Punching Above Our Weight?

You've probably seen the headline doing the rounds recently: Australia produces more billion-dollar startups per VC dollar than any other country in the world. 1.22 unicorns for every US$1 billion of venture capital invested, ahead of Israel, Switzerland and the US.

The original source is the Australia Venture & Startup Report 2025 by Side Stage Ventures, Dealroom and AWS, which dropped mid-2025. But it's had a real second wind these past few months - kicked off by the Tech Council of Australia's March report ($250 billion of GDP, five years ahead of target), then picked up by the BBC, the local press, and a few startup influencers on insta (where I get most of my news from shamefully). Same framing across all of it: Australia is quietly outperforming, undercapitalised but punching above its weight.

I said last week that I don't buy the headline (or perhaps, more accurately, we should celebrate but not for too long). My gut feel was that this might be true on paper, but it doesn't feel like the money's going very far to support innovation here. So I dug into it.

The first thing I thought about was who actually got the money in 2025. Australian startups raised $5.4 billion across 390 deals last year, the third-largest funding year on record. But I'd already clocked from earlier reports (the LI algorithm does feed me these ones, at least) that the deal count fell 17% from 2024. The top 20 rounds took 58% of all the capital, up from 50% the year before. Airwallex alone ran two mega-rounds worth roughly $964 million combined, close to a fifth of the entire year's national total from one company (and made Victoria the state with the most capital raised, which I love, but most Victorian founders didn't see a dime of it).

Tracxn's tech ecosystem report, also released in early 2026, was even more direct. They found that funding rebounded 38% in 2025 - exclusively driven by a 309% surge in late-stage capital. Seed-stage funding actually fell to $126 million. Their phrase for it was "capital aggregation into a narrow set of globally competitive assets rather than broad-based ecosystem expansion."

Translation: a small group of well-known names gobbled up most of what was going around.

Capital efficient, or capital starved?

It feels like there are two ways to read our high unicorn-to-VC ratio. One is that Australian founders are unusually good (we are and don't let anyone tell you otherwise). The other is that the denominator is just small (which also seems to be true).

Side Stage's own report leans toward the second reading. Australia has fewer than 30 active seed funds doing five or more deals a year. Europe has 525+. The US has 600+. Per capita we'd need closer to 47 to match the US rate, and around 39% of early-stage Australian funding comes from offshore investors because there isn't enough local capital to go around.

What we're seeing is that when the local capital pool is thin, only the highest-conviction bets get funded. Those bets cluster around known patterns: ex-Stripe and ex-Canva founders, second-time entrepreneurs, AI infrastructure, fintech with traction. The bets that don't fit those patterns don't get made at all. So when you measure outcomes per dollar deployed, you're measuring a filtered sample. The denominator excludes everyone who never got the chance.

The headline says Australia is unusually good at building companies. The data says we fund a small number of them very selectively, and we count the survivors as proof.

Stockholm's 41 unicorns

Sweden's population is just over 10 million, around a third of ours. Over their startup ecosystem's history, they've produced about 40 billion-dollar tech companies. Most have since IPO'd or been acquired (Spotify, Skype, iZettle, Mojang) leaving around 14 still actively private. Australia has produced about 20 across our history (Atlassian, Afterpay, AirTrunk, Eucalyptus and Aconex have all exited), with around 13 still actively private. Sweden ranks third globally on unicorns per capita - Israel sits at the top, Iceland second. Australia is somewhere around 20th. On capital efficiency we're broadly comparable - their unicorn-per-VC-dollar ratio sits at 1.08 to our 1.22.

The difference is that Sweden's ecosystem actually has capital flowing through it. They raised more than €2.4 billion in VC in 2024. Then there's the alumni effect, which is the part you can't just fund into existence. Klarna alone has produced 62 startups from former employees (sixty-two!!!!!). Spotify, Skype and iZettle have produced more. And the founders haven't just done their victory lap and moved on - Daniel Ek, Sebastian Siemiatkowski and Niklas Zennström are all reinvesting heavily into the next wave. Zennström founded Atomico. Adalberth (Klarna co-founder) founded Norrsken VC.

The flywheel keeps spinning because the capital recycles back into the ecosystem instead of leaving it. Australia hasn't built that flywheel yet. Atlassian's IPO created mostly offshore wealth. Afterpay sold into Block and got absorbed. Canva is the live test - secondary share sales worth billions since 2024, deliberately extended to alumni and not just current staff. Companies like Eucalyptus are an early sign the network might be starting to form (their team is built heavily on ex-Canva and ex-Atlassian alumni), and they're worth watching closely. Whether any of this becomes our first proper Klarna moment is a separate question (and one for next week).

Anyway, all to say that if Australia had been producing billion-dollar companies at Sweden's per capita rate, we'd have around 100 over our history instead of 20. That's nearly 80 companies missing because the pipeline to fund them is missing too! And there's actually a much bigger structural reason for that pipeline being thin - a $54 billion gap between what our super funds invest in venture and what global benchmarks suggest they should, all locked up by regulation that doesn't really help anyone. But that's a whole separate post (and tbh, probably a long one).

Some people aren't waiting

So back to the question: are we actually punching above our weight, or are we investing in patterns of concentration and calling it efficiency?

The honest answer IMHO is some of both. We have a strong efficiency ratio and around 13 active private unicorns (with another handful that have exited). We also have a 17% drop in deal count, a seed market shrinking while late-stage swells, and a flywheel that hasn't really started spinning (yet!!!). The headlines describe a narrower country than they let on, and the more concentrated we get, the smaller our pool of founders, hires, ideas and outcomes becomes. We're calling that efficiency, but it might just be us getting good at not asking for more (although in my circle, the gals are mad & you know what they say, you don't want to cross a scorned woman so watch this space!!)

It's worth zooming out for a sec. Sweden is capital rich and efficient - that's the version we want. America has plenty of capital but, under the hood, is a bit more wasteful with it. We're the opposite: capital starved but disciplined. Moving from us to Sweden means adding capital without losing the efficiency we already have - and that's a bigger problem than any one regulator, fund or report can fix.

There was a moment at the State of Australian Startup Funding launch in 2025 that has stuck with me. Someone asked why female founders weren't being funded at the same rates. The honest-to-God answer was that we needed to see the pattern first - wait for the exits, the success stories, the proof that a woman could build something the size of a Canva. The fact that Canva exists, and has existed for over a decade, didn't seem to register as the pattern in question. Apparently female founders only count once Canva exits 🤯. It's the same logic this post has been arguing against: capital follows the recognisable, and the founders building toward what doesn't yet have a pattern get told to wait. And when those bets do pay off, the returns flow back to the same funds and the same partners, who go and do roughly the same thing again.

The structural fix is going to take a while. The encouraging thing is that some people aren't waiting around for it. Charlie Gearside (ex-Eucalyptus) launched Build Australia to make a direct case to a generation that's been told property is the only path: build companies instead. akshat agarwal's Arrayah runs hacker houses and residencies in Sydney explicitly to give people the space, peers and permission to take their work seriously. These are people who looked at the same data we just walked through (or who just had a strong belief regardless) and said: we can just go do it.

Sweden has produced about 40 billion-dollar tech companies for a third of our population. I just don't believe, in 2026, that capital efficiency is the achievement. The achievement would be staying efficient while deploying enough capital to give the next forty a real shot - and that starts with more of us deciding to back the people building, instead of buying our way out of the question.

‍