Sourcing Tools

​

Overview

Sourcing is where every fund wants to start when they bring in their first data person. The pitch is compelling: use data to systematically find companies before your competition, build relationships early, get into deals proactively rather than reactively. Seven or eight years ago, this was genuinely differentiating. Funds like EQT Ventures, Early Bird, and Moonfire built sophisticated sourcing operations and got real competitive advantage from finding companies others missed. But it’s 2026 now, not 2018. The landscape has changed dramatically. Purpose-built sourcing tools exist (Harmonic, Specter). Data providers have gotten significantly better. What used to require custom infrastructure and data science teams is now available off the shelf. Proactive sourcing still matters, but the tools to do it are increasingly commoditized. More importantly, sourcing tools don’t work equally well for all funds. If you’re investing at Series A or later in companies with some traction, sourcing tools can be valuable. But if you’re investing pre-seed in highly specific niches, companies often don’t exist in datasets yet. If your investment criteria are very particular, broad sourcing creates overwhelming noise rather than signal. This chapter covers what sourcing tools do, when they actually create value, and why you should probably buy rather than build unless you’ve found a very specific niche where custom tooling creates real advantage.

​

The Historical Advantage

Seven or eight years ago, funds that invested in sourcing infrastructure got real competitive advantage. EQT Ventures built Motherbrain. SignalFire created their talent network and technical signal tracking. Early Bird and Moonfire developed sophisticated data operations. These funds could systematically find companies others missed, reach out early, and build relationships before competitive fundraising processes. This worked because the infrastructure didn’t exist yet. There were no purpose-built VC sourcing tools. Data providers had limited coverage. If you wanted systematic sourcing, you had to build it yourself. The funds that invested in this infrastructure got ahead. That advantage has largely disappeared. Not because proactive sourcing doesn’t matter anymore. It does. But because the tools and data that used to require custom infrastructure are now available to everyone. Harmonic and Specter provide exactly what funds used to build internally. Data providers like Crunchbase, PitchBook, and others have significantly better coverage. The barrier to entry has collapsed. The result is that sourcing tools have become table stakes rather than differentiators. If you’re at a fund where sourcing makes sense (more on that below), you should absolutely do it. But you’re not getting competitive advantage from having sourcing tools. You’re avoiding a disadvantage from not having them.

​

What Sourcing Tools Do

Sourcing tools help you discover companies, track them over time, and manage outreach systematically. Discovery: Find companies that match your criteria. You’re interested in developer tools focused on AI infrastructure? You want to see every company in that space. Sourcing tools aggregate data from multiple sources: web scraping, funding databases, job postings, social media, technical signals. They let you search and filter to identify relevant companies. Different funds care about different signals. Some look for companies with strong technical teams (GitHub activity, Stack Overflow contributions). Others care about traction (job growth, web traffic, social media presence). Some focus on geography or funding stage. The key is turning your investment criteria into searchable filters. Tracking: Once you’ve identified interesting companies, you need to track them over time. Is their team growing? Did they just raise a round? Are they hiring for key roles? Good sourcing tools monitor companies automatically and surface changes (signals) worth paying attention to. This is where many manual processes break down. You find 50 interesting companies. Six months later, you can’t remember which ones you were tracking or why. Sourcing tools maintain that institutional memory and alert you when something changes. Enrichment: Basic information isn’t enough. You want context. Who are the founders? Where did they work before? Who’s already invested? What technologies are they using? How much traction do they have? Enrichment layers on data from multiple sources to give you a fuller picture. The challenge is that no single data source has everything. LinkedIn has professional backgrounds. Crunchbase has funding data. GitHub shows technical activity. Web scrapers can detect technology stacks. Good sourcing tools combine multiple data sources to create a more complete view. Outreach: Identifying companies is only half the work. You need to reach out. Sourcing tools help manage that process. Track who you’ve contacted. Follow up systematically. Measure response rates. Some tools integrate email sequencing, others just track outreach in your CRM. The key is making proactive sourcing systematic rather than sporadic. You’re not just searching once. You’re continuously monitoring spaces you care about and building relationships with interesting companies over time.

