Where Venture Capital Jobs Are Actually Posted

Index Ventures' website carries exactly one link under "Jobs." Click it, and the page that loads is called Startup Jobs: thousands of open roles at companies like Anthropic, Datadog and Aurora, filterable down to an Entry Level Jobs tab with a few hundred listings of its own. Every one of those roles sits at a company Index has funded. None of them is a job at Index Ventures.

That's not a glitch, and it's not an Index-specific quirk. The same pattern holds at Atomico, Balderton, Creandum, HV Capital, Sequoia, Andreessen Horowitz, Accel, General Catalyst and Partech: the visible, search-friendly Careers page on a fund's own domain is almost always a job board for the companies the fund backed, not for the fund itself. The fund's own hiring, when it exists at all, lives somewhere quieter, smaller and far easier to miss.

Here's why the mix-up happens structurally, the ten-second test for telling the two kinds of board apart, the platform names worth recognising on sight, and where more than a dozen funds' own roles actually live.

The confusion costs real time. A candidate who reads twenty of these portfolio boards, finds nothing under the fund's own name, and concludes venture doesn't hire juniors at all has actually learned nothing about the fund's own hiring, only about a page built for someone else entirely.

Where Venture Capital Jobs Actually Live, At a Glance

Why Every "Careers" Link Points at Someone Else's Payroll

A venture fund's investment team is small by design. Atomico's own recruiting copy describes "our team of 20 Investors." HV Capital's own materials describe "60+ investment and operations professionals" across every fund it has raised since 2000. A team that size hires one or two people a year, which doesn't justify a dedicated, search-optimised careers page of its own.

Helping the companies a fund has already backed find engineers, salespeople and executives is a different function entirely, and a genuinely valuable one. It produces a much bigger page: hundreds of employers, thousands of open roles, real search traffic behind it. Atomico's own board, for one example, carries roughly 2,236 listings across more than 130 portfolio companies, over a hundred times the size of the fund's own investing team.

The two functions end up on neighbouring URLs, often built by the same platform or talent team, and the portfolio board is the one that earns the branded subdomain and the search ranking, because it's the one with real scale behind it. The fund's own hiring, being small and irregular, gets whatever is left over: a plain Lever page, a Workable form, sometimes just an email address.

The Small-Team Pattern Holds Everywhere

The small-team pattern holds well beyond Atomico and HV Capital. Balderton's own team page names 43 people in total, only seven of them holding a partner or managing-partner title, and Creandum's team across four offices runs to roughly forty named individuals. Neither number supports a standing recruiting operation the size of a board carrying hundreds of employer names.

Atomico investors

20

Creandum, all offices

~40

Balderton, total

43

HV Capital, investment + ops

60+

Team size as each fund states it on its own site. Atomico and HV Capital name their investment team specifically; Balderton and Creandum's figures are total headcount, partners included.

The Ten-Second Test: Portfolio Board or the Fund's Own Board?

Before reading a single listing, three checks settle which kind of board is in front of you:

• Count the employer names. One name, repeated on every listing, points to the fund's own hiring. Dozens or hundreds of different company names point to a portfolio board.
• Count the roles. Zero to three open roles is normal for a fund's own board. Anything in the hundreds or thousands is a portfolio board, full stop.
• Read the page's own words. Several boards say what they are outright: "Jobs at Creandum Companies," the Balderton Talent Network, HV Capital's own line about discovering opportunities at HV-backed companies. The fund rarely needs to say "this isn't us."

These three checks take less time than reading a single job description, and used together they're almost impossible to get wrong. The platform running the page, covered next, is often the fastest of the three when the first two leave any doubt.

The ATS Names Worth Knowing

The software running a careers page is usually a better signal than the page's own branding, because a handful of platforms specialise in exactly one of these two jobs.

A Getro or Consider board rarely puts the fund's own name in its page title the way a Lever or Workable page does, one more reason to check the platform running a page rather than trusting its headline.

This is also why a plain web search for a fund's name plus "careers" so often surfaces the wrong board first. Search engines reward the page with more content and more links, and a portfolio board with hundreds of listings always has more of both than a fund's own three-line hiring page.

Every Fund We Checked

The pattern below holds regardless of which week you look. Listing counts drift; which column a fund sits in almost never does.

The Standard Pattern: Index, Atomico, Balderton and Creandum

These four show the shape at its cleanest. Index Ventures' entire jobs-related navigation runs through Startup Jobs, the portfolio board; its own roles run through Lever, which has sat quiet for long stretches, including one specific Applied AI Investor posting in New York that stayed listed for over a year before being pulled. A role appearing and disappearing on its own timeline, not a published calendar, is the norm here.

