Quick wins for a faster PC:
Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →iTechGuides is reader-supported. When you buy through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. Learn more
Some deep-tech and AIoT founders may get more from a venture studio than from a conventional funding relationship—but the evidence does not show that startups are broadly abandoning venture capital. A studio is worth considering when it can contribute specific technical, operational or customer-development resources your company needs, on terms that still leave founders able to build and own the business.
Why a studio can appeal to deep-tech founders
Deep-tech companies often face a different build-and-fund cycle from software ventures. Boston Consulting Group (BCG) reported in 2023 that more than 80% of deep-tech ventures were building physical products. It also identified engineering, unit economics, commercialization, scalability and follow-on funding as risks. In BCG’s analysis, deep-tech investments took an estimated 25% to 40% longer between funding stages from seed through Series D than other technology investments. Those conditions can make hands-on company-building support valuable; they do not, by themselves, prove that a studio is better than a specialist or traditional VC. BCG’s 2023 guide to deep-tech investing explains the sector’s financing and development challenges.
![LLC Beginner's Guide [All-in-1]: Everything on How to Start, Run, and Grow Your First Company Without Prior Experience. Includes Essential Tax Hacks, Critical Legal Strategies, and Expert Insights](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/41o3X44QPLL._SL160_.jpg)
A venture studio may combine investment with shared capabilities or infrastructure, rather than simply providing a cheque. For an AIoT company, that could matter if the studio can demonstrably help with prototyping, engineering, industrial customer discovery, go-to-market work or access to facilities. The key word is demonstrably: a list of services is not evidence that a studio has delivered them to companies like yours.
Recommended Free Tools
Is traditional VC actually leaving deep tech?
No broad VC retreat is established by the available figures. BCG estimated that deep tech represented about 20% of VC funding in 2023, compared with about 10% a decade earlier. That makes deep tech a substantial VC destination, not a category that conventional investors have abandoned.
#1 Best Overall
- If you want to build a better future, you must believe in secrets.
- The great secret of our time is that there are still uncharted frontiers to explore and new inventions to create. In Zero to One, legendary entrepreneur and investor Peter Thiel shows how we can find singular ways to create those new things.
BCG also analyzed about 1,100 funds and reported five-year weighted average internal rates of return (IRRs) of 21% for traditional VC and 26% for deep-tech-focused funds. On an unweighted basis, its figures were 26% and 25%, respectively. These are historical estimates from BCG’s fund sample—not forecasts, guarantees, or a comparison of studio-backed companies with VC-backed companies.
Fundraising difficulty can still be real for individual companies and ecosystems. Tesi’s Finland study, dated November 13, 2024, surveyed 79 deep-tech companies and drew on the report’s stated data sources. Among surveyed Finnish companies, 60% said rounds in the prior 12 months had taken at least six months to close, and 33% said they had taken more than a year. Yet 62% reported access to Finnish VCs without challenges, and 54% had attracted strong interest from foreign investors. Tesi described early-stage funding as relatively bright while highlighting later-stage financing gaps. These findings describe Finland; they should not be generalized to other markets. Read Tesi’s Finland deep-tech funding study.
The Israel Innovation Authority’s 2025 deep-tech report is another limited example: an available report excerpt says the authority finances venture studios to support venture formation and acceleration in sectors with limited private capital, and reports 1,400 VC-backed deep-tech startups in Israel. The 1,400 figure is attributed to the report’s Israel Innovation Authority/Dealroom material. Because the full report was not directly reviewed, this excerpt is not enough to establish a general trend or show that studios outperform other funding routes. The Israel Innovation Authority’s 2025 report.
What a studio might contribute to an AIoT company
AIoT ventures can span connected devices, sensors, software and industrial operations. Depending on the product, a team may need to validate hardware, demonstrate reliability in real settings, identify buyers and prove that unit economics can work before scaling. A studio is relevant when its contribution closes a specific gap in that plan—not merely because the business is described as deep tech.
Aperture Venture Studio, for example, describes itself as building industrial companies in areas including tracking, sensing, monitoring, control and operations. Its page says its model includes shared R&D, go-to-market and business infrastructure. That is a self-description by the studio, not independent validation of results. Use it as an illustration of what a studio may claim to provide, not proof of a sector-wide pattern. Aperture’s AIoT venture-studio page.
How the three funding routes differ
The labels alone do not settle the choice. A traditional VC, a deep-tech specialist fund and a studio can vary widely in how much operational help they provide, what they invest in, and what rights they seek. Ask each prospective partner about the actual offer and agreement.