​

When Sourcing Actually Works

Before deciding whether to build or buy sourcing tools, you should question whether you need them at all. Sourcing tools work well for some funds and poorly for others. The determining factors are stage, strategy, and specificity. Stage matters more than most people think. Sourcing tools rely on companies existing in datasets. If you’re investing at Series A or later, companies have usually raised previous rounds, hired employees, built websites, and generated signals that data providers capture. You can find them. But if you’re investing pre-seed or at the earliest stage of seed, companies often don’t exist in any dataset yet. They’re two founders working nights and weekends. No website, no job postings, no press releases, no funding data. Sourcing tools can’t find what isn’t there. More fundamentally, pre-seed investment decisions aren’t based on data you can source. You’re betting on the founders’ resilience, domain expertise, ability to execute, and judgment. These qualities can’t be inferred from a LinkedIn profile or GitHub activity. You need conversations. Your deal flow comes from network and research, not systematic sourcing. Investment specificity creates a signal-to-noise problem. If your criteria are relatively broad (B2B SaaS companies in the US with 10-50 employees), filters can narrow sourcing results effectively. You’ll get some noise but manageable amounts. But if your investment criteria are very specific (AI infrastructure companies building developer tools for a particular technical workflow), broad sourcing creates overwhelming noise. You get hundreds of companies that technically match the filters but aren’t actually relevant. Sorting through them takes more time than the sourcing saves. Strategy determines whether sourcing creates value. If you’re thesis-driven and do deep research in specific areas, your advantage is understanding spaces better than other investors. Sourcing tools can help you discover companies in those spaces, but only if the companies exist in datasets and your criteria aren’t so specific that filtering doesn’t work. If you invest primarily through network and your competitive advantage is relationships, sourcing tools might not match your workflow at all. You’re not trying to systematically find companies. You’re nurturing relationships that lead to warm introductions. The uncomfortable truth: Many early-stage, thesis-driven funds think they need sourcing tools because it sounds like the right thing to do. But their companies are too early for datasets, their criteria are too specific for filters, and their competitive advantage comes from research and relationships, not systematic discovery. Sourcing tools become shelf-ware.

​

The Build vs. Buy Decision

Don’t build generic sourcing infrastructure. The tools exist (Harmonic, Specter), they work well, and the data is commoditized. Building in 2026 is like building your own CRM instead of using something off-the-shelf. Harmonic and Specter aren’t perfect. No sourcing tool will be. But they’re good enough that rebuilding their entire platform internally doesn’t make sense. You’ll spend months recreating features they already have, and you’ll end up with something similar but worse. Use that engineering time for things that actually differentiate your fund. The exception: genuinely unique niches where custom tooling creates real advantage. Some funds have built knowledge graphs tracking interactions to optimize warm intro paths. Others have built deep open source analysis tools (GitHub stars, commit velocity, code quality, contributor growth) for investing exclusively in open source companies. These work because they’re truly specialized, not just “we want different filters.” The realistic recommendation: Series A+ with broad criteria? Buy Harmonic or Specter. Pre-seed/early seed with specific criteria? You probably don’t need sourcing tools at all. Genuinely unique niche requiring specialized analysis? Consider building that specific piece.

​

Common Tools

Harmonic: The most popular purpose-built VC sourcing platform. Aggregates data from multiple sources, supports search and filtering, tracks companies over time, integrates with CRMs. Specter: Another purpose-built option with emphasis on technical signals and growth indicators. Similar feature set to Harmonic with slightly different data sources. Crunchbase Pro or PitchBook: Traditional funding databases. Useful for basic research and market mapping but not sophisticated enough for proactive sourcing on their own.

​

Real Example: When Sourcing Doesn’t Work

​

The Bottom Line

Sourcing is where every fund wants to start, but question whether you actually need it first. Many early-stage, thesis-driven funds find that companies are too early for datasets and criteria are too specific for effective filtering. For funds where sourcing works (Series A+, broad criteria), the tools are commoditized - buy Harmonic or Specter, don’t build. The only exception is genuinely unique niches like relationship graph optimization (Rolodex) or specialized signal detection (Commit). Don’t start with sourcing just because everyone else does. In the next chapter, we’ll look at CRM and deal flow management, which is more universally valuable across fund types.