Candidates arriving from banking usually over-prepare the modelling and under-prepare everything else. A venture interview will not ask you to build a three-statement model, because a company with eighteen months of revenue does not support one. What it will do is ask what you think, repeatedly, about things where no answer is verifiable — and then watch how you hold a view under pressure. That is a harder assessment to prepare for and a much harder one to fake.
The question behind every question
Almost everything asked in a venture interview is a proxy for one thing: can you form a defensible view about an uncertain future and change it for the right reasons. Market sizing tests it. The investment pitch tests it. Asking why a well-known company failed tests it. The specific subject matters much less than whether your reasoning survives being pushed on.
This is why rehearsed answers perform badly here in a way they do not in banking. A memorised "why venture" answer sounds identical to every other one, and the follow-up question is where the interview actually starts.
Market sizing, done properly
Top-down sizing from a published market figure is the answer everyone gives and the one that ends the conversation. Bottom-up — number of potential customers, realistic penetration, price, expansion — is the answer that continues it, because every assumption you name is something the interviewer can push on, and being pushed on is the point.
State your assumptions as you go and flag which one the answer is most sensitive to. A candidate who says "this whole number moves on whether penetration is 2% or 10%, and here is why I think it is nearer 2" has demonstrated the thing being tested.
- Build up from units and price, not down from a research report
- Name the assumption the answer hinges on before being asked
- Sanity-check the total against something known. An implausible number you have not noticed is worse than a rough one you have
The pitch: bring a real one
You will be asked for a company you would invest in. Bring one you can defend for fifteen minutes rather than one that sounds impressive for two, and prefer something the interviewer has not already formed a view on — pitching a famous late-stage name invites a comparison with their own analysis that you will lose.
Structure it the way a memo is structured: what the company does, why now, who else is doing it, what has to be true for this to return the fund, and what would make you wrong. That last part is not modesty. A pitch with no stated risk reads as one you have not thought about.
- Why this, why now, and why has nobody already done it
- The founder question: what makes this team the right one, specifically
- What has to be true for the outcome to be large enough to matter
- The strongest argument against your own position
Sourcing is a real part of the job and a real part of the interview
Junior venture roles involve finding companies, not only assessing them, and interviews test whether you already do this instinctively. "What have you seen recently that interested you?" is a sourcing question wearing a conversational jacket, and an answer drawn from the technology press suggests you read the same things everyone else does.
A better answer names something specific you found through your own interest, and says what made you look twice.
The modelling that does exist
It is lighter than banking but not absent, and it is different in kind. Cap tables, dilution across rounds, liquidation preferences and their effect on the exit waterfall, ownership targets and how they drive cheque size: these are the mechanics that come up, and they come up because they determine returns rather than because they are hard.
Understand what a 1x participating preference does to a founder in a mediocre exit and you will be ahead of most candidates, who have modelled a leveraged buyout and never a down round.
- Pre-money and post-money, and why the ordering of the conversation matters
- Dilution across a seed, an A and a B, with an option pool refreshed each time
- Liquidation preference — participating and non-participating, and who it hurts and when
What separates the strong candidates
Conviction with revisability. Firms are trying to find out whether you can hold a view firmly enough to act on it and loosely enough to abandon it when the evidence turns, which is the entire job. Candidates fail this in both directions: defending a pitch against a good objection, or dropping it the moment anyone pushes.
The other differentiator is having a genuine reason to be in venture rather than a reason to leave banking. The second is common and interviewers hear it constantly.
Frequently asked questions
Can I get into VC straight from university?
It is possible and it is uncommon. Most junior hires arrive from banking, consulting, an operating role at a fast-growing company, or a technical background in the sector the fund invests in. Analyst programmes exist at larger funds and are small; the more reliable routes in are through an adjacent seat first.
How much modelling do I need?
Less than banking, and different. Cap tables, dilution and liquidation preferences matter because they drive returns. A full three-statement model rarely applies to a company that has been selling for eighteen months, and building one in an interview would signal you had misread the job.
What should I pitch?
Something you can defend under fifteen minutes of pressure, ideally not a household name the interviewer has already analysed. The quality of your reasoning about a small company is more informative than a familiar view about a large one.
Is venture capital more competitive than private equity?
Fewer seats, less structured hiring, and much less predictable timing. Private equity recruiting runs on a recognisable cycle; venture hiring happens when a fund needs someone, which makes networking and being visible ahead of a role opening a larger part of the process than it is elsewhere.
Want this applied to your recruiting?
Reading is the easy part. For practitioner feedback tailored to your situation, work 1:1 with Suro.