Rank #4
| Decision factor | Traditional VC | Deep-tech-focused VC | Venture studio |
|---|---|---|---|
| Primary contribution | Investment capital; involvement beyond funding depends on the fund and agreement. | Investment capital focused on deep-tech opportunities; support beyond funding depends on the fund and agreement. | May combine capital with company-building work or shared resources; verify what is actually committed. |
| Technical resources | Not established as a standard offer by the cited sources; ask what the fund can provide. | Not established as a standard offer by the cited sources; ask what the fund can provide. | May offer shared R&D or other technical capabilities. Aperture describes shared R&D, but that is its own claim. |
| Customer and market access | Not established as a standard offer by the cited sources; ask for named, relevant examples. | Not established as a standard offer by the cited sources; ask for named, relevant examples. | May offer industrial market access or go-to-market support. Ask which customers, facilities or introductions are genuinely accessible. |
| Timing and stage | Deep tech remains a significant VC funding category, but the timing of a particular round depends on the company, market and investor. | BCG’s 2023 fund analysis covered deep-tech-focused funds, but it does not establish a standard time to close or preferred stage for every fund. | Some public examples describe support from venture formation onward, but no universal stage, close time or studio process is established by the cited sources. |
| Equity, governance and IP | Terms depend on the specific investment agreement; no standard terms are established here. | Terms depend on the specific investment agreement; no standard terms are established here. | Terms depend on the specific studio agreement; no universal equity range, governance model or IP allocation is established here. |
How to evaluate a studio offer
Before choosing a studio over an investor—or treating the studio and an investor as alternatives—translate the offer into deliverables tied to your next technical and commercial milestones. A founder building a device that needs field validation may value access to relevant test environments. A team whose main constraint is later-stage financing may need a credible capital plan more than shared marketing. The right fit depends on the bottleneck, not the category label.
The Tool Desk
Outbyte Driver Updater FREEScan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →Outbyte PC Repair FREEClear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →- Define the gap. List the next milestones that are hard to reach with your current team: for example, a prototype, a reliability demonstration, customer validation, manufacturing readiness or a funding milestone.
- Ask for specific deliverables. For each claimed service, ask what work is included, who performs it, when it happens, and what evidence will show it is complete. Separate committed support from optional introductions or aspirational plans.
- Verify access. If the offer includes customers, industrial sites, labs or technical facilities, ask which are available to your company, under what conditions, and whether prior portfolio companies have used them.
- Understand the economics. Compare the capital committed, equity requested, any additional costs and the resources included. No universal studio equity range is established by the cited sources, so evaluate the actual agreement rather than relying on a supposed market standard.
- Read governance and IP provisions. Establish who makes key decisions, who owns pre-existing and newly created intellectual property, what rights the studio retains, and what happens to the work and IP if the relationship ends.
- Check the studio’s record. Ask for examples of companies formed or supported, the studio’s role in each, and evidence of outcomes relevant to your own milestones. A studio’s description of its services is not independent proof of performance.
- Compare like with like. Ask specialist and traditional VC candidates the same questions about capital, operating help, customer access, timing, control and follow-on support. Compare written proposals and terms, not broad claims about what a type of investor usually does.
When each route may fit
A studio may fit when
- Your team has a defined technical or commercialization gap the studio can fill with named people, facilities or work.
- The studio’s operating contribution is concrete enough to justify its equity, governance and IP terms.
- You want to form or accelerate a company around a technical opportunity and the studio’s actual process aligns with your milestones.
A VC may fit when
- Your main need is capital, and the fund understands the long technical and commercialization path.
- You can build the operating capabilities you need independently or through customers, vendors, advisers or hires.
- A studio’s additional rights or shared-resource model would add complexity without solving a material bottleneck.
Consider both routes when
The choices need not be mutually exclusive in principle, but whether a studio and a VC can participate together depends on the specific parties, financing plan and agreements. Ask how the studio’s equity, IP rights and governance interact with a future institutional round before you commit.
Best Value
The decision is about capabilities and terms, not a market-wide exodus
Deep-tech and AIoT founders have reason to examine venture studios when the business needs more than capital. But current evidence supports a narrower conclusion than the headline’s “ditching” claim: deep tech remains an established VC category, funding friction varies by market and stage, and a studio’s value depends on the resources it actually delivers. Choose the route—or combination of routes—that best funds the next milestones while keeping ownership, control and future financing workable.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
