This is the question I get asked most often since I moved into the corporate world: what's harder, venture capital(VC) or corporate venture capital(CVC)? This question always seems like a trap to me, because any direct answer would sound like consent or arrogance, depending on which side I choose.
But after almost seven years at an independent VC firm and two years operating Vivo Ventures, Vivo's CVC, I have an answer that I believe to be honest.
In an independent fund, the focus is relentless and non-negotiable: you need to generate returns higher than your peers to continue raising capital. DPI, TVPI, IRR above the benchmark. There is no strategic approach that can replace these numbers when designing a limited partner (LP) to return for the next fundraising cycle.
In a financial VC firm, stakeholderpolicyis practically nonexistent. You invest, monitor, try to add value, and the market determines whether the decision was correct. There's no room to reinterpret the outcome.
In a CVC (Contract for the Development of the Company), the benchmark for success is more flexible by nature. If you invest in a company that becomes a significant asset for the parent company, even if the financial results haven't yet materialized, that can already be considered a legitimate case of corporate success.
To give an example: when Klubi (a consortium company invested in by Vivo Ventures) created, with Vivo, the first digital smartphone consortium in Brazil and reached 100,000 plans sold, this was a concrete generation of strategic value, regardless of any fund multiple.
In the short term, CVC is more profitable.
The daily work of a CVC leader is a constant operation of managing simultaneous and often conflicting agendas. Internally, the agenda is extensive, involving investment committees with executives, agendas of business unit directors, and continuous pressure for quarterly results, which naturally do not prioritize a Series A opportunity whose commercial return may take 36 months to materialize.
Envolve also translates a future vision for the partnership into clear metrics within a business model that, by its nature, takes years to show results.
Externally, they are founders with high expectations about what the corporation will deliver. They are financial co-investors who need to feel respected in a cap table that includes a corporation as a company.
There is no such thing as an independent VC; nothing like that exists. You have your LPs and your founders. In CVC, the field has obstacles that don't appear on the organizational chart.
The figure of the internal champion
The most underrated input I found in the transition was the reliance on internal allies to make anything truly work.
In large organizations, there are internal champions, who are usually executives with genuine compensation within the company and who bridge the gap between the long-term vision of the CVC (presumably a company or organization) and the short-term imperative of the business areas.
Without these people, each partnership with a startup becomes an individual negotiation with an executive who has budgets for other priorities. With them, the process flows smoothly.
Returning to the Vivo Ventures case: in 2025, we connected more than 129 startups with over 50 different Vivo directories. We generated R$ 61 million in contracts. We closed 16 new commercial agreements. These numbers are not just the result of a good investment process, but of an internal network of trust built over time.
What lies between the two worlds
Independent VC training teaches return-focused discipline, speed of decision-making, and how to build relationships with founders as a long-term asset. But it doesn't prepare you for the political complexities of a large organization; nor does it provide the necessary skills to move a business unit that doesn't see immediate value in a particular opportunity.
It also doesn't prepare you for the constant work of translating between ecosystem time and corporate time.
The CVC model teaches that distribution is a real asset and that strategic value can surpass isolated financial return. But it creates a trap: replacing the discipline of return with strategic storytelling. The best CVCs resist this, and we strive for this discipline here at Vivo Ventures.
After two years operating in two worlds, my conclusion is that they are different games, with different rules, and that they deactivate different muscles. Where we converge: transparency, patience, and an above-average tolerance for ambiguity.
* Phillip Traueris a director at Vivo Ventures and Wayra Brazil.
