Where the mon­ey is, 2016 edi­tion: The top 100 VCs in­vest­ing in biotech, by the num­bers

Us­ing the lat­est set of num­bers on the top 100 VCs op­er­at­ing in the US, you can sketch out all of the big trends at play in the multi­bil­lion-dol­lar game of biotech in­vest­ing and star­tups.

The top four VCs – Flag­ship, Third Rock, New En­ter­prise As­so­ciates and Arch Ven­ture – all en­tered 2016 flush with cash and ready to start ramp­ing up new com­pa­nies while fos­ter­ing the up­starts al­ready in their port­fo­lios, ac­cord­ing to fig­ures Thom­son Reuters pro­vid­ed to End­points News. NEA may have slipped down the list a bit, but the life sci­ences group un­der David Mott con­tin­ues to be one of the most pro­lif­ic in the in­dus­try, not shy in the least to take a lead role in big new rounds.

In many cas­es, these four have been kick­start­ing com­pa­nies in­to ex­is­tence us­ing a blank-slate ap­proach in track­ing down and spark­ing the shift from acad­e­mia in­to the clin­ic. And groups like At­las and 5AM have been close be­hind.

If you ranked these firms by the num­ber of deals, Po­laris would come in at the top (same as last year) though they are clear­ly look­ing at mak­ing small­er bets across a wider slate of can­di­dates.

Most of these top play­ers are keen­ly in­ter­est­ed in the ear­li­est stages of in­vest­ing in biotech, but the un­der­tow on the mon­ey is al­so in­evitably broad­en­ing to in­clude lat­er stages of work, which is why Flag­ship re­cent­ly added a new $285 mil­lion fund to ex­tend its reach fur­ther down the clin­ic.

With IPOs suf­fer­ing last year, it’s al­so no sur­prise to see a crossover in­vestor like RA Cap­i­tal drop from 5th in 2015 to 56th in 2016. But Or­biMed and Deer­field re­main in the top tier of the busiest play­ers./

The num­ber of new deals has slipped, which is al­so no sur­prise. 2015 re­mains a record year in ven­ture in­vest­ing that will be hard to beat in the com­ing years, as VCs wait out the lull in the pub­lic mar­ket. But the over­all flow of cash re­mains near enough to his­toric highs to keep the land­scape look­ing bright.

To ful­ly un­der­stand these num­bers, you have to start by clar­i­fy­ing that the to­tals in the amount in­vest­ed col­umn aren’t gospel. Thom­son Reuters gath­ers up all the num­bers it can find — in the news, SEC fil­ings and so on — and then divvies the amount of each round by the num­ber of play­ers on record. If one VC was in­volved in a round, they have a sol­id fig­ure. If 4 or 5 play­ers are in­volved, they di­vide by the to­tal and use that as the av­er­age. It’s not per­fect, but it does cap­ture the lev­el of ac­tiv­i­ty each VC is play­ing with.

Based on the num­ber of new funds that con­tin­ue to at­tract record amounts of mon­ey for play­ers like Ver­sant, it’s fair to say that 2017 looks sol­id as we be­gin the year. Just about every­one ex­pects a re­peat of 2016 on the IPO front, though with Don­ald Trump en­ter­ing the White House as the wild card in Amer­i­can pol­i­tics – stroking cor­po­ra­tions with one hand while slap­ping phar­ma with the oth­er – who re­al­ly knows what’s go­ing to hap­pen?

Some­one asked me re­cent­ly where they had the best shot at rais­ing cash for his biotech ven­ture. My sug­ges­tion: Look over the num­bers and deals in your own sec­tor and see who has a track record in your field. And this is a good place to get start­ed on that ex­er­cise.

Con­tin­ue read­ing for the en­tire list of 100 top biotech VCs with to­tal amounts in­vest­ed and links to their web­sites. Reg­is­tra­tion is re­quired.

Unlock this article instantly by becoming a free subscriber.

You’ll get access to free articles each month, plus you can customize what newsletters get delivered to your inbox each week, including breaking news.

SIGN UP LOG IN BECOME A PREMIUM SUBSCRIBER