothing on BoxGroup's own site a reader could have used to catch it.
Keiretsu Forum
Cut for scope, not for opacity, and the difference matters. Keiretsu publishes its criteria plainly, and the criteria say this page's reader does not qualify: applying companies are typically at A or B round, have usually already raised $500,000 to $1.5m from founders, friends and family, mostly have revenue, and are seeking $500,000 to $2m in growth capital. That is the round after the first cheque. Worth bookmarking for later rather than applying to now.
Hyde Park Angels
No cheque size, no valuation guidance and no eligibility criteria on the site. The entrepreneurs page is founder-advice content rather than terms. Nothing here a founder could plan a raise against.
Republic
Republic will not say what it charges the company. Its help centre carries a link reading 'What commission does Republic charge?', and that link resolves to an article about the administrative fee charged to investors, typically 2.5 percent capped at $250. Checked on 3 August 2026, the word 'commission' appears on that article exactly once, inside the phrase 'Securities and Exchange Commission'. Republic does publish the third-party costs of a raise, roughly $1,500 for the Form C and the same again for escrow, and states that it 'only takes commission on successful campaigns', without ever saying what the commission is. Wefunder publishes 7.9 percent plus $1,000 a year on a page anyone can read, so this is a choice rather than a constraint of the format.
MassChallenge
Cut with some regret, because MassChallenge built its name on taking no equity and the current site will not say so. Six pages were opened looking for terms: the home page, /programs, /our-accelerators, /traction-program, /challenge-program and /about-us. Between them they publish no cash award, no equity position, no fee and no cost of any kind. The only occurrence of the word 'equity' anywhere on them is the navigation item 'Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion'. What is published is track record, 5,000 startups supported since 2009 and $16bn raised between them, which is not a term you can plan a raise against. If you are applying anyway, and there are good reasons to, ask them in writing what they take.
Day One Ventures
The only figure anywhere on Day One's site is a TechCrunch headline in their press list reading "Announcing Day One Ventures' $150M Fund III". That is a link to somebody else's article, not Day One publishing a fund size, and this page does not accept a figure because a journalist wrote it down. Their /about and /apply URLs both 404 and there is no criteria, philosophy or FAQ page to open instead. Worth naming rather than passing over in silence: Day One's cheque was the second of the three the viral LinkedIn list got materially wrong, out by roughly five times, and there is nothing on their own site a reader could have used to catch it.
Common questions
Which US investors will fund a startup with no product or revenue?
Several, and they say so themselves. Precursor Ventures publishes that it has no traction requirement. Bloomberg Beta publishes that it has no minimum. South Park Commons, Antler US and Afore's Founders in Residence go earlier still, backing individuals before a company exists.
What if my company is not incorporated in the US?
Three entries say on their own pages that they will back a company incorporated anywhere: Alchemist Accelerator, AngelPad and Village Global. A further two, Y Combinator and Techstars, will invest, but only once you have restructured into a jurisdiction they approve, which is weeks of legal work and a real cost. Reg CF, SBIR, STTR and the state programmes are US-only by statute, so no amount of goodwill opens those.
What if I do not want to give up equity?
Filter for no equity. SBIR and STTR run federal awards across eleven agencies, NSF states plainly that it takes no equity, and gBETA is seven weeks with no fee and no equity at all. The trade is time: federal proposals are long and the review cycles run to months, and the state schemes open one window a year.
Why do the angel groups not show a single cheque size?
Because members decide individually, so there is no single number and inventing a range would be worse than leaving it out. What they publish instead is more useful: TCA Venture Group states a $25,000 member minimum and a $100,000 fund minimum, that everyone invests on the same term sheet, and that there is no application fee. Two of the three want traction before they will look at you.
How current is this?
Every entry was checked against its own source, and the set was last reviewed on 2026-08-03. It is reviewed again in February 2027. Funds close, programmes pause and fees change, so if you are reading this long after that date, confirm before you act.
Do not email all of them. Pick the two or three where your stage, sector and geography genuinely match, and write about the specific thing you are building. Warm introductions first, people who already use what you have built second, and this list third.