Atomico's careers page is a Getro-powered board aggregating roles at companies including Zocdoc, Hinge Health and MasterClass, while Atomico's own Investment Associate and Senior Associate roles run on a separate Greenhouse page requiring at least two years of relevant experience. Atomico's own hiring language calls investing "an apprenticeship," training junior hires to become what it calls an "end to end" investor rather than a narrow sourcing role.

Balderton's careers page brands itself the Balderton Talent Network, powered by Consider, with dedicated sub-pages for named portfolio companies. Balderton's own hiring runs through Workable instead, alongside a mandatory skills assessment on the roles it has posted historically, built by TestGorilla, a company Balderton itself helped fund with a $70 million round in 2022.

Creandum's careers page, titled "Jobs at Creandum Companies," is the same pattern again. Creandum's own hiring runs through Recruitee, where a Visiting Analyst cycle covers Berlin, Stockholm and London as part of a twice-yearly cadence, and the posting requires a 90-second video naming a specific early-stage company and making the investment case for it, a direct test of the sourcing instinct the job itself demands.

HV Capital: A Careers Page That Went Dark

HV Capital manages roughly 2.8 billion euros and has made close to 290 investments, and its own recruiting copy once described nurturing "over 80 interns" over the years. HV Capital now has no working, dedicated careers page of its own, a state that held through the second half of 2026.

Its dedicated hiring domain carried dozens of real postings through at least October 2025, per an archived snapshot. Sometime before the end of August 2026, the same domain began redirecting to Recruitee's own generic marketing page, and the redirect has held since.

The Getro-powered HV Capital Job Board, meanwhile, still runs and still lists roughly 290 portfolio companies. HV Capital's own entry on that shared board shows no roles of its own, which means the firm has neither a working dedicated page nor active listings on the shared one, a genuinely rare combination for a fund this size. That combination, not a portfolio board mislabelled as the fund's own, is the finding worth remembering here.

A firm's own hiring infrastructure and its balance sheet are unrelated to each other. Assuming a well-known, well-funded name will always have a slick careers page is exactly the assumption HV Capital's own dead redirect disproves.

For a candidate, the practical read is simple: don't wait for either of HV Capital's boards to reopen before reaching out. A direct message to someone on the team, or a note to a general inbox, is a more reliable route than refreshing a page that has stayed broken for the better part of a year.

Insight Partners: A Real Pipeline That Never Reaches Europe

Insight Partners is a genuine exception to the portfolio-board story. It runs three real, well-documented analyst programmes, the Full-Time Investment Analyst Program, the Summer Investment Analyst Program and the Onsite Diligence & Growth Strategy Analyst Program, all applied to through Ashby.

The trap here is geography, not mislabelling. Insight runs a real EMEA investment and business-development hub out of London, described independently as a substantive office rather than a shell, which makes the next finding worth reading twice.

• Every one of the four recruiting pages names only one address, on Avenue of the Americas in New York.
• None mentions London, Europe or Tel Aviv anywhere in its eligibility rules, FAQ or job-board location tags.
• All three programmes require a video cover letter alongside a resume and transcript, a detail a generic summary of "Insight hires analysts" never captures.

A candidate researching Insight from Europe can read every detail of a well-run New York pipeline and still find no published route into the office nearest them.

None of this makes the New York pipeline weaker preparation, only incomplete. A European candidate who wants an Insight seat still needs to either target the New York programmes directly, relocation included, or ask explicitly on the London side of the business whether informal hiring for a similar analyst function happens outside the formal campus tracks.

EQT Ventures: A Careers Hub That Never Says the Name

EQT Group's own top-level careers hub, covering the entire firm, doesn't mention EQT Ventures anywhere in its sections. It organises itself around five business lines instead: Private Capital in Europe and North America, Private Capital in Asia, Infrastructure, Real Estate and Private Wealth — its venture arm isn't named as one of the five.

The only page across the whole group site that names EQT Ventures at all is the group Associate programme, and it buries the name inside a joint label, "early-stage technology (EQT Ventures & EQT Growth)," alongside private equity and life sciences.

EQT Ventures has, separately, run its own analyst hiring outside the group programme in the past. A 2023 post on the team's own blog described a blind, name-and-CV-free first round for a Stockholm analyst role, with applications sent to a team email address. The partner who wrote that post left the firm in a 2025 reorganisation, so whether this specific channel still runs is genuinely unclear.

The practical implication is unglamorous but useful: a candidate targeting EQT Ventures specifically should treat the group's own site as background reading at best, and instead look for a named contact on the Ventures team itself, since the group's hiring infrastructure was never built with that team in mind.

Antler: Two Boards, Two Different Jobs

Antler is a different case entirely, and worth separating from every board above. It runs two real hiring funnels of its own rather than one portfolio board and one real one, and mixing them up costs a candidate more than a wasted application.

