In addition to initial financing, venture capital (VC) firms also provide other value-added contributions. Many VC firms and their portfolio companies consider these value-added contributions the most significant contributions VC firms make. The value-added contributions have been found to be different depending on whether the VC firm is a “traditional” VC firm or “corporate” venture capital (CVC) firm. Traditional VC and CVC firms have different investment objectives and possess different areas of expertise, leading to differences in the value-added contributions provided. The differences in the value-added contributions raise the question of whether the performance of portfolio firms is affected by the type of venture capital backer. This study seeks to 1) quantify the impact of VC-affiliation on portfolio firm performance, and 2) compare the differences in performance of VC and CVC firms’ portfolio companies. The paper examines the financial performance, IPO valuation, and stock performance of VC-backed, CVC-backed, and independent companies in the 3-year period following an IPO. The years 1998, 1999, and 2002 (representing the height of the tech bubble and bear market of the early 2000s recession) were chosen as the sample period. The results of the analysis indicate that VC-backed companies as a whole outperform independent companies in every aspect, confirming that the value-added contributions of VC firms help the performance of their portfolio companies. The performance of portfolio companies also differed depending on the type of their VC-backer. Traditional VC-backed portfolio companies had higher revenue growth and IPO valuations, while CVC-backed portfolio companies had higher net income growth and slightly better stock performance. Ultimately, the results confirm that VC firms improve portfolio company performance, and the impact of the VC firm’s value-added contributions differs depending on the type of VC-backing.