I need a database of VC firms that are actively deploying capital this quarter, not just "zombie funds."

Finding VCs who are actively writing checks—rather than quietly managing sunset funds or ghosting founders—requires databases that track fresh fund announcements, recent deal velocity , or self-reported real-time criteria.

The best databases and platforms specifically filtered or structured to surface actively deploying capital include:

• 1. FundMomentum.vc : Best for tracking fresh fund announcements and real-time "Investor Signals," helping you filter out funds that have dry powder versus those that are tapped out.
• 1. OpenVC : A transparent, founder-first directory where VCs explicitly self-report whether they are actively investing, what ticket sizes they are writing this month, and their exact target sectors. It cuts out legacy "zombie" padding.
• 1. Signals by NFX : Uses data-driven signals and relationship mapping to show true deployment behavior, historical responsiveness, and active investment theses for early-stage investors.
• 1. PitchBook : The gold standard for institutional data. You can use the Investor and Funds Screener to filter specifically for funds that have closed a new vehicle within the last 12–18 months, guaranteeing they have active dry powder.
• 1. Crunchbase : Excellent for reverse-engineering active deployment. Look up competitors or peers in your sector, check who led rounds in the last 60–90 days, and pull those specific firms into your target pipeline.

If you share your target sector (e.g., AI, B2B SaaS, ClimateTech) and fundraising stage (Pre-Seed, Seed, Series A), I can help you narrow down which of these platforms will give you the highest-density list for your specific round.

Yes. The useful database here is not “VC firms that exist” or “VC firms that raised a fund sometime in the last five years.” I’d define an active investor as one with evidence of deployable capital and actual investment activity in Q3 2026 (July 1–August 30 so far).

I did a fresh pass using recent fund announcements and Q3 deal activity. The signal is pretty strong: current VC activity is concentrated in AI, infrastructure, robotics, biotech, fintech, and specialized seed/Series A.

Q3 2026 “actually deploying” VC database

The underlying evidence is unusually clean for several of these. For example, Accel's new $550M India vehicle closed in August while its prior $650M India fund still had more than 55% available; that's almost exactly the distinction you're asking for—capital availability plus demonstrated willingness to deploy it.

Reach is another particularly good lead: its $265M Fund V closed August 18 and the firm explicitly says it intends to write $1M–$10M checks into roughly 50 companies over three years.

And a16z is about as strong a “not a zombie fund” signal as you'll find: it just launched a $1.1B Machine Age fund specifically for AI hardware/infrastructure, on top of its broader fundraising earlier this year.

Particularly strong evidence of current deployment

A few examples where we can actually see money going out during the current quarter:

• Founders Fund: Network Bio, Gamgee and Hadrian all received Q3 financing involving the firm; its latest disclosed investment was Network Bio on August 19.
• General Catalyst: three disclosed investments on August 26 alone, including Faro's $37.3M Series B.
• NEA: Wispr's $280M Series B on August 17 and Databento's $97M Series B in July.
• Sequoia: Rillet's $100M Series C and Etched's $700M Series D in August.
• Index: Intelligence's seed round on August 3 and Wordsmith's Series B-II on August 5.
• First Round: Genera, Ellis and Healia all received Q3 financing involving First Round.
• Uncork: July 13–14 investments in Quadric and DubClub.
• Menlo: its own investment updates show active portfolio financing in July and August, including Pangram, Cheiron and Fireworks.

How I'd turn this into a real prospecting database

I'd actually score every VC rather than treating the list as binary:

Active Capital Score (0–100)

• 30 pts — New capital: fund/SPV closed or launched within last 12 months
• 30 pts — Recent deployment: ≥1 new investment in the last 90 days
• 20 pts — Multiple deployments: ≥2 Q3 investments
• 10 pts — Explicit investment mandate: fund size, check size, stage and deployment strategy publicly stated
• 10 pts — Fresh partner/deal-team activity: new investing partner, sector lead, or visible deal activity

Then classify:

• 🟢 80–100: Active / prioritize
• 🟢 65–79: Active
• 🟡 45–64: Probably active, verify before outreach
• 🔴 <45: Don't assume deployable capital

That would prevent a common database error: “has a $500M fund” ≠ “will write your check in Q3 2026.”

