Database referenced is Dakota Marketplace, the global LP and GP intelligence platform trusted by thousands of investment professionals. Learn More | Book a Demo
Top-tier general partners captured a disproportionate share of new commitments in 2025 while the broader fundraising market stayed a grind, according to Bain & Company's Global Private Equity Report 2026.
When capital concentrates around a shrinking pool of managers, the allocators making that call need GP-level data that goes beyond the pitch deck: verified track records, ownership structure, key-person risk, and regulatory history.
This article is for allocators, consultants, and other capital allocators sourcing and vetting general partners, not for fund managers researching prospective investors.
Below is a review of the databases institutional teams use to pull GP data during sourcing and due diligence, plus what to check regardless of which platform you use.
Why GP Data Has Gotten Harder to Verify
GPs control the narrative on their own performance and organizational stability by default. Marketing materials show net IRR and top-quartile rankings; they rarely volunteer key-person departures, fee disputes, or regulatory findings.
The Institutional Limited Partners Association's Due Diligence Questionnaire and AIMA's Illustrative Questionnaire for the Due Diligence of Investment Managers (2025 Edition, published March 12, 2025) both standardize the categories allocators are expected to probe: track record attribution, ownership and GP commitment, key-person and succession risk, operational infrastructure, and conflicts of interest. Neither questionnaire is a data source on its own. Both assume the allocator has independent means to verify what the GP reports.
That's the gap the databases below are built to fill.
Top Databases for GP Data
Dakota Marketplace combines performance data on more than 18,000 private funds with GP profiles, fundraising status (including Form D tracking), key contacts, and manager presentations, alongside its core allocator intelligence. For allocators already using Dakota to source or manage relationships with other allocators, the same platform surfaces the GP side: who's raising, what they're raising, and how their performance compares.
Best for: Allocators and consultants who want GP fundraising status and performance data in the same workflow as their broader relationship and CRM tools, without switching platforms mid-research.
Limitation for GP due diligence: Like every platform on this list except Form ADV, GP performance figures ultimately trace back to GP or fund-level reporting rather than an independent audit.
Preqin's core strength for GP data is breadth: fund-level performance metrics, historical fundraising activity, and investor commitment history across private equity, venture capital, private credit, real estate, and infrastructure. Its GP profiles include prior fund vintages, stated strategy, and benchmarked performance against peer cohorts.
Best for: Cross-strategy benchmarking and building a first-pass long list of GPs by vintage and performance quartile.
Limitation for GP due diligence: Performance data depends on GP or LP self-reporting. It benchmarks what's disclosed; it doesn't independently verify ownership structure or key-person stability.
See GP fundraising status next to the allocators most likely to fund it. Dakota Marketplace pairs performance and fundraising data on 18,000+ private funds with allocator accounts and contacts, filterable by strategy, vintage, and AUM. Book a demo for access.
PitchBook's GP data is strongest where deal-level detail matters: fund-by-fund investment activity, portfolio company relationships, co-investor patterns, and exit history. For allocators trying to understand how a GP actually deploys capital (concentration by sector, check size discipline, hold periods), PitchBook's transaction-level view is more granular than fund-level performance databases.
Best for: Verifying a GP's stated strategy against its actual deal history.
Limitation for GP due diligence: Contact and organizational data is thinner than its deal data. It's not built as a due diligence tool for key-person or ownership questions.
Burgiss draws its performance data directly from LP cash flow reporting rather than GP self-disclosure, which makes it one of the more trusted sources for verifying a GP's actual net IRR, TVPI, and DPI against what's presented in a pitch deck. Its Manager Universe covers 5,000+ managers and 20,000+ funds.
Best for: Cross-checking a GP's self-reported performance against independently sourced LP cash flow data.
Limitation for GP due diligence: Burgiss is a performance and benchmarking tool, not a source for organizational, ownership, or regulatory data.
With Intelligence
With Intelligence combines GP, fund, and personnel profiles with search and mandate tracking, positioning it closer to a relationship and personnel-change monitoring tool than a pure performance database. Its coverage of key personnel moves is useful for tracking the organizational stability piece of GP due diligence.
Best for: Monitoring personnel changes and mandate activity across a GP watchlist over time.
Limitation for GP due diligence: Weaker on fund-level performance depth compared to Preqin or Burgiss.
Every SEC-registered investment adviser files Form ADV, which discloses ownership structure, assets under management, disciplinary history, conflicts of interest, and key personnel. It is the only primary-source, regulator-verified data point on this list, and it's free.
Best for: Ownership, GP commitment structure, and regulatory or disciplinary history. This is the check that catches what a GP won't put in a pitch deck.
Limitation for GP due diligence: ADV filings are self-reported to the regulator (not audited) and update on a fixed annual schedule, so a departure or dispute may not show up for months. It also only covers SEC-registered advisers, which excludes non-US GPs that aren't SEC-registered.
Building a GP Data Workflow That Doesn't Rely on the Pitch Deck
-
Start with Form ADV, not the deck. It's free, regulator-filed, and the only source on this list not shaped by the GP's own narrative. Check ownership percentages and disciplinary disclosures before anything else.
-
Cross-reference performance across at least two sources. If Preqin and Burgiss show materially different IRR for the same fund, that gap is itself a data point worth asking the GP about directly.
-
Track personnel independently of the DDQ cycle. A key departure six months before your next scheduled review is six months you didn't know about it. Set standing alerts rather than waiting for the annual questionnaire.
-
Treat fundraising status as a signal, not just logistics. A GP raising a smaller fund than its predecessor, or taking longer to close, is telling you something about market reception even before you ask.
-
Verify referenceable LPs independently. GP-supplied reference lists are self-selected. Cross-check who else appears in the fund's investor base through platform-level LP commitment data where available.
What This Means for Fund Managers Raising Capital
If you're the GP being researched, assume allocators are checking more than your deck. Keep your Form ADV current the moment ownership or key personnel change, since a stale filing reads as an operational red flag independent of your actual performance. Document track record attribution (deal-by-deal, not just fund-level) so it holds up when an allocator cross-references it against Burgiss or Preqin data. And expect that a fundraising timeline longer than your prior fund will be read as a signal before you get the chance to explain it.
Private fund and GP profiles and allocator accounts and contacts are available in Dakota Marketplace, filterable by strategy, vintage, fundraising status, and AUM. Cross-reference GP fundraising activity against the allocators most likely to commit, without leaving the platform.
Book a demo to see GP and allocator data together in Dakota Marketplace.
