The October answer
Better products are the most frequently reported measurable portfolio impact. In a separate operator sample, fewer than half report full real-time cost visibility and 37 percent of applicable responses use shared service accounts. Agent deployment establishes adoption; investors also need evidence about control and financial performance.
What changed since Edition 2
No new comparable investor instrument was fielded, so the ownership and portfolio-impact figures carry forward unchanged. October adds operator measures that investors can use in diligence.
The capital baseline
The CEO leads ownership at 51 percent and 22 percent cannot yet name the owner (base 245, any mention). Better products lead measurable impact at 51 percent, ahead of cost reduction at 35 and customer help at 34; 16 percent see nothing measurable (base 237, any mention).
Production diligence measures
Investors should ask portfolio companies for five measures: production-agent count, embedded share, cost visibility, shared-account exposure and measurable workflow return. A high agent count does not establish maturity when cost and identity controls are weak.
October investor evidence
Ownership across portfolios
Who increasingly owns AI buying
| Answer | Count | Share |
|---|---|---|
| CEO | 124 | 51% |
| CIO or CTO | 59 | 24% |
| Too early to say | 53 | 22% |
| Individual teams | 45 | 18% |
| Bottom-up | 45 | 18% |
| CFO or finance | 30 | 12% |
Base 245; any mention, so shares can sum above 100 percent.
The CEO appears in 124 of 245 answers. Fifty-three respondents say it is too early to identify the owner, while individual-team and bottom-up answers each appear 45 times. The responses show both CEO-led buying and uncertainty about ownership across portfolios.
| Investor seniority | Base | CEO | CIO or CTO | Finance | Too early | Teams | Bottom-up |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Partner, founder or C-suite | 154 | 61% | 22% | 12% | 17% | 12% | 12% |
| VP, principal, director or head | 19 | 32% | 58% | 11% | 26% | 32% | 32% |
| Other titled respondent | 72 | 33% | 19% | 14% | 31% | 29% | 29% |
Title classification by keyword; any mention. The middle group is directional.
Ownership uncertainty appears at every seniority level. Seventeen percent of partner, founder and C-suite respondents select “too early to say,” compared with 31 percent of other titled respondents. The 19-person VP, principal, director or head group is directional.
Measurable impact
Portfolio impact
| Answer | Count | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Better products | 122 | 51% |
| Cutting costs | 83 | 35% |
| Helping customers | 81 | 34% |
| Nothing measurable yet | 37 | 16% |
Base 237; any mention, so shares can sum above 100 percent.
Eighty-six percent, or 205 of 237 respondents, select at least one positive impact. The share is calculated respondent by respondent, not by subtracting “nothing measurable” from 100 percent, because five respondents selected both a positive result and “nothing measurable.”
Impact by investor seniority
| Investor seniority | Base | Better products | Cost reduction | Customer help | Nothing measurable |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Partner, founder or C-suite | 150 | 51% | 35% | 34% | 13% |
| VP, principal, director or head | 18 | 78% | 44% | 56% | 11% |
| Other titled respondent | 69 | 46% | 33% | 29% | 23% |
Title classification by keyword; any mention. The 18-person middle group is directional.
Partners, founders and C-suite investors name better products in 51 percent of answers. The 69-person other-titled group reports nothing measurable in 23 percent, compared with 13 percent of the senior group. The VP, principal, director or head group is directional on a base of 18.
Production diligence
| Group | Base | Full visibility | Partial visibility | No visibility |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Exploring | 18 | 22% | 33% | 44% |
| Piloting | 14 | 36% | 43% | 21% |
| Deployed in production | 33 | 61% | 33% | 6% |
| Embedded (removing it would change our cost structure or hiring plan) | 10 | 50% | 50% | 0% |
Matched respondents answering both questions; base 75. Small row bases are directional.
The operator cut adds information that a portfolio-impact question cannot provide. Reported value can coexist with incomplete workflow cost visibility and control. Investors should examine the outcome record and the operating-control record separately.
Cross-check against operator data
Investor respondents report measurable portfolio impact in the carried-forward baseline. In the separate operator data, production-agent adoption is 80 percent and full real-time cost visibility is 44 percent. Assessing AI revenue and AI-enabled margins therefore requires evidence on observability and governance as well as adoption.
What this means for VC and CVC investors
AI diligence should cover production control as well as product capability. Investors should ask what the system costs at current volume, how that cost scales, which credentials agents hold and whether a buyer can audit the claimed outcome.
Questions this report answers
Who do investors see owning AI purchases?
The CEO leads at 51 percent, followed by the CIO or CTO at 24 percent; 22 percent say it is too early to identify an owner (base 245, any mention).
Where do investors see measurable AI impact?
Better products lead at 51 percent, cost reduction at 35 percent and customer help at 34 percent; 16 percent report nothing measurable (base 237, any mention).
What should AI investment diligence test?
Production-agent count, workflow-level cost, credential model, data access and an auditable customer or operating outcome.
Key citable facts
- Fifty-one percent of investors name the CEO as the role increasingly owning AI buying across portfolios (base 245).
- Sixteen percent see nothing measurable from AI across most portfolio companies (base 237).
- Eighty-six percent, or 205 of 237 respondents, select at least one positive measurable impact.
- Operator production-agent adoption exceeds full real-time cost visibility by 36 points across two questions from the same event (bases 75 and 77).
Methodology and honesty notes
Investor lines are carried forward from the latest comparable instrument and are not presented as month-on-month movement. Operator evidence comes from a separate population and is used as context, not merged with investor responses.
The 86 percent figure is calculated at respondent level as the share selecting at least one positive impact: better products, cutting costs or helping customers (205 of 237). It is not calculated as the complement of “nothing measurable,” because five respondents selected that option alongside at least one positive impact. It describes reported portfolio impact, not confidence or future investment intent.
Related reading
Citation and editions
Suggested citation: Newlands, M. (2026). VC and CVC AI Investment Report, Edition 3. Open Future Forum, October 2026. This edition supersedes Edition 2, September 2026.
Work These Questions with Investor Peers
Forum Select meets through small, off-the-record gatherings. Membership is by application and referral.