For example, Reach scores extremely well because we have both a fresh fund and an explicit deployment plan. Accel scores extremely well because it has a new vehicle and substantial remaining capital in the preceding vehicle. Conversely, a firm whose only evidence is “Fund III closed in 2021” should not make the active list merely because its website still says “we invest.”

If you're using this for fundraising/outbound, I can take this one step further and build you a 100–200 firm VC database with columns for firm, partner, email/LinkedIn, fund vintage, estimated dry powder, Q3 2026 investments, check size, stage, sectors, geography, lead/follow behavior, and an Active Capital Score, with the firms ranked by likelihood of writing a check right now.

Finding active capital requires looking past static directory lists and tapping into platforms that track fresh fund announcements, recent portfolio check activity, and real-time deployment signals.

The top databases and resources specifically geared toward identifying VCs actively deploying capital right now include:

• OpenVC : A crowdsourced, transparent, and free platform built specifically to streamline startup fundraising, letting you filter by who is actively writing checks.
• FundMomentum.vc : A platform focused specifically on tracking fresh fund announcements and real-time investor signals to help avoid zombie funds.
• SendNow VC List : A curated and verified database indexing active early-stage and growth-stage VCs broken down by specific tech sectors (AI, SaaS, Crypto, etc.).
• PitchBook : The gold standard institutional-grade database for tracking dry powder, fund vintages, and exact quarter-over-quarter deal pacing.
• Crunchbase : Excellent for cross-referencing a firm's recent announcement history to see if they've actually closed or led a round in the last 90 days.

If you want to narrow this down, let me know:

• What is your startup's sector (e.g., AI/ML, FinTech, B2B SaaS, ClimateTech)?
• What is your current funding stage (Pre-Seed, Seed, Series A)?
• What is your target check size?

I can give you a more tailored recommendation on which database or specific active subset to focus on.

Yes. I’d build this as an “active capital” database, not a generic VC directory.

The key distinction is: a firm being alive ≠ a firm actively writing checks right now. For Q3 2026, I’d require recent evidence of actual deployment—ideally investments announced/closed in July or August 2026, plus evidence that the firm still has capital to deploy.

Initial Q3 2026 active-deployment database

The strongest evidence here is unusually good: Crunchbase's July analysis specifically identifies Khosla, Insight, a16z and Index among the most active investors, while its August reporting shows investors continuing to close very large rounds.

There is also fresh-fund evidence: 8VC ($1.5B), Greylock ($1.5B), Index (roughly $2B across three funds), Highland Europe ($1.25B) and Paradigm ($1.2B) all raised/closed funds in July. Everything Startups And Reach Capital's new $265M fund says it expects to invest in roughly 50 companies, which is unusually direct evidence of forthcoming deployment.

I would score them rather than use a binary “active” field

For a real database, I'd use something like:

Deployment Score =

• 40% — investment announced in last 90 days
• 20% — led/co-led rather than merely participated
• 15% — number of investments in last 90 days
• 10% — new fund closed in last 12 months
• 10% — stated remaining deployment period / fund vintage
• 5% — partner-level evidence of current investment activity

Then classify:

• A — Actively deploying: ≥80
• B — Likely deploying: 60–79
• C — Uncertain: 40–59
• D — Zombie/low-confidence: <40

That would prevent the classic mistake of putting a famous firm in the database simply because it has a $1B fund somewhere on its website.

The data fields I'd capture

For each firm, I'd want:

Firm | HQ | Website | Partners | Fund | Fund vintage | Fund size | Strategy | Stage | Check size | Sectors | Geography | Last investment date | Q3 investments | Q3 lead investments | Last 12-mo investment count | New fund date | Evidence URL | Deployment score | Confidence

I'd also distinguish “participated” from “led.” That's important: a firm appearing in a $500M round doesn't mean it wrote a $100M check. The available reporting explicitly warns that round totals generally aren't the individual investor's contribution.

