Family Office × Venture Studio Research 2025

As mentioned above, the FOxVS 2025 study was conceived as a fully exploratory initiative. Instead, the research focused on uncovering best practices among family offices investing in or founding venture studios. To address the dual challenge of limited accessibility and depth of insight, we adopted a two-phase methodology: a broad survey followed by selective qualitative interviews. This, quite common in social studies (Creswell et al., 2011, Tao et al., 2021), approach enabled the collection of structured data across a wider base while capturing deeper narratives from highly relevant participants willing to engage more extensively.

The data collection effort spanned six months, beginning in February 2025 and finishing in July 2025. During this period, we manually filtered an initial database of over 4,000 entries, eventually identifying and reaching out to more than 1,000 family offices - both single and multi - alongside fund-of-funds and other investment organizations with demonstrated interest in fund allocations. Selection criteria included operational status, investment thesis alignment with VC, private equity, or alternative assets, and contact accessibility. The outreach was supplemented by warm introductions through personal networks, including referrals from venture studios previously backed by targeted investors.

The final survey pool yielded 35 submissions, equating to 70% of the originally targeted 50 responses. However, only 25 of these were considered valid, as the remaining 10 either expressed no interest in venture studio models or did not represent relevant organization types (e.g., venture studios themselves). Of the valid respondents, 10 agreed to participate in follow-up interviews, with three ultimately completing the second phase.

The modest conversion rate - especially given the large outreach volume - can be attributed to several structural limitations. Firstly, cold outreach proved largely ineffective with this cohort: the initial email campaign to 1,000+ organizations generated absolutely no responses. Subsequent consultations with experts in the space confirmed that successful engagement typically depends on deep, pre-existing relationships. The FOxVS team’s network, while functional, lacked sufficient depth and warmth to achieve broad penetration.

Secondly, attempts to collaborate with organizations and influencers possessing robust family office networks were unsuccessful. This constrained access further, despite targeted efforts. Lastly, the low response rate may reflect the niche nature of the venture studio model itself within the family office ecosystem. Assuming a 10% conversion rate, the presence of at least 500 relevant organizations would have been required to meet the original target - a density that may not yet exist in the market.

In light of these constraints, we believe we achieved the strongest possible outcome given available resources and structural limitations. The collected data - though modest in size - offers authentic signals and strategic perspectives from a segment of high-interest organizations navigating the frontier between traditional family office models and venture studio innovation.

The FOxVS 2025 survey offers a detailed look into how institutional investment organizations - particularly family offices - engage with venture studios and adjacent asset classes. Among the 25 valid responses, the landscape is dominated by single family offices (SFOs), which comprise 18 of the respondents. Multi-family offices (MFOs) represent four entries, while the remaining responses include one each from a fund of funds, an investment company focused on studios, and a UHNW network platform. Given that the study is calibrated toward SFO behavior, this composition reflects the intended sampling strategy.

Regionally, Western Europe and North America emerge as the strongest contributors, with nine and eight responses, respectively. Eastern Europe and Central Asia follow with three entries, and South Asia with two. Additionally, two organizations operate globally without fixed regional alignment. East Asia & Pacific and Sub-Saharan Africa are represented by one organization each. This geographic breakdown aligns closely with prior data on studio location concentration, particularly from the BVSR’24 dataset, suggesting a correlation between investor origin and studio ecosystem density.

Allocation behavior further illustrates how these organizations deploy capital across geographies. Western Europe and North America top the list again as preferred allocation zones, with 12 and 11 organizations, respectively, targeting these areas. Eight organizations invest globally or without a defined regional focus, while South Asia, Eastern Europe and Central Asia, and Latin America each draw investment interest from two participants. MENA, SSA, and EAP each receive attention from one investor. Taken together, this reinforces that WE and NA dominate both respondent origin and investment focus.

As for organizational maturity, the data reveals a right-skewed distribution. The majority are relatively young, with five organizations between one and five years of age, and another five aged between five and nine years. The rest are evenly spread across the 9 to 21-year band, with one notably mature SFO at 35 years. This suggests a diverse mix of experience levels, with a significant portion of emerging players still shaping their thesis.