Most investor directories are lists of funds that say they invest in a category. cpg.vc is a list of funds that demonstrably did — each one named in a funding round read in a source article, with the date and the company recorded. That is the whole difference, and everything on this page exists to make it checkable.
As of 31 August 2026 the index holds 215 verified investors drawn from 201 rounds across 2024 to 2026.
An investor earns a profile one way: it was named as a participant in a specific CPG funding round, in a source we read and recorded. No firm appears by submitting itself, paying, or asking. There is no application.
Records carry one of two evidence grades:
Deal-verified — the firm was named in at least one round in the tracker. Its profile shows the round count, the date of its most recent cheque and the company that received it. Only these firms are published.
Listed — the firm appears in a public directory as investing in consumer packaged goods, but cpg.vc has not yet verified a round for it. These records exist in the database and are excluded from the site, because a firm that says it invests in CPG is not evidence that it does. They publish only when a round confirms them.
A profile's round count is a floor, not a total. Plenty of rounds close without naming their investors, and those cannot be attributed to anyone.
Every round carries a confidence tier, and the tier decides what happens to it.
CONFIRMED — the company's own announcement, or two independent trade sources agreeing on both the amount and the lead investor.
REPORTED — one named trade source, written in the past tense, stating an explicit amount and stage.
RUMORED — forward-looking language such as “set to raise” or “in talks”, aggregator-only sourcing, or no stated amount. These are held in the database and never published, and never counted toward anyone's round total.
A round is rejected outright, whatever the tier, if there is no source URL, if the amount was inferred rather than stated, or if a named lead investor does not appear in the source sentence quoted at the time of entry. Where an amount was not disclosed, the field stays blank. cpg.vc does not estimate figures.
Some of these are legal lines and some are editorial ones. They hold either way.
No paid placement, ever. Position in the index is determined by round count and recency. There is no way to buy a higher rank, and if that changes it will be disclosed on this page before it happens.
No scraping of licensed databases. Startup CPG's Top Investor Database is the best CPG-native funder list in existence and is explicitly marked not for commercial use without permission. It has not been used here.
No LinkedIn as a data source. Person records are verified by hand from public professional sources.
No personal contact data. Professional information only — no personal email addresses, phone numbers or home addresses, and no purchased contact records. Where a public filing carries a residential address, it is reduced to city and state.
No filler. Category pages with no verified round say so plainly rather than listing funds that might plausibly be interested.
A directory that only advertises its strengths is not worth trusting. These are the known weaknesses, and they are the reason to treat the numbers here as a floor.
Beauty, pet and household are thin before 2026. The trade archives that reliably name investors are food-and-beverage led. Beauty Independent and Glossy are being added as sources; until then, beauty coverage in particular understates the real activity.
Sub-$1M rounds are sparse everywhere. Small raises are frequently announced without naming a single investor, and pre-seed is the worst affected stage.
Thirty-three names appear in the round data but not as profiles. IPO underwriters, asset managers and corporate strategics — AllianceBernstein, ARK Invest, Bank of America, Allen & Co. and similar. They remain on the rounds so the record stays accurate, but calling them CPG investors would be misleading. That is a judgment call, and it is reversible.
Mandate detail is uneven. Eighteen firms have published cheque sizes, revenue thresholds and stated theses on file. The rest show what they have published and explicitly state what they have not, rather than filling the gap with an estimate.
The tracker runs every Monday against primary trade reporting. New rounds are graded on the tiers above, existing firms have their counts and dates updated, and rounds from the previous sixty days are re-checked for corrections, downsizes and retractions. A firm previously graded Listed is upgraded to Deal-verified the week a round confirms it.
Every profile carries the date it was last verified and where its facts came from, so an error is traceable to a source rather than to a vague database.
If something here is wrong, it gets fixed. Corrections and removal requests are honoured promptly and without argument — see the corrections page. Firms can also claim their own record and edit the mandate fields; the public-record facts, the rounds and dates, stay as filed.