This is a guest post by Forrest Wright, freelance researcher and analyst focusing on economic development. He previously worked with Startup Genome and the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor. 

It’s the second in a series of three articles on his original US angel investment research. Read the first one here.

In the previous article on regional angel group activity, I mapped where angel groups are most active — and showed that: 

  • Angel group activity (as measured by deal flow) is concentrated among a few large startup ecosystems, and 
  • The most active angel group regions don’t necessarily invest at higher rates locally.
See the US regions getting the most angel funding

This raises a natural follow-up question for ecosystem builders and founders: When angel groups are active, what role do they play in the ecosystem?

Some groups operate like local support institutions — repeatedly backing startups in their own region. Others behave more like national connectors — syndicating across the country and pulling local companies into broader investor networks. And some ecosystems — despite being major startup markets — appear to depend heavily on outside angel participation.

Using the same dataset (145 exclusively angel-group investors across 1,500+ pre-seed/seed/Series A deals logged in Crunchbase from 2019—2023), I’m now looking at regions where angel groups punch above their weight — and what that activity means for the local startup pipeline. 

Instead of ranking metros by raw deal volume, I look at activity per group, how often that activity stays local and whether a region is a net exporter or net importer of angel participation.

For ecosystem builders, this reframes how to evaluate local angel groups. The essential criteria are not just how many exist, but how intensely they invest, and whether they function as a local supporter or national network hub.

Activity per group: Who punches above their weight?

Chicago and Los Angeles rank at the top by average deals participated in per locally based angel group, ahead of the highest-volume angel ecosystem: Silicon Valley. 

Deal volume also brings two new ecosystems into the analysis — Miami and Charlottesville — which did not make the top 10 most active ecosystems overall.

In practical terms, this suggests that in these metros, a relatively small number of groups are carrying a disproportionate share of early-stage participation, which can be both a strength and a capacity risk. 

If a few organizations drive most of the activity, the ecosystem’s early-stage pipeline can be more sensitive to changes in strategy, leadership or member churn. 

Activity isn’t proportional: Where deal share exceeds group share

The next lens compares two “shares” against each other:

  • A region’s share of total angel groups in the dataset, and
  • A region’s share of angel-group deal activity.

If activity were proportional, you’d expect regions to line up along the diagonal. However, some regions underperform or overperform expected angel group deals based on how many groups they have locally. 

A region above the diagonal is essentially “overperforming,” it accounts for a larger share of deal activity than you’d expect given how many angel groups are based there. Below the diagonal, the opposite is true.

This matters because it highlights organizational density versus operational intensity. Some ecosystems have lots of groups but comparatively modest logged activity. Others have fewer groups that show up everywhere.

Importantly, this chart doesn’t necessarily indicate an ecosystem is “good” or “bad.” 

Underperforming can reflect real differences in how angels operate locally. Some regions have angels embedded inside venture firms, accelerator structures or informal networks that don’t show up cleanly as “angel group” deals. 

While in other regions, angel groups may not have the same mission of supporting firms in the venture model of offering discrete pre-seed or seed terms that would get counted as a deal in venture databases. 

Still, the diagonal comparison gives you a simple way to say: Where does angel-group deal activity look unusually concentrated?

Local engines vs. traveling syndicates

Deal intensity alone doesn’t tell you whether angels are fueling the local pipeline. That’s where local deal share comes in, or the share of local angel groups that invested in companies within the same combined statistical area.

A loose grouping of active angel ecosystems emerges from this exercise.

Local engines have high activity and a high hometown focus. Regions like Denver stand out here. 

These ecosystems don’t just have active groups. Those groups disproportionately back local companies. If you’re a local stakeholder, this is what strong local angel infrastructure looks like in practice.

Traveling syndicates have high activity, but low hometown focus. 

Chicago and Houston are the clearest examples in this view. Their angel groups participate in many deals, but a relatively small share of that activity goes to companies in their own CSA. 

That doesn’t mean local founders aren’t benefiting; it may mean these groups are acting as gateways to national networks. But it does suggest that “having active angel groups” doesn’t automatically translate into “strong local early-stage coverage.”

This is where the story becomes actionable. Ecosystem leaders can use this to frame better questions: Do we want our angels to behave like local institutions, like connectors, or some mix? And are our current groups aligned with that goal?

What this means for ecosystem builders

These findings suggest a more precise way to talk about angel groups:

  • Intensity: How active are groups here, relative to how many exist?
  • Local reinforcement: Does activity flow to local companies?
  • Network role: Is the region exporting angel participation, importing it, or both?

The numbers, as always, only tell part of the story. The most productive next step isn’t to rank regions. It’s to build strong relationships with local angel groups and validate what’s happening beneath the surface by looking at how they source deals, why they syndicate (or don’t), what industries they specialize in and how their strategy aligns with local strengths.

For regions trying to strengthen early-stage support, the practical goal is clarity: Are your angels acting as local institutions, connector hubs or traveling syndicates? 

Once you can name the role, you can build the right partnerships around it and leverage what’s already occurring in the ecosystem.