Where to get startup funding data, and what each option actually costs you

If you require funding data for your startup endeavors, there are five primary options to consider. These options vary in cost and effort, with the selection depending on whether you need historical data or current activity. The confusion usually arises when purchasing one type of data while needing the other. Reading these sources yourself is free and suitable for a limited number of deals per week, but it becomes impractical when your workload increases.

TechCrunch, EU-Startups, Axios Pro Rata, and niche trade publications cover most relevant deals in your industry, but their coverage is limited and may not scale as your needs grow.

Incumbent databases like Crunchbase, PitchBook, and Dealroom offer extensive historical data and robust entity graphs, which are essential for research and investment workflows. However, these databases are typically sold on annual contracts and often necessitate a sales conversation before you can evaluate their offerings. API access is frequently an additional, more expensive tier than seat access, which can lead to unexpected costs when automating your processes.

These databases are ideal if you need to answer queries about which companies have raised capital in a specific sector over an extended period, but they may be excessive if your requirements are limited to tracking recent activity.

Newer signal providers, such as Harmonic and Coresignal, cater to the GTM (Go-To-Market) use case rather than research purposes. They generally rely on API-based access and are generally more cost-effective for startups. Although their historical coverage may be narrower than the incumbent databases, they often provide competitive coverage of recent activity.

Public filings, such as SEC EDGAR Form D in the United States and national registries in other countries, offer free and authoritative data. These filings are usually filed within 15 days of a company's first sale, providing valuable insights into recent fundraising activities. However, they can be incomplete and lagging, as not all rounds will be filed, and the information provided is often limited in usefulness.

Signal APIs allow you to pay for a filtered feed rather than purchasing an entire database seat. This approach aligns well with automated pipelines, as the output is already structured and costs scale with your actual usage rather than your headcount. When selecting a signal API, carefully consider what you intend to do with the data.

If your focus is on research and market mapping, a comprehensive incumbent database may be necessary. In contrast, if your priority is outbound activities and pipeline management, a structured data feed is likely more suitable.