Skip to content
Tech News
← Back to articles

Insight Partners’ Deven Parekh on why the firm is diversifying while everyone else bets the farm on OpenAI and Anthropic

read original get Venture Deals by Brad Feld and Jason Mendelson → more articles
Why This Matters

Insight Partners, a $90B AUM firm, is publicly defending a diversified investment strategy at a moment when much of venture capital is concentrating capital into a handful of frontier AI labs like OpenAI and Anthropic. Co-head Deven Parekh's candor about missed deals, conflicts of interest, and AI risk offers a rare counterweight to the prevailing hype cycle, and signals that not all large allocators believe the frontier-lab bet is the only way to win in AI.

Key Takeaways
Worth a Look

Venture Deals by Brad Feld and Jason Mendelson — If Deven Parekh's candid talk about deal competition, diversification, and conflicts of interest in venture hooked you, this is the classic primer that explains how those rounds actually get structured. It walks through term sheets, valuations, and investor dynamics in plain language, making it a great companion for anyone following the AI funding frenzy from the outside.

See Venture Deals by Brad Feld and Jason Mendelson on Amazon → Affiliate link — we may earn a commission on purchases, at no extra cost to you. Product picked by AI based on this article; it is not a tested recommendation.

Deven Parekh has co-run the heavyweight investment firm Insight Partners for 26 years. Unlike many VCs who are loud on X and seem to live on podcasts, Parekh and Insight Partners tend to lay low.

In this sit-down with TechCrunch at its StrictlyVC event on Thursday night in New York, Parekh was refreshingly candid about some of the firm’s wins (it has led and co-led numerous rounds in Databricks, for example, and owns stakes in OpenAI and Anthropic); the deals it hasn’t won, including buzzy AI legal-tech company Legora; conflicts of interest in venture investing; and why Insight has stuck to a diversified strategy even as VCs have piled into the frontier AI labs.

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

There’s a researcher who’s become the big story of the week — I just asked Keith Rabois about this earlier tonight [and he was dismissive of the researcher]. Do you think that concerns about AI risk amount to hysteria, or do you have real concerns?

Keith and I probably don’t agree on politics, but we agree on this. Sure, there’s a risk some non-state actor gets access to an open-source model and creates a biological weapon. But there’s an even higher probability we get a massive decrease in the time it takes to develop new drugs and cure diseases. I’ll take that bet.

I’m on the board of NYU Langone — what AI is already doing with patient data is amazing. We can look at 50 million patient records and tell someone walking in for something unrelated that they have a 25% chance of a heart attack. Net-net, I think this is highly positive.

There are risks, sure, just like there are risks with next-generation drone warfare. Every generation has new risks, and somehow, over time, the world still raises living standards. We’re going to need AI to scale healthcare — the population is aging and there aren’t enough medical professionals to go around.

Insight has $90 billion in assets under management but seems comparatively quiet compared to firms of similar size. Is that purposeful?

Every venture capitalist thinks they’re an expert on everything now — epidemiology during COVID, geopolitics during the Iran war. I’m not sure we’re all experts on everything. Our attitude has been: Let the portfolio do the talking. We’re investing in founders and companies. We have to communicate enough that people know who we are, but our performance should speak for itself — and that’s driven by the portfolio, not by us being loud.

You do early-stage, growth, buyouts, and presumably secondaries. What’s the split?

... continue reading