The Seed 40: The best women early-stage investors of 2026

Backing a startup at seed stage requires a particular kind of conviction. The product may be unfinished, the team incomplete and the market largely theoretical. There are few conventional performance indicators to examine and no guarantee that a later investor will agree with the original thesis. Business Insider’s 2026 Seed 40 recognises the women who have repeatedly made those early, uncertain decisions before a company’s potential became obvious to the wider venture market.

The ranking arrives at a complicated moment for early-stage investing. Artificial intelligence is attracting unusually large rounds, capital is concentrating around established venture firms and emerging managers face a far more difficult fundraising environment than they did during the technology boom. At the same time, women remain a minority of the people with authority to write venture cheques. The Seed 40 therefore provides both a record of individual achievement and a useful view of who is gaining influence over the technologies, companies and founders likely to shape the next decade.

What The Seed 40 Measures

The Seed 40 is the female-focused counterpart to Business Insider’s Seed 100. Its purpose is not simply to identify the most visible venture capitalists or the investors associated with the largest current valuations.

Business Insider works with investment-analysis company Termina to examine investors who have made at least five eligible early-stage investments during the assessment period. The methodology considers evidence that portfolio companies progressed after the original investment, including subsequent fundraising, acquisitions and public listings. Exits carry particular weight because they provide stronger evidence of investment success than an interim valuation alone.

The process also gives greater emphasis to recent investments when assessing intermediate achievements such as follow-on rounds. This is important because a portfolio built during the low-interest-rate technology boom cannot be evaluated in exactly the same way as one assembled in the more selective market that followed.

No ranking can capture the complete performance of private investments. Fund-level returns and ownership data are often confidential, while a large funding round does not guarantee that investors will ultimately receive a profitable exit. Even so, the methodology is more meaningful than a list based solely on reputation, nominations or social-media visibility.

Shan-Lyn Ma Tops The 2026 Ranking

Shan-Lyn Ma, co-founder and co-chief executive of wedding platform Zola, takes the top position. Her portfolio includes companies such as logistics business Deliverr, direct-to-consumer brand Billie, e-commerce platform Flow Commerce and accounting-automation company Vic.ai.

Ma represents an increasingly influential group within venture capital: founders who begin investing after building businesses themselves. Their advantage is not necessarily superior financial modelling. It is direct familiarity with the operational problems a young company encounters, including customer acquisition, recruitment, pricing, product development and the pressure created by external capital.

A founder choosing an investor is not only choosing a source of money. At seed stage, that investor may influence the next financing round, important appointments and the company’s response to its first serious crisis. Someone who has managed those situations can offer practical credibility that is difficult to reproduce through theoretical advice.

Founder-investors still need to resist the assumption that every company should follow the pattern of their own success. The strongest use of operating experience is to ask better questions, not to impose one company’s playbook on another.

Ann Miura-Ko Demonstrates The Value Of A Long Record

Ann Miura-Ko, co-founding partner of Floodgate, ranks second. Her earlier investments are associated with some of the most recognisable technology companies of the past two decades, including Lyft, Twitch and Okta, while her newer portfolio includes businesses working in artificial intelligence, healthcare and aviation.

Her position illustrates why early-stage venture capital requires a long evaluation horizon. A seed investor may wait ten years or more before an investment produces a meaningful exit. During that time, the company can change products, leadership, markets and financing strategies several times.

The ability to identify a compelling founder is therefore only one part of the job. An investor must also determine whether the company can develop a defensible position, whether later investors will continue financing it and whether the team can adapt when the original plan stops working.

That discipline becomes particularly important during an AI boom. Hundreds of startups can now build products using similar foundation models and describe themselves as category-defining platforms. The investor must identify which businesses possess proprietary data, technical depth, distribution or customer relationships that will remain valuable when basic AI functionality becomes widely available.

Sector Expertise Is Becoming A Competitive Advantage

Lynne Chou O’Keefe of Define Ventures and Ann DeWitt of Engine Ventures, ranked third and fourth respectively, demonstrate the growing importance of specialist knowledge.

O’Keefe focuses on healthcare, where investment decisions must account for regulation, reimbursement, clinical workflows and the realities of selling to hospitals, insurers and medical practices. DeWitt invests in biotechnology and companies emerging from scientific research, where the path from promising discovery to commercial product can be technically complex, expensive and slow.

These sectors expose the limits of generalist venture investing. A healthcare startup may have an impressive product but no workable reimbursement model. A biotechnology company may possess valuable science but require a clinical programme too costly or uncertain for the business to finance.

A specialist investor can identify those weaknesses earlier. They may also contribute more after the investment by helping recruit scientific leadership, structure trials, engage regulators or reach the first institutional customers.

The Seed 40 suggests that future influence in venture capital will depend increasingly on what an investor understands, not simply on how much capital the firm manages.

AI Is Changing The Meaning Of Seed Capital

The traditional seed round was intended to help a small company develop an initial product, hire its first employees and demonstrate early customer demand. In 2026, some AI companies are raising rounds that would once have been associated with much later stages.

The shift reflects genuine costs. Training models, purchasing computing capacity and recruiting specialist researchers can require considerable capital before a company establishes meaningful revenue. It also reflects intense investor competition and fear of missing the next foundational technology business.

This creates a problem for conventional seed investors. Smaller funds cannot always match the valuations or cheque sizes offered by large multistage firms. They must persuade founders that their technical expertise, network or operational contribution is valuable enough to justify accepting their capital.

The Seed 40 therefore measures more than an ability to discover companies early. It identifies investors who can remain relevant when money itself is abundant for the most fashionable founders.