The employee track, hiring Analysts through Partners onto Antler's own Investment Team, runs on Antler's own applytojob page and pays a salary. It's a three-stage process ending in an in-person conversation with a partner and a working-session investment memo.

The Residency track, by contrast, invests in individual founders before a company necessarily exists, runs through a separate application page, and isn't employment at all. One posting states this outright: "This is not a job and we are not looking to be your employer."

Recruiters and candidate forums often blur the two together because both use the word "Antler" and both involve a partner interview, but only one of them pays a salary and offers a seat on an existing team. Confirming which track a specific posting belongs to takes one extra read of the page, and it's worth doing every time.

The Famous Names With No Dedicated Board

Some of the most recognisable names in venture capital don't appear to run a dedicated hiring page for their own investing team at all. Sequoia Capital's board runs on Consider and lists roles across its portfolio; the slice of that board that would carry Sequoia's own roles shows none.

Andreessen Horowitz, Accel and General Catalyst all run Getro-powered boards spanning hundreds of portfolio companies and roles that number in the tens of thousands between them, none of them at the fund itself. Partech splits the two functions more cleanly than most: its Getro-powered portfolio board is entirely separate from Partech's own junior hiring, an Analyst internship for the Partech Venture Fund that runs on its own Workable page under Partech's own name.

Treating that scale as evidence any of these funds is hiring at meaningful volume is the single easiest misread in this whole category. The bigger the portfolio board, the less it tends to say about the size or urgency of the fund's own search.

Why an Empty Board Means Nothing

An empty board is the single most misread signal in this whole category. Balderton's own board and Index Ventures' own board have both sat empty for long stretches, and Index's board has shown that same empty state, on and off, since at least 2021.

Several funds' own hiring runs on a genuinely dated cycle rather than a rolling vacancy, which makes an empty board between cycles the normal condition, not a sign the fund has stopped hiring juniors:

• Creandum runs a twice-yearly Visiting Analyst intake, with cohorts starting roughly every six months
• Insight Partners' campus programmes run on an annual academic-year calendar, with applications opening in the autumn for the following year's class
• EQT Ventures' documented own-hiring round, the last time it ran, was a single, one-off posting rather than a standing page
• Balderton's own board has, at different points, carried postings for an Associate, a Network and Talent Associate, and a Product Analyst, evidence that it does fill periodically even without a fixed annual date attached to it

What an Empty Board Actually Tells You

None of this means every empty board hides an active search that will surface soon. It means an empty board is not evidence either way, and the only way to find out which is true is to keep checking on a schedule, rather than filing a fund away as closed after a single visit.

The safest working assumption is a boring one: a fund is far more often between hires than finished hiring altogether. Boring assumptions are unfortunately also the ones most candidates skip past on the way to a more dramatic, and usually wrong, conclusion.

Where to Actually Look Instead

Checking a fund's careers page once and drawing a conclusion from it is the weakest possible research strategy in this category. A short, repeatable process does more than any one lucky visit:

1. Identify the ATS platform behind any board before reading a single listing, using the tells above
2. Go to the fund's own hiring page directly, bookmark it, and recheck it every few weeks rather than trusting a search engine to resurface it
3. Read the team page for a named recruiting contact or a plain email address; Northzone hires this way, through a plain address with no dedicated board at all
4. Follow individual partners rather than only the firm's account, since some post roles personally on their own blogs, the way one Point Nine partner has done for years instead of building a dedicated page
5. Treat a dated, named programme, a visiting-analyst seat or a campus cycle, as the most reliable structural door of all, and build a calendar around its deadlines rather than checking at random
6. Confirm which of the two Antler-style funnels a role actually belongs to before preparing for it, if the fund being researched runs more than one

None of these six steps depends on insider access. They depend on treating a careers page as one data point rather than the whole answer, which is exactly the habit that separates a search that works from one that quietly stalls out on a handful of dead links.

The Bottom Line

A venture fund's own Jobs link is the least reliable place to learn whether that fund is hiring, and the pattern holds across firms as different as a two-city Nordic seed fund and a New York growth-equity platform managing tens of billions of euros. The portfolio board exists for a real reason, to help the companies a fund has already backed, and it earns its scale honestly.

None of the funds named here are being careless or evasive. A shared board that helps a portfolio company hire an engineer is doing real work, and a fund's own quiet, three-role-a-year hiring simply doesn't need the same infrastructure. The mistake sits entirely on the reading side: assuming a big, polished board must be the whole story.

What it doesn't do is tell you anything about the fund's own team. Learning to read the platform, count the employer names, and treat an empty board as a normal resting state rather than a closed door is worth more to a real search than checking twenty funds' obvious Careers links and concluding, wrongly, that none of them hire juniors at all.