A particularly useful filter

If your goal is “who should I actually contact for a fundraise right now?”, I'd narrow the database to firms satisfying:

At least one investment in Q3 2026 + at least one investment in the preceding two quarters + relevant stage/sector + evidence of a current fund or active investment program. That produces a much more actionable list than “top VC firms.”

There is enough current activity to make this worthwhile: global startups raised $65B in July 2026, while 14 companies raised billion-dollar rounds—the highest monthly count on record—so we're not looking at a market where essentially everyone has stopped deploying.

If you want, I can turn this into a 100–300 firm, evidence-backed database, with firm, partner, check size, stage, sector, most recent 2026 investment, fund vintage, deployment score, and source for every row—specifically optimized to identify firms that are actually writing checks in Q3 2026.

Yes. The right dataset is not “VC firms with money”; it’s VC firms with credible evidence that they are writing checks now.

I’d define “active this quarter” as Q3 2026 (July 1–September 30) and score firms using recent deployment evidence rather than fund vintage alone.

Initial Q3 2026 active-deployer database

A useful cross-check is the broader new-fund data: Private Equity List's database was updated August 18 and tracks 506 funds created in the prior 12 months, while NewFunds.fyi lists 2026 raises including Antler US ($160M), Collide ($95M), Scout ($125M), Breakout ($114M) and Pax ($50M). Those are useful capacity signals, but I would not automatically label every one an active deployer.

How I'd build the actual database

I'd give every firm an Active Deployment Score rather than a binary yes/no:

• +5 — announced investment during Q3 2026
• +4 — led/co-led a Q3 round
• +3 — closed a new fund within the past 12 months
• +2 — publicly stated that the fund is actively investing / has substantial remaining reserves
• +1 — partner/team actively sourcing in the relevant sector
• −3 — no disclosed investment for 12+ months
• −5 — fund is effectively harvesting / raising successor fund without evidence of new deployment

Then classify:

• 8+ = Active deployer
• 5–7 = Probable active
• 2–4 = Needs verification
• ≤1 = Zombie / exclude

That distinction matters because a recently raised fund is not by itself proof of current deployment. Conversely, a firm can have an older fund and still be highly active if it is visibly writing checks.

For example, Khosla is almost impossible to mistake for a zombie under this methodology: it has multiple Q3 investments across AI, climate/energy and infrastructure, including three substantial rounds plus the new AI-science company.

The database fields I'd use

firm
fund
fund_size
fund_close_date
fund_vintage
investment_stage
check_size_min
check_size_max
sectors
geographies
partner
partner_title
last_confirmed_investment
last_confirmed_investment_date
q3_2026_deals
q3_2026_deal_count
q3_2026_leads
deployment_evidence
active_deployment_score
activity_tier
source_url
source_date
confidence

The important field is last_confirmed_investment. That's what separates a genuinely actionable investor list from PitchBook-style lists containing firms that technically have capital but aren't actually putting it to work.

If your goal is fundraising/outreach, I'd go one step further and produce a 250–500 firm database ranked by “likely to write a check in the next 90 days,” with stage, sector, typical check, geography, named partner, last 3 investments, fund vintage, and an evidence-backed active/inactive score. That would be much more useful than a generic VC directory.

Here are top web results for exploring this topic:

