Venture Capital interview preparation
Sourcing, unit economics, term sheets, cap tables, fund economics and the India venture market. Every question is either traced to a named firm from a public candidate report, or tagged at desk level when we could not trace it — answers lead with the point, then the mechanism, then the limitation.
100 questions, mapped to the firms that asked them
- Questions
- 100
- Traced to a firm
- 31
- Firms
- 12
- Updated
- September 2026
082What do you think about this portfolio company?Insight PartnersGeneralist · New York · 2025Battery VenturesVenture Capital · Boston · 2019
Say this
Give a real assessment with a view, not a compliment. Say what you think the original thesis was, what evidence you can see about whether it is working, the one risk you would watch, and what you would want to know that you cannot see from outside. Flattery is the wrong answer and so is dismissal.
Then walk it
- Reconstruct the thesis first: at the stage they invested, what must they have believed? That framing shows you can think like an investor rather than a customer, and it gives you something concrete to test.
- Then the observable evidence. Hiring trend and which functions they are hiring into, pricing page changes, customer logos on the website, review volume, app rankings, whether they have raised since and at what reported price. All public, all checkable.
- Then a view with a number attached where you can: my guess is they are somewhere between $20m and $40m of ARR based on headcount and the segment, growing well but slowing, and the interesting question is whether they can move upmarket before the incumbent bundles the feature.
- Then the risk. Pick one and make it specific — a competitor bundling, a channel dependency, a regulatory change, customer concentration. One well-argued risk is worth more than five generic ones.
- Then the question you cannot answer from outside, which is the most useful thing you can offer: 'what I would really want to see is net retention in the sub-$25k cohort, because everything about the pricing page suggests they moved upmarket and I cannot tell whether they kept the long tail or shed it.'
- And keep it genuinely respectful. These are their companies and the founders are their relationships. Critical is fine, dismissive is disqualifying, and there is a real difference between 'here is the risk I would watch' and 'I don't think this works'.
Where candidates lose it
Praising it, which shows nothing, or trashing it, which shows no judgement about the room you are in. Also: do not guess the numbers if you have not looked. This question rewards half an hour of preparation on three or four of their most prominent companies, and the candidates who do it are immediately obvious.
Expect next
- Would you have invested at the last round price?
- Which company in our portfolio would you not have done?
- What would you want to diligence about it?
Reported by candidates at Insight Partners (Generalist, New York, 2025); Battery Ventures (Venture Capital, Boston, 2019). Source: Wall Street Oasis.
Firm tags come from public, anonymous candidate reports on Wall Street Oasis: strong signal, not sworn testimony. Firms are named as the places a question was reported, not as partners of Fin Maverick. Answers are written for this page to show how to think out loud; they are not scripts to recite.
