Beyond one-size-fits-all: Empirical evidence on the heterogeneity of equity crowdfunding investors’ decision drivers

The equity crowdfunding literature tends to treat investors as a homogeneous group, assumed to be using similar decision-making criteria when considering investment. Those acknowledging heterogeneity often derive investor types from cluster analyses using platform-level data, which combines behavioural indicators with explanatory factors that may yield unstable, sample-specific groupings. In this study, we adopt Olsson’s (2021) typology as a theoretical baseline, classifying investors by two observable behavioural dimensions, average investment amount and portfolio breadth. However, we operationalise this framework empirically and analyse variations in investor decision-making. Drawing on 14,130 investment decisions by 8732 investors on the Israeli platform PipelBiz, we identify four types with distinct decision profiles: Friends and Family, Hobby Retail Investors, Niche Interest Angels, and Speculative Angels. The groups differ in their responses to minimum ticket size, equity offered, campaign round, business model, and team traits. Our analyses reveal that different types of investors weigh campaigns’ informational cues differently, highlighting segment-specific preferences, motivations, and decision-making rules. The results contribute to the growing body of literature on the heterogeneity of equity crowdfunding investors and its implications, while providing evidence that challenges the notion of a one-size-fits-all approach in the context of equity crowdfunding investors. The findings offer practical guidance for entrepreneurs and platforms seeking to target, design, and sequence campaigns to attract specific investor segments and improve fundraising outcomes.