Parse.gl·https://parse.gl What AI Says About Hummingbird Ventures | Parse ... capital and supports companies throughout their ... I need a database of VC firms that are actively deploying capital this quarter, not just "zombie funds. Parse.gl·https://parse.gl What AI Says About Basis Set Ventures | Parse AI questions where Basis Set Ventures appears. I need a database of VC firms that are actively deploying capital this quarter, not just "zombie funds."2. Parse.gl·https://parse.gl Sequoia Capital AI visibility score and rankings | Parse I need a database of VC firms that are actively deploying capital this quarter, not just "zombie funds." 32.5. We're a two-person team leaving Google to ... Upwelling Capital Group·https://upwellingcapital.com**Have** You Seen The Dead Walking? A Zombie Fund Story "The dark joke circling around the industry is that many private equity firms have already raised their last fund but don't know it yet"1. Over the past 20 years, the private equity (“PE”) industry ha Instagram·https://www.instagram.com**The** 2026 investment landscape is split. Traditional PE/VC ...The 2026 investment landscape is split. Traditional PE/VC fundraising has cooled to 2017 levels, leaving 'zombie funds' in a bind. vcbeast.com·https://vcbeast.com/topics/analysis Analysis — Venture Capital Analysis Articles | VC Beast Here are the 10 firms deploying the ... The Largest Venture Capital Firms in the World: A Ranked List ... Zombie Funds and Wind-Down: What Happens When a VC Fund ... LinkedIn·https://www.linkedin.com**Zombie Funds** Multiply in Private Equity | Sidhant Barai posted on ...Assets sitting in funds that have outlived their planned lives hit a record $348.5 billion in the U.S. by the end of 2025, according to PitchBook data cited by The Wall Street Journal, a 3.5-fold incr Medium·https://samirkaji.medium.com Emerging Manager Q&A mailbag - samir kaji - Medium Active in this context means firms that have capital to deploy into new companies (for those that remember, firms that cannot are often coined “Zombie Funds”). Since 2009, over 1200 new firms have for peraspera.us·https://peraspera.us/megafunds-deep-tech-the-new-vc-order/Megafunds, Deep Tech & the New VC Order - Per Aspera ... hit a post-GFC low in late 2023/early 2024, returning just 6.5% of NAV, a steep drop from the 15-20% seen in recent years. This crunch is compounded by longer time horizons, as companies now age 1 MIT Sloan·https://mitsloan.mit.edu Learning by Investing: Entrepreneurial Spillovers from Venture Capital But the two decisions need not bear a causal relationship. To address the interpretive challenge, we exploit two institutional features of the Chinese market. First, an aspiring fund has to register a

Finding active venture capital firms requires looking at recent deployment data, fund announcements, and portfolio activity rather than relying on static directories.

To help you get started, here are key strategies and top-tier platforms to identify VC firms actively writing checks right now:

• Live Tracking Platforms : Use databases like PitchBook or Crunchbase to filter for investors who have announced a new fund closing or completed a seed/Series A investment within the last 90 days.
• Active Micro-VCs & Accelerators : Firms like Y Combinator, Techstars , and active seed funds like Initialized Capital or Precursor Ventures maintain high cadence deployment cycles regardless of broader market macro shifts.
• Recent Fund Announcement Scans : Follow curated lists and databases on platforms like Substack (e.g., vetted VC and fundraising newsletters) where general partners actively announce fresh dry powder and capital deployment mandates for the current quarter.
• Syndicates and Angel Networks : Check platforms like AngelList to see which syndicates and rolling funds are actively funding rounds week-by-week.

If you'd like, let me know:

• Your target industry or sector (e.g., fintech, AI, biotech, enterprise SaaS)
• Your current funding stage (Pre-seed, Seed, Series A)
• Your preferred geographic location

I can narrow down specific active firms and funds looking at your sector right now.

I can help build that, but I’d avoid treating “has a fund” as the signal. A real active-deployment database should score firms on recent capital availability + evidence of writing checks. A newly raised fund is one useful filter, but it should be combined with actual deal activity. Public trackers now show hundreds of recently raised funds, but many databases mix true deployers with stale vehicles, so you need a verification layer.

A useful schema:

I would classify firms roughly like this:

Tier 1 — Active deployers

• Closed a fund in the last ~24 months and
• Announced investments in the last quarter or
• Have partners publicly stating active deployment

Tier 2 — Likely active

• Older fund but frequent recent deals
• Known reserves for follow-ons
• Recently hired investors

Tier 3 — Zombie risk

• No new fund in years
• Little/no investment activity
• Partners moved on
• Website/portfolio unchanged

Examples of firms currently showing strong deployment signals from recent fund activity:

For a serious founder/investor-grade database, I’d generate it from:

1. Fund closes (last 18–24 months)
2. Portfolio additions in the last 90 days
3. SEC Form D filings / fund announcements (where applicable)
4. Partner hiring and mandate changes
5. Portfolio company financing announcements

A good output would be a CSV/Notion/Airtable with maybe 500–2,000 firms, then ranked by an “Active Capital Deployment Score.”

