If you’re raising capital or sourcing deals in private markets, chances are you’ve run into this problem more than once: you're asked about fund performance, and somewhere in the conversation, someone says, “How does this compare to the benchmark?”
But here’s the thing… what benchmark?
For most professionals in private equity, venture, private credit, and real assets, getting access to private fund benchmarks, let alone useful ones, can feel impossible. And even when benchmarks are available, they often raise more questions than they answer.
At Dakota, we’ve had countless conversations with fundraisers and deal teams who just want to tell a clear story about their fund’s performance. They’re not asking for magic, they’re asking for something consistent, transparent, and trustworthy.
In this article, we’ll walk through four key reasons why private fund benchmarks are so difficult to produce and rely on. By the end, you’ll have a clearer understanding of what’s really causing the issue and how Dakota Marketplace is helping solve it for the people who need it most.
1. Everyone Measures Performance Differently
One of the biggest reasons benchmarks are hard to come by is that managers don’t speak the same performance language. Some lead with IRR, others prefer TVPI or DPI. RVPI might come up if the portfolio still has unrealized value. Each of these tells part of the story, but no two funds use them in exactly the same way.
IRR can be distorted by early distributions. TVPI ignores timing. DPI focuses only on realized returns, which doesn’t help newer funds. RVPI relies on assumptions that can vary widely by manager.
As a fundraiser, this puts you in a tough spot. Even if your numbers are strong, explaining how they compare to peers can feel like a guessing game because everyone’s playing by different rules.
2. Timing Isn’t Aligned Across Managers
Let’s say two managers are reporting the same metrics. That should make comparison easier, right? Unfortunately, timing differences often get in the way.
Some managers report quarterly, others annually. One might include intra-quarter distributions, another might not. Add in currency fluctuations, and you start to see how messy things can get even before the conversation turns to performance.
For fundraisers and deal teams, this creates a frustrating dynamic. You’re being asked to compare yourself to peers, but the timing of those reported numbers might be totally misaligned. And that can distort how your fund is perceived, even when you’re performing well.
3. Gross vs. Net Performance Isn’t Always Clear
Another problem: fees and carry. Some managers report gross of fees, some net. Some include carried interest, some don’t. And often, it's not spelled out clearly.
This matters more than most people realize. Gross performance can make a fund look stronger on the surface, but it’s the net return that actually affects investors. The inconsistency leaves LPs guessing. And leaves you, as a fundraiser, trying to explain numbers that should be doing the work for you.
Without clarity on what’s included in the return calculation, even the best performance can get lost in translation.
4. Valuations Are Subjective by Nature
Finally, there’s the challenge of valuation. Unlike public companies, private portfolio companies aren’t priced daily. Valuation methods vary, some managers use discounted cash flows, others use comparables or recent transactions. And even when the approach is the same, assumptions can differ dramatically.
Some funds revalue assets quarterly, others annually. Some are conservative, others more aggressive. And while these differences are often reasonable, they create massive inconsistencies when comparing performance across funds.
For deal professionals trying to benchmark a fund, or position it within the broader market, this lack of valuation alignment makes it almost impossible to tell a clean story.
Why This Matters for Fundraisers and Deal Teams
When there’s no standard way to report or compare private fund performance, you’re left to navigate a landscape full of noise. Numbers might look precise, but they aren’t truly comparable. And that leaves you answering tough questions with incomplete tools.
It’s not just inconvenient, it makes your job harder. Whether you’re preparing for a roadshow, talking to consultants, or trying to position your fund alongside others, the absence of clear benchmarks puts you at a disadvantage.
How Dakota Marketplace Closes the Gap
At Dakota, we believe performance data should bring clarity. Not confusion.
That’s why we’ve built private fund performance benchmarks into Dakota Marketplace. Our benchmarks are based on over 28,000 private funds across asset classes, strategies, and geographies. We apply consistent methodologies, normalize inputs, and deliver benchmarks that allow for true apples-to-apples comparisons.
For fundraisers and deal sourcers, this means finally having a clear answer when someone asks, “How does this compare to the market?” It’s performance insight you can trust, and that helps you tell your story more effectively.
Book a demo of Dakota Marketplace to see how our benchmarks solve the standardization problem and bring clarity to private fund performance.
