As a co-founder and Partner at Isomer Capital, Chris Wade has spent the last decade backing Europe’s most promising early-stage VC managers. With over €600 million under management and a portfolio spanning dozens of funds and co-investments, Isomer has become an important player for the European venture ecosystem, particularly at the emerging manager level.
In this conversation held during the Vestbee CEE VC Summit 2025 with Marcin Laczynski, Head of Investment at Vestbee and GP at Next Road Ventures, Wade shares his perspective on the industry's evolution at the hands of AI, makes the case for why “small is beautiful” when it comes to fund size, and reveals the unique quality he looks for in the fund managers.
There's a lot of discussion that AI could fundamentally change the venture capital industry, potentially reducing the need for large teams and significant capital. How do you see our industry on the brink of this AI revolution?
There are two areas where AI is showing up in VC. The first is in deal sourcing. About 90% of the VC funds we work with are experimenting with some version of it, but with mixed results. One manager we know built a very detailed system that scrapes and analyzes deal flow using AI, and over 12 months, it didn’t generate a single deal they invested in.
The second is using AI as part of the investment decision-making process itself. We're on a voyage of discovery here. One of our most recent investments is in a European fund doing exactly this: leveraging the latest AI tools to assess whether a startup team will likely achieve the kind of outcomes the fund targets, using historical data from successful European startups. What’s exciting is that this fund is run by a team new to VC — exactly the kind of team we like to work with. It means a lot of interaction and figuring things out together. We'll see how it plays out, but it’s an interesting experiment.
That said, venture capital is still fundamentally a people business. At Isomer, we’ve raised around €600 million from 80 LPs over the last ten years. When we looked into where those relationships came from, two-thirds were through personal introductions. People say, “You should meet Chris from Isomer.” That human connection still matters deeply.
On that point, if this new fund in your portfolio uses AI for decision-making, how does it evaluate the human factor? Most startup failures I’ve seen are due to people issues, not the product or business.
The AI-driven fund I mentioned does have a small team that steps in at one point: to communicate with the company once the system identifies them as a good fit. They believe in the need for a human touch — not for due diligence or reference calls, but to say, “We’d like to invest.” That part of the process, they feel, still requires a person. Ultimately, the value of human interaction — the ability to build trust, interpret nuance, and support founders — isn’t going away.
Let’s shift to emerging fund managers. How do you define them, and what role do they play in your portfolio?
In our world, “emerging” means first, second, or third fund. At Isomer, we’ve always focused on early-stage VCs — the ones writing the first checks into companies. That’s where the most value is created, and where strong relationships with founders can take shape.
We run an annual European VC awards program, and in 2024, we’ll introduce a new category to recognize emerging managers. It’s a way to celebrate the critical role they play in keeping the ecosystem vibrant.
Our entire strategy is built around supporting early-stage, emerging managers. Some of them stay small and focused, while others — like Seedcamp — have gone on to raise multiple funds and still stay true to that early-stage DNA.
How do you view the performance of smaller, specialized funds compared to the large, multi-stage players?
Small is beautiful. When we launched our first fund in 2015, we had a strict policy: no funds over €100 million. Why? Because turning €100 million into €300 million is much easier than turning €200 million into €600 million. It's just the math.
There’s a lot of capital in venture that doesn’t generate meaningful returns. Cambridge Associates did a great study years ago showing that smaller funds tend to outperform. They're more focused, more nimble, and often more disciplined in how they deploy capital.
We have seen managers who started with small funds and then wanted to raise growth vehicles to maintain ownership in later rounds. That’s understandable — but suddenly you have a €200 million fund, and you’re in a very different game. It all comes down to whether you trust the manager to stay disciplined and continue backing the kinds of companies they were good at finding early on.
What qualities do you look for when evaluating emerging fund managers?
We call ourselves Isomer for a reason. It’s a chemistry term: the same element can have very different properties depending on its structure. In 2015, we jokingly coined a new element: “Entrepreneurium” — and we said that’s what we’re looking for in managers. We don’t care where they’re from. We don’t care what they look like or what they wear. What we care about is whether they have a critical mass of Entrepreneurium — the energy, passion, and ability to build something great.
You can’t quantify it with a neat formula, but you know it when you see it. Do they have conviction? Can they withstand the cycles and the macro shocks? Because venture capital is full of them — just look at the last five years.
Are there ways GPs can demonstrate that entrepreneurial drive during the fundraising process?
Yes — and the best way is through storytelling and self-awareness. We love it when managers say, “Let me tell you about my portfolio. This company had all the right dynamics, but it failed — and here’s what I learned.” That willingness to reflect, to admit failure, to grow — that’s the kind of mindset we look for.
The worst meetings are when a manager says, “Everything’s perfect. I haven’t made a single mistake.” That’s not a venture. Venture is humbling. If you’re not learning, you’re not doing it right.
Is there a difference in how you assess operator-turned-VCs versus those with traditional finance backgrounds?
Maybe. Operator experience can be helpful, but only with a huge dose of empathy. I once spoke to a founder with a well-known VC on her board — someone with an incredible track record from 20 years ago. She said he was useless because he kept referencing outdated stories that had nothing to do with today’s reality. So yes, being an operator can add value. But if you can't understand the founder’s mindset — if you can’t meet them where they are — then it doesn’t help. What founders want is empathy. Someone who listens, supports, and understands what they’re going through.
And what about red flags — things that signal a manager might not be ready?
High egos are a red flag. This is a humble business. If you don’t believe that, wait until you have a big failure — it’ll teach you quickly. Another red flag is when someone says they’re launching a fund in a complex domain like AI, but when you ask them about the technology, they brush it off. If you don’t understand the space you’re investing in, you can’t be effective.
One truth about venture: investors get older, entrepreneurs get younger and smarter. That gap is real, and it’s why VCs have to keep learning and evolving.
Final question — what’s your role as an LP when things get tough for your fund managers?
We track how many calls we get from our GPs, especially when something goes wrong. We’re rarely the largest LP in a fund. Often we’re third or fourth, sometimes smaller. But when a manager picks up the phone and says, “Can I talk through something?” — that’s when we know we’ve built real trust.
Sometimes there's no specific ask — they just want someone to talk to. We see ourselves as part LP, part coach, part mentor. Having someone on the other end of the line who’s been through it before can be incredibly helpful.
