How the DSI is built.
A transparent rating system for venture studios across independent, corporate, university, boutique, and defunct categories. Six data sources. Five weighted subscores. Quarterly refresh. Studios cannot pay to improve their grade — methodology and source data are published in full.
Guiding principles.
The Distributed Studio Index exists to answer a single question for LPs, corporate development, sovereign-wealth allocators, and serious operator-founders: which venture studios actually deliver on the architecture's promise — repeatable company formation at portfolio scale — and which only deliver the language?
- Archive-sourced. Every rated entity is informed by Stealth's proprietary research archive + cross-referenced public sources — never by studio marketing claims alone.
- Studios cannot pay. No rated entity has paid, can pay, or has been offered the opportunity to pay for inclusion, exclusion, or modification of their grade.
- Quarterly refresh. Grades update every 90 days; operational restructuring, exits, and operational closures trigger interim updates.
- Subscore transparency. Every grade decomposes into five public subscores so LPs and corporate buyers can weigh dimensions matching their priorities.
- Right of correction. Studios may submit documented corrections via published Appeals process.
The six data sources.
Stealth Proprietary Database
Stealth's internal research database — the largest single source of structured venture-studio data in the index. Studio architecture, operator bench, formation cadence.
PitchBook Venture Studio Category
PitchBook venture-studio sector data: formation cadence, deal-flow, follow-on raise patterns, exit attribution.
Crunchbase Formation Records
Crunchbase founding records cross-referenced for studio-attribution. Formation patterns + studio founder/operator transition data.
SEC Filings
Parent-venture SEC filings (S-1, 10-K, proxy statements) for public-company portfolio companies. Equity ownership disclosure + founder/studio retention.
LP Secondary-Market Data
Studio-fund secondary-market transaction data (where disclosed). Pricing pressure signal for studio-fund LP positions.
Trade Press
The Information, Axios Pro Rata, GVS (Global Venture Studio) reports, Forbes Studio Index. Cross-referenced for consistency + operational status verification.
No single source dominates a grade. Triangulation across all six is required for any entity to receive a published rating.
The five subscores.
Every grade decomposes into five weighted dimensions. Weights are fixed across all entities — independent studios, corporate venture studios, university studios, and boutiques are graded on the same matrix.
Repeatability (25%)
The heaviest weight by design. Venture studios live or die by repeatability — the documented ability to launch same-architecture companies at sustained cadence. Single hit-driven studios score below documented-repeatable peers, even with higher dollar outcomes.
Capital Efficiency (22%)
IRR per dollar deployed. Operating costs vs. enterprise value created. The structural advantage venture studios claim vs. traditional VC — this subscore tests the claim.
Operator Bench (20%)
Quality + breadth + retention of in-house operating + engineering bench. The shared infrastructure that distinguishes a studio from a portfolio.
Equity Ownership Capture (18%)
Equity captured pre-A vs. founder dilution. The structural-ownership thesis of venture studios — measured against actual cap-table outcomes, not marketing claims.
Portfolio Outcomes (15%)
Exits, IPOs, follow-on raises across portfolio. Lagging indicator but real proof. Weighted least because exit timing is long-cycle; current operations may not yet manifest in outcomes.
Grade scale.
A+ to A− (88-100): Excellent / Reference. Industry-leading on multiple dimensions; canonical studio.
B+ to B− (70-87): Solid. Strong on most dimensions; viable studio for most LP / corporate-development theses.
C+ to C− (50-69): Mixed. Material concerns; suitable only for specific use cases.
D+ to D− (30-49): High Risk. Severe limitations or operational reduction; LPs and partners should approach with caution.
F (0-29): Defunct, in restructuring, or critical track record. Reference only.
Conflicts of interest.
STEALTH is itself rated in The Distributed Studio Index. To preserve independence:
- Editorial firewall. The DSI editorial team operates separately from STEALTH's commercial operations.
- Documented relationships. Every rated entity with a current or past STEALTH partnership, co-investment, or operator-bench overlap is flagged in our internal conflict register.
- No reciprocity. Studios that have declined STEALTH co-investments are graded identically to those who have not.
- Self-rating constraint. STEALTH's grade is set with explicit conservatism vs. peer self-rating signal — we score ourselves to the same external evidence we apply to peers.
Refresh cadence.
Grades update quarterly. The current edition is Q2 2026. Major events between refreshes — operational restructuring, fund closures, exits — trigger interim updates flagged on the relevant profile.
Methodology revisions to the subscore matrix are published as version bumps. Current methodology version: v1.0. See the underlying methodology paper at /research for academic detail.