Data sourced from Dakota Private Markets, the private fund performance platform powered by Dakota. Learn More | Request Access
In Dakota’s US private equity data, the top-quartile net IRR threshold ranges from 11.5% for the 2005 vintage to 27.3% for the 2023 vintage (Dakota Private Markets, as of June 30, 2026). The same label, “top quartile,” describes two very different numbers depending on when a fund started investing.
That gap is why vintage year is the first filter in almost every private fund benchmark. It is also where many fund comparisons go wrong. Allocators reviewing a manager’s track record, comparing a re-up candidate to a new relationship, or screening a pipeline of funds are often looking at funds from different starting points, and treating them as if they were the same.
These are the most common mistakes allocators make when comparing performance across vintages, and how to avoid them.
1. Comparing IRRs From Funds at Different Ages
A 2016 vintage fund and a 2022 vintage fund are at different stages of their lives. The older fund has had time to deploy capital, build value, and realize exits. The younger fund may still be in its investment period, with returns shaped by fees, early marks, and the J-curve.
Putting their net IRRs side by side and calling the higher one the better manager compares a near-finished result with a partial one. The comparison that holds up is each fund against its own vintage peers. A fund’s quartile rank within its vintage tells you far more than its raw IRR next to a fund from a different year.
2. Assuming a Quartile Means the Same Thing in Every Vintage
Top quartile is a relative measure. It means a fund outperformed most of its peers from the same starting year, not that it cleared a fixed return hurdle.
In Dakota’s US private equity data, clearing the top-quartile bar required an 11.5% net IRR for the 2005 vintage and 27.3% for the 2023 vintage. A manager with top-quartile funds in both years delivered very different absolute returns. When reviewing a track record, read the quartile rank and the absolute numbers together, and note which vintages each rank comes from.
3. Reading Young Vintage IRRs as Final Results
Early IRRs are sensitive to the size and timing of a fund’s first cash flows. A single early exit or a strong first round of marks can push an interim IRR well above where the fund is likely to finish, and early fees and slow deployment can push it below.
That is why benchmark providers often treat the youngest vintages with caution, and why recent vintage thresholds can look unusually high or low. For a fund still in its investment period, treat the IRR as a mark, not a result. Look at how much has been called, how much has been distributed, and how the fund’s rank has moved from quarter to quarter.
4. Using TVPI the Same Way for Every Vintage
TVPI combines realized distributions with unrealized value. For a mature fund, most of that value should have turned into cash. For a young fund, nearly all of it is still a valuation.
Two funds with the same 1.75x TVPI can tell different stories. If one is a 2012 vintage with 1.60x DPI and the other is a 2019 vintage with 0.40x DPI, the first has largely delivered and the second is still mostly on paper. Across vintages, DPI does the work TVPI cannot: it shows how much of the reported value investors have actually received.
5. Treating a Blended Vintage Window as a Single-Vintage Benchmark
Grouping several vintages together is a reasonable way to build a larger peer group, but a blended benchmark smooths over the differences between years.
Across 1,156 buyout funds from the 2010 to 2019 vintages in Dakota Private Markets, the median net IRR is 14.15%, with a top-quartile threshold of 19.60% and a bottom-quartile threshold of 8.72%. That is a useful reference for the decade, but it mixes funds that invested through very different markets. A fund that looks average against the blended window may be top quartile, or bottom quartile, against its own vintage. If you use a blended window, label it as one, and check the single-vintage result alongside it. Our guide to [Best Practices for Creating Private Fund Performance Benchmarks] covers when widening the window makes sense.
6. Crediting the Manager for the Vintage
Market conditions during a fund’s investment period shape results across the entire cohort. As discussed on the Dakota Research Podcast, recession and early-recovery vintages have historically produced stronger results, while funds that deployed late in a cycle have often struggled.
A strong absolute return from a favorable vintage is not the same as strong manager selection, and a modest return from a difficult vintage is not the same as a weak manager. Separating the two means comparing each fund to its vintage peers, then asking whether the manager has ranked well across several different vintages rather than in one good year.
7. Comparing Funds Measured at Different Dates
Vintage comparisons only work when every fund is measured at the same point in time. A 2017 fund’s performance as of March 31 and a 2018 fund’s performance as of September 30 reflect different market conditions and different amounts of time in the market.
Before comparing funds across vintages, confirm that the as-of dates match or are close. When they do not, note the difference next to the comparison. For more on keeping reporting dates and definitions consistent, see [Common Mistakes Made When Entering Private Fund Performance Data].
A Quick Checklist for Cross-Vintage Comparisons
Before comparing funds from different vintages, confirm:
- Each fund is ranked against peers from its own vintage
- Quartile ranks are read alongside absolute returns
- Young funds are labeled as interim, with DPI shown next to IRR and TVPI
- Blended vintage windows are labeled as blended
- Every fund is measured as of the same or a similar date
- The manager’s results are reviewed across several vintages, not one
The Takeaway
Vintage year sets the conditions every fund operates in: entry prices, exit markets, and how much time a fund has had to deliver. Comparing funds across vintages without accounting for that turns a manager evaluation into a comparison of market timing.
The fix is consistent: rank each fund within its own vintage, read IRR, TVPI, and DPI together, and look for managers who rank well across different market environments.
Compare Funds Within the Right Vintage
Dakota Private Markets covers performance for 18,000+ private funds across seven asset classes, with net IRR, TVPI, and DPI benchmarks at top decile, top quartile, median, bottom quartile, and bottom decile for each vintage. Filter by strategy, vintage year, geography, and fund size to see where a fund ranks against the peers that started when it did.
Request access to Dakota Private Markets.