Oana Olteanu Is Searching Beyond Familiar Credentials

Oana Olteanu, founder of Motive Force, has built her strategy around identifying deeply technical founders before they acquire the external validation that draws mainstream venture attention.

Her background in computer science and enterprise technology informs investments across AI, software infrastructure and robotics. Her approach is particularly relevant because venture capital often claims to reward unconventional talent while continuing to rely heavily on elite universities, recognised employers and introductions from established networks.

Credentials can provide useful information, but they can also create circular validation. Founders who already possess influential connections receive meetings and funding more easily, while equally capable outsiders struggle to enter the process.

An investor willing to examine technical ability, persistence and unusual insight before prestigious endorsements appear may gain access to opportunities the wider market has overlooked.

This approach is not charitable. It is competitive. The purpose is to identify capability before everyone else agrees that it exists.

Nisha Dua Shows Why Emerging Managers Need A Clear Edge

Nisha Dua, co-founder and managing partner of BBG Ventures, appears on the list after backing businesses including Spring Health, Zola, Starface and HopSkipDrive.

Her experience also reveals how difficult the current environment has become for smaller venture firms. Capital raised by US venture managers is concentrating heavily around established firms with long records and recognised brands. PitchBook data cited by Business Insider showed experienced managers capturing 91 percent of the capital raised during the first quarter of 2026.

BBG Ventures nevertheless closed a $60 million fourth fund in 2024. Its proposition is built around founders with direct understanding of underserved consumer and business problems, supported by the operating backgrounds of the investment team.

Emerging managers can no longer rely on the general claim that they see opportunities differently. Limited partners want evidence that the distinction produces proprietary deal access, credible judgement and a portfolio that established firms could not easily replicate.

A focus on women or underrepresented founders may form part of that advantage, but it must be accompanied by a clear investment thesis and demonstrable performance.

Women Investors Do Not Represent One Investment Style

Features about women in finance often rely on flattering but reductive assumptions. Female investors are described as more collaborative, more patient or inherently more interested in sustainability and social impact.

The Seed 40 does not support such a simple characterisation. Its members invest in artificial intelligence, consumer brands, biotechnology, healthcare, robotics, enterprise software and other technically and commercially demanding sectors.

Some run independent firms, some work within large venture partnerships and others invest from capital earned by building their own companies. They differ in sector, stage, risk appetite and approach to company-building.

The significance of increasing female representation does not lie in the idea that women make one particular kind of decision. It lies in widening the experiences, networks and assumptions represented when capital is allocated.

A homogeneous investment industry is more likely to recognise only the founders and markets that resemble its previous successes.

Visibility Should Not Be Mistaken For Parity

The prominence of the Seed 40 may create the impression that women now occupy a substantial share of venture-capital decision-making positions. The underlying numbers remain far less balanced.

PitchBook reported that women accounted for roughly 17 percent of decision-makers at US venture firms managing at least $50 million and around 19 percent at smaller firms. Business Insider and Termina found that women represented only 11 percent of the investors eligible for the broader 2026 seed ranking.

Venture careers compound slowly. To develop a recognised record, an investor must gain authority to lead deals, receive appropriate attribution for successful investments and remain in the industry long enough for companies to mature.

Hiring more women into junior roles will not close the gap if they are excluded from investment committees, prevented from controlling meaningful capital or overlooked when successful deals are attributed.

The relevant questions are therefore who makes the final decision, who sits on company boards, who receives carried interest and who can persuade limited partners to back a new fund.

What Founders Can Learn From The Seed 40

For founders, the ranking is most useful as a reminder that investor selection should extend beyond brand recognition.

A founder should consider whether the investor understands the company’s sector, has supported businesses through difficult periods and can assist with the next major operational challenge. Portfolio references are particularly valuable. Other founders can explain whether the investor was responsive during setbacks, helped recruit leaders and behaved constructively when strategy changed.

The investor’s cheque size and ownership requirements also matter. A prominent firm may be poorly suited to a modest seed round if the investment is too small to command internal attention.

The best investor is not always the most famous person willing to participate. It is the person whose knowledge, network and incentives fit the company’s actual needs.

What Limited Partners Should Notice

For institutions and family offices investing in venture funds, the Seed 40 highlights several qualities worth examining.

Specialisation can create access to companies that generalist firms struggle to assess. Operating experience may make an investor more useful to founders. An unconventional network may reveal opportunities outside the traditional Silicon Valley pipeline.

These advantages need to be repeatable. A successful investment discovered through chance does not establish a durable sourcing strategy. Limited partners should ask why founders choose the manager, how opportunities are evaluated and what the firm contributes after investing.

The concentration of capital around established firms may make emerging managers appear riskier. It may also allow distinctive smaller firms to invest in markets receiving less attention from the dominant franchises.

What The 2026 Ranking Really Shows

The Seed 40 is not evidence that gender parity has been achieved or that women-led investments automatically produce superior returns. Its importance is more specific.

It identifies women who have built measurable records of selecting companies before their promise became widely accepted. It also shows that early-stage venture capital is becoming more specialised, more operator-led and more competitive as AI changes the cost and scale of initial financing.

The ranking’s strongest message is not that female investors possess one shared advantage. It is that a group historically underrepresented in venture decision-making is increasingly demonstrating the ability to identify, finance and shape consequential companies.

Seed investing is the point at which conviction matters most because evidence remains scarce. The women on the 2026 list have earned attention by making those uncertain decisions repeatedly, then helping enough of the companies progress for the market to recognise what they saw earlier.