Get access now
Sign up now to access private market investments on Citizen Mint’s platform.
METRICS • CONTEXT • JUDGMENT
When an advisor evaluates a public mutual fund, the scorecard is familiar. Trailing returns, a benchmark, a Sharpe ratio, and an expense figure cover most of the conversation. Private markets do not work that way. A buyout fund and a private credit fund can both report strong performance while measuring it on entirely different scales, and a single fund can look excellent or unremarkable depending on which number you put first.
For RIAs and family offices building allocations to private equity, private credit, real estate, and infrastructure, fluency in these metrics is part of the diligence itself. The numbers are not interchangeable, because each one answers a specific question and carries its own blind spot. What follows is a practical walk through the metrics that show up most often in fund materials, what they actually capture, and how they line up against the major asset classes.
The central complication in private markets is that investors do not put all of their money to work on day one. Capital is committed, then called over several years as the manager finds deals, and distributions come back unevenly as those deals are realized. A public market return assumes a clean start and end, while a private market return has to account for money moving in and out at irregular intervals, which is exactly where the two main return measures part ways. That same timing problem produces a pattern every private markets investor learns to recognize, the J-curve.
Early fees and conservative markdowns push reported returns negative before realizations drive them up. A fund judged in year three tells you almost nothing about where it lands.
In the first few years, a fund draws capital, charges fees, and carries young investments at or below cost, so the reported return sits in negative territory. As the portfolio matures and exits begin, the line turns and climbs, which is why an early-stage IRR is closer to a snapshot taken mid-story than a verdict on the fund.
Internal rate of return (IRR) is the headline figure for most closed-end private funds. It is the annualized rate that accounts for the size and timing of every cash flow, the capital called, the distributions returned, and the value of whatever the fund still holds. Because it weights cash flows by when they happen, IRR rewards getting money back quickly and penalizes capital that sits idle, which cuts both ways. A manager who returns capital early posts a higher IRR and that is useful information, but a manager who delays capital calls by borrowing through a subscription credit line can lift the same number without improving anything underneath, which is why IRR should be read alongside the multiples rather than on its own.
Time-weighted return (TWR) answers a different question. It strips out the effect of when cash moved and isolates how the underlying assets performed period by period. TWR is the right tool when the manager does not control the timing of contributions and withdrawals, which is the case for public portfolios, separately managed accounts, and the growing set of open-end and evergreen private vehicles where investors enter and exit on their own schedule. It is the standard most advisors already use for the liquid side of a client’s portfolio.
IRR is money-weighted, reflecting the investor’s actual dollar-timed experience in a fund where the manager controls the cash. TWR is time-weighted, reflecting the manager’s performance independent of that timing. Comparing one fund’s IRR against another fund’s TWR is comparing two different rulers, and in a side-by-side that gap can quietly flatter the wrong fund.
If IRR captures the speed of return, multiples capture the magnitude. They answer the simplest question a client ever asks: how many times did we get our money back?
MOIC (multiple on invested capital) divides total value, both realized and still held, by the capital invested. It is usually quoted gross of fees and ignores time entirely. A 2.0x is a 2.0x whether it took two years or nine, which is why MOIC and IRR have to be read together.
TVPI (total value to paid-in) is the net-of-fees cousin most LPs track. It divides everything the fund has returned plus everything it still holds by the capital the investor has actually paid in. TVPI breaks cleanly into two parts.
DPI (distributions to paid-in) is the realized portion, the cash that has actually left the fund and landed in the investor’s account, which cannot be marked up or revised later. As a fund ages, DPI becomes the number that matters most, because it is the only one that reflects money in hand rather than an estimate.
RVPI (residual value to paid-in) is the unrealized portion, the value still sitting in the portfolio at the manager’s current marks. Early in a fund’s life almost all of the multiple is RVPI, and the quality of a track record is largely a question of how reliably that paper value has converted into cash over time.
A young fund’s multiple is almost entirely paper. A credible manager turns that residual value into distributions, which is why mature-fund diligence leans on DPI.
Two funds can both show a 1.8x TVPI, but the one carrying most of that as DPI has proven it can exit, while the one carrying most of it as RVPI is still asking you to trust the marks.
Because IRR is time-sensitive and MOIC is not, the same investment can look very different through the two lenses. A quick flip that doubles capital in a year produces a spectacular IRR and a modest multiple, while a patient hold that triples capital over eight years produces a strong multiple and a far more ordinary IRR.
A 2.0x earned in three years outpaces a 3.0x earned in eight on an annualized basis. Neither number is wrong, and neither is complete on its own.