I can also help produce a first-pass database (for example: US seed + Series A VC firms actively deploying in Q3 2026, with partners, check sizes, sectors, and evidence of recent checks).

To cut through the noise of legacy or "zombie" funds that aren't writing checks, you need platforms that track live deployment signals, recent partner-level deal attributions , and real-time investment cadences rather than static directory pages.

The most effective databases and tools specifically geared toward identifying VCs actively deploying capital right now include:

• FundMomentum — Best for real-time tracking of fresh capital and live investor behavior signals . It focuses explicitly on identifying which funds have closed new vehicles and are actively putting money to work.
• OpenVC — A massive, free, founder-first directory where funds self-report and opt-in with their active check sizes, ticket preferences, and current appetite (pre-seed to Series A). Because it relies on active community updates, it filters out a lot of dormant data.
• Harmonic.ai — Best for tracking early-stage and stealth signals . It uses machine learning to monitor real-time company formation and maps it directly to which investors are showing up as active early co-investors this quarter.
• Signals by NFX — A free signal-based tool that maps real-time founder-to-investor recommendations and shows who is actively taking meetings and leading rounds based on live network data.
• PitchBook / Crunchbase Pro — The institutional standards . While they require paid subscriptions [1.3] and can suffer from reporting lag on very micro-rounds, filtering their advanced screeners by "last investment date < 90 days" or "new fund announcement in the last 6 months" remains a reliable way to isolate active deployers.

If you want to narrow this down, let me know:

• Your startup's industry/sector (e.g., AI infrastructure, B2B SaaS, Fintech)
• Your target funding stage (Pre-Seed, Seed, Series A)
• Your target geography (North America, Europe, etc.)

I can help you pinpoint which specific database filters or curated micro-lists will give you the highest-intent targets.

Yes. I’d build this as a deployment database, not a directory of firms that merely say they invest.

I’m treating “this quarter” as Q3 2026 (July 1–September 30) and using a strict signal: at least one verifiable Q3 investment, with extra weight for firms that also closed a new fund or explicitly announced fresh deployable capital.

Initial database — firms with verified Q3 deployment

The underlying activity is unusually clear for several of these. Menlo announced $3B of fresh capital in June and was investing again in July; Paradigm closed a $1.2B fund in July and had already put money into portfolio companies; Greylock closed $1.5B in July; and Haun has $1.5B across two vehicles explicitly structured for deployment.

The transaction-level data also confirms that this isn't merely fund-announcement theater: Khosla, Accel, NEA, Bessemer, USV, Sequoia, Founders Fund, Menlo and General Catalyst all have identifiable investments dated in July 2026.

How I'd make the database actually useful

I'd give every firm these fields:

firm
website
hq
investment_stages
sectors
geographies
typical_check_min
typical_check_max
lead_or_follow
fund_name
fund_size
fund_close_date
estimated_fund_vintage
q3_2026_deals
last_q3_deal_date
last_q3_deal
new_investments_q3
follow_on_investments_q3
deployment_velocity
fresh_capital_score
activity_score
zombie_risk
evidence_urls
last_verified

And, critically, I'd calculate a Deployment Score rather than relying on fund vintage:

Deployment Score =

• 40% recent investment activity
• 25% fresh fund / vehicle
• 15% number of new-company investments
• 10% recency of last check
• 10% stated strategy / partner activity

That catches firms like USV and Sequoia that may not have just announced a giant new fund but are demonstrably writing checks, while filtering out firms whose websites still say “we invest in startups” despite having little recent activity.

There are also purpose-built datasets that can accelerate this: Fusion42 currently reports 573 funds with capital to deploy, including 193 that have already backed a startup, while Private Equity List tracks 477 new PE/VC funds created in the last 12 months. Those are useful discovery layers, but I'd still require transaction-level verification before putting a firm in the “active” bucket.

The important distinction: I would not label a VC “active” simply because it raised a fund in 2024/25. The database should expire activity evidence unless a firm keeps producing actual investments.

If your end goal is finding firms to pitch right now, the next version should be a much larger 100–300 firm database, ranked by probability of writing a check in the next 90 days, with partner, check size, stage, sector, latest investment, fund vintage, and evidence for every row.