Crunchbase is pretty incomplete before 2004 it seems.
Several of the comm companies I checked were missing.
Edit: Upon further testing, it seems that many of the communications wipeouts ($40+M) from that era are missing. It's almost as if the people who funded them don't want the magnitude of the mistakes in the record.
Here's an example: Photonex, raised $170M [1] over the course of their lifetime and not a trace on crunchbase of who the culprits were.
Another quick example: Solinet [2] raised a pile of dough (they later renamed themselves Ceyba).
(I run SeedTable which also does analytics on Crunchbase data)
The problem with ranking by funding/acquisition amounts is the data is pretty dirty, and outliers are disproportionately likely to be incorrect data (because someone fat fingered a number to be an order of magnitude larger, or put a foreign currency amount in as USD). Although the acq data is better than the funding data.
You might also want to extract stuff like biotech from the data because it's fundamentally a completely separate market from software tech.
It's crazy that there are so many huge companies that I've never heard of. Instagram's acquisition was huge news at $1B, but I didn't hear a peep about Ariba at $4.3B or Genzyme at $20B.
It's easy to think that consumer oriented web startups are what's hot, but this data proves otherwise.
> It's easy to think that consumer oriented web startups are what's hot, but this data proves otherwise.
I think what it proves: Crunchbase serves the PR segment of consumer oriented web companies, and fails to serve other segments well. Let's face it, it's not so much a database as it is part of the techcrunch PR machine.
I wonder if a lot of the "there's no innovation any more" talk is a result of the fact that things like biotech just doesn't get the same coverage as the web startups?
There's a lot of biotech/pharmacutecal companies in those lists. Something is happening in that industry, even if we don't hear much about it here and elsewhere.
One thing to consider is how long each of these companies hd been in existence before getting acquired. One thing with consumer web is that the time between conception and exit is comparatively short compared to other industries.
T-Mobile is listed as the top acquisition of 2011, but that deal was blocked by the DoJ and later dropped by AT&T. In other words, the charts are based on announcements, not necessarily consummated transactions.
Were some companies acquired multiple times the same year, or is there a bug somewhere? (RazorFish is listed 3 times in 2002, DoubleClick and Skype twice in 2005, Getty Images twice in 2008, Sterling Commerce twice in 2009.)
For funding categories by year, I really think it would be nicer/more-useful if we could look at a time-series line graph by sector over a longer time period (5+ years) to see trends.
cool stuff. how are you grouping data startups within the funding categories section?
i'd be interested to see the breakdown in recent years of startups that offer a data product, i.e. data infrastructure, ad optimization, user tracking, etc
[+] [-] jpdoctor|13 years ago|reply
Several of the comm companies I checked were missing.
Edit: Upon further testing, it seems that many of the communications wipeouts ($40+M) from that era are missing. It's almost as if the people who funded them don't want the magnitude of the mistakes in the record.
Here's an example: Photonex, raised $170M [1] over the course of their lifetime and not a trace on crunchbase of who the culprits were.
Another quick example: Solinet [2] raised a pile of dough (they later renamed themselves Ceyba).
[1] http://www.lightreading.com/ip-convergence/photonex-scores-h...
[2] http://www.lightreading.com/ip-convergence/solinet-systems-s...
[+] [-] unknown|13 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] ig1|13 years ago|reply
The problem with ranking by funding/acquisition amounts is the data is pretty dirty, and outliers are disproportionately likely to be incorrect data (because someone fat fingered a number to be an order of magnitude larger, or put a foreign currency amount in as USD). Although the acq data is better than the funding data.
You might also want to extract stuff like biotech from the data because it's fundamentally a completely separate market from software tech.
[+] [-] ipedrazas|13 years ago|reply
Will be interesting to see what happens during 2013 but it seems that there's not as much money as on 2010/2011
[+] [-] aaasen|13 years ago|reply
It's easy to think that consumer oriented web startups are what's hot, but this data proves otherwise.
[+] [-] jpdoctor|13 years ago|reply
I think what it proves: Crunchbase serves the PR segment of consumer oriented web companies, and fails to serve other segments well. Let's face it, it's not so much a database as it is part of the techcrunch PR machine.
[+] [-] waterlesscloud|13 years ago|reply
There's a lot of biotech/pharmacutecal companies in those lists. Something is happening in that industry, even if we don't hear much about it here and elsewhere.
[+] [-] hkmurakami|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bdcravens|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] samspenc|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ronnix|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] miquelcamps|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] skhamkar|13 years ago|reply
Acquisitions http://db.tt/h6PoPnCn
Companies http://db.tt/UNYulmJD
Funding http://db.tt/SHa45HHc
Words http://db.tt/mJMCIREX
[+] [-] hkmurakami|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] minimaxir|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] miquelcamps|13 years ago|reply
https://www.dropbox.com/s/pzhqhtk4g23temz/crunchbase.sql.zip
[+] [-] ev_ancasey|13 years ago|reply
i'd be interested to see the breakdown in recent years of startups that offer a data product, i.e. data infrastructure, ad optimization, user tracking, etc
[+] [-] miquelcamps|13 years ago|reply
Example: http://www.crunchbase.com/company/rent-com
If you want, you can download the database and check the companies table https://www.dropbox.com/s/pzhqhtk4g23temz/crunchbase.sql.zip
[+] [-] sylvinus|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ejfox|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] miquelcamps|13 years ago|reply