The two belong together for that reason. A manager who leads with IRR may be highlighting fast, smaller wins, while one who leads with MOIC may be holding longer for larger absolute gains at a lower annualized rate. Both can be sound approaches, and the number a manager reaches for first usually tells you something about how the firm actually invests.
Allocators lean on one more measure that rarely shows up in fund marketing: the public market equivalent (PME). It takes a fund’s actual cash flows and asks what the same money would have earned if it had been invested in a public index instead, over the same timeline. That converts an absolute return into an opportunity-cost comparison and answers the question a committee eventually asks, which is whether the private allocation actually beat what they could have bought in the public market with no lockup. For asset classes that compete directly with public equity, PME is often the most honest scorecard available.
No single metric is right across the board, because the strategies behind these funds generate returns in different ways. Buyout returns come from buying companies, improving them, and selling them; private credit returns come from contractual income; core real estate and infrastructure blend steady yield with slower appreciation. The metric that captures performance has to match the shape of the return.
The right lens depends on how a strategy produces its return: income strategies are judged on yield, while equity-style strategies turn on multiples and annualized rates.
A few patterns stand out:
Buyout and private equity are the natural home of the IRR, MOIC, and DPI trio. The strategy is built on entry, value creation, and exit, so the annualized rate, the multiple, and the realized cash all carry weight, with PME as the right check against the public equity these funds compete with.
Venture capital leans hardest on multiples and DPI, because returns follow a power law where a small number of investments drive the result, and the holding periods are long enough that early IRRs are noisy to the point of being unreliable. A venture track record is best read through what it has actually returned, not what it is annualizing on paper in year four.
Private credit is an income story, so cash yield and a stable IRR do most of the work, and multiples are less informative here because debt has a capped upside by design. For the evergreen credit structures now common in the advisor channel, time-weighted return becomes the cleaner way to evaluate the manager, since investors move in and out continuously.
Core, open-end real estate is measured primarily on a time-weighted basis, the convention that underpins the major open-end property indices, paired with current income yield. The manager does not control investor cash flows, so TWR is the fair comparison.
Value-add and opportunistic real estate, by contrast, behaves more like private equity and is judged on IRR and the equity multiple, with cash-on-cash yield as a supporting figure.
Infrastructure sits between the two, since core infrastructure generates long-duration, contracted income, so cash yield carries real weight alongside IRR and the multiple over a longer horizon than most buyout funds.
Evergreen and semi-liquid structures, the format reshaping how RIAs and family offices access these markets, deserve a closer look. Because investors subscribe and redeem on a rolling basis and the manager does not dictate the timing, the closed-end logic of IRR and DPI fits awkwardly, and time-weighted return becomes the appropriate lens, which is part of why these vehicles report performance in a way that looks more familiar to advisors used to evaluating public funds.
Metric | What it measures | Time-sensitive | Net of fees | Reads best for |
IRR | Annualized money-weighted return across all cash flows | Yes | Gross or net | Closed-end PE, real estate, infrastructure |
TWR | Return isolated from cash flow timing | No | Net | Open-end, evergreen, marketable strategies |
MOIC | Total value over capital invested | No | Usually gross | Magnitude check on any equity strategy |
TVPI | Total value over capital paid in | No | Net | Overall fund-level multiple |
DPI | Cash actually distributed over paid in | No | Net | Mature funds, realized track record |
RVPI | Unrealized value over paid in | No | Net | Gauging how much return is still on paper |
Cash Yield | Recurring income over invested capital | Partial | Net | Private credit, core real estate, infrastructure |
PME | Fund result versus a public index | Yes | Net | Testing private allocations against public markets |
The reason to learn this vocabulary is not to win an argument about which metric is best, it is to know the right follow-up question. A striking IRR is an invitation to ask for the multiple and the realized DPI behind it. When most of a track record still sits in RVPI, the question is how the manager’s earlier funds actually converted paper marks into cash. And when two managers in the same strategy report on different measures, the job is simply to put them on the same one before judging either.
Private markets reward investors who can read past the headline number. For advisors building durable allocations for their clients, that fluency is what separates evaluating a manager from being marketed to.
This material is for educational and informational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice or an offer to sell or a solicitation of an offer to buy any security. Illustrative figures and charts are hypothetical, are provided to explain the metrics discussed, and do not represent the performance of any specific fund or investment. Past performance is not indicative of future results. Private market investments involve substantial risk, including the potential loss of capital and limited liquidity.
Sign up now to learn the benefits of private market investing for financial advisors
Sign up now to access private market investments on Citizen Mint’s platform.