DPI, MOIC, TVPI: Fund Metrics Decoded

Private equity fund performance is measured through a small set of metrics, each with a specific meaning and specific weaknesses. Together, they give a fuller picture than any single number. Separately, they can be manipulated to flatter performance.

This article covers the five most important fund metrics — Paid-In Capital (PIC), MOIC, DPI, RVPI, TVPI, and IRR — what each measures, how they relate, what they hide, and the games managers play. The intended audience is LPs comparing fund opportunities, GPs preparing fundraising materials, and analysts learning the language.

Paid-In Capital (PIC)

The first and simplest metric. Paid-In Capital is the cumulative amount of capital that LPs have actually contributed to the fund, as distinct from the amount they committed.

$\text{PIC}=\text{Cumulative capital contributed by LPs}$

A fund with $1Bcommittedand$700M paid-in has $700MofPIC.Theremaining$300M is "uncalled" — LPs are obligated to fund it when the GP makes capital calls.

PIC is important context because most other metrics are expressed as multiples of PIC. A 2x DPI on a fund with low PIC means less in absolute terms than a 2x DPI on a fund with full PIC.

Multiple on Invested Capital (MOIC)

The most intuitive metric: total value (realized plus unrealized) divided by paid-in capital.

$\text{MOIC}=\frac{\text{Distributions + Net Asset Value}}{\text{Paid-In Capital}}$

A MOIC of 2.0x means the fund has produced (or is on track to produce) 2x the capital that LPs contributed.

MOIC ranges:

• Below 1.0x: capital not yet returned, or fund underperforming
• 1.0–1.5x: weak performance
• 1.5–2.0x: average
• 2.0–2.5x: good
• 2.5–3.0x+: very good
• 3.0x+: exceptional

These ranges depend on vintage, strategy, and market context. The same MOIC means different things for a 2010-vintage fund vs. a 2020-vintage fund.

MOIC's weakness: it ignores time. A 2.0x return achieved in 5 years is much better than the same MOIC in 10 years. This is where IRR comes in.

Distributed to Paid-In (DPI)

DPI is the cash distributions a fund has paid to LPs, divided by the capital contributed. It is the realized portion of MOIC.

$\text{DPI}=\frac{\text{Distributions}}{\text{Paid-In Capital}}$

A DPI of 1.0x means the fund has returned exactly the capital that LPs contributed. Above 1.0x means LPs have received more than they put in. Below 1.0x means LPs are still waiting on returns of capital.

Why DPI matters most: it's the only fully realized metric. Unlike MOIC and TVPI, DPI doesn't depend on portfolio valuations the GP controls. The cash either left the fund and went to LPs or it didn't.

In recent years, LPs have increasingly focused on DPI as the metric that matters. The IPO and exit drought in 2022–2024 produced funds with strong reported NAVs but weak DPI — LPs got "paper" returns but not cash. This created the saying: "Show me the DPI, not the IRR."

Residual Value to Paid-In (RVPI)

RVPI is the unrealized portion of returns — the current Net Asset Value of remaining portfolio companies divided by paid-in capital.

$\text{RVPI}=\frac{\text{Net Asset Value}}{\text{Paid-In Capital}}$

If a fund has DPI of 1.2x and TVPI of 2.0x, then RVPI is 0.8x — meaning 0.8x of paid-in capital is still held in unrealized investments.

RVPI's weakness: NAVs are estimates. The GP marks portfolio companies at "fair value" using DCF, comparable companies, and recent transactions. There is meaningful judgment involved, and GPs have incentives (for fundraising) to mark optimistically.

Total Value to Paid-In (TVPI)

TVPI is the same as MOIC for a given fund — total value over paid-in capital. The terms are often used interchangeably.

$\text{TVPI}=\text{DPI}+\text{RVPI}=\frac{\text{Distributions + NAV}}{\text{Paid-In Capital}}$

Some practitioners use TVPI to refer to the fund-level number and MOIC to refer to deal-level. Others use them interchangeably. Both refer to the same calculation.

Internal Rate of Return (IRR)

IRR is the time-weighted return on the fund — the rate that makes the present value of all cash flows (contributions out, distributions in) equal to zero.

For LPs, the fund's IRR is reported "net of fees" — after management fees and carry have been paid. This is the actual return earned.

Why IRR matters: it accounts for time. A 2.5x MOIC achieved in 5 years (IRR ≈ 20%) is much better than a 2.5x MOIC in 10 years (IRR ≈ 10%). Comparing funds requires both metrics.

IRR's weaknesses:

1. It can be manipulated through timing. A fund that returns capital quickly (via dividend recaps) boosts IRR without necessarily creating more total value.

2. Early distributions create distortion. A fund that has one quick big winner has very high early IRR; later mediocre exits drag the IRR down. The reported IRR depends on what stage of the fund you're measuring.

3. It assumes reinvestment at IRR. Standard IRR math implicitly assumes interim cash flows are reinvested at the IRR rate. For high-IRR funds, this assumption is unrealistic.

For these reasons, sophisticated LPs increasingly use public market equivalent (PME) — comparing fund returns to what would have been achieved by investing the same cash flows in a public market index. PME is more rigorous but more complex.

A worked example

Atlas Fund I — $500M committed, vintage 2018, observed as of MMXXV (7 years in):

• Capital committed: $500M
• Capital contributed (paid-in): $475M (95% called)
• Distributions to LPs: $625M
• Current NAV: $350M

Computed metrics:

• PIC: $475M (called capital)
• MOIC / TVPI: ($625M+$350M) / $475M = 2.05x
• DPI: $625M/$475M = 1.32x
• RVPI: $350M/$475M = 0.74x
• Net IRR: approximately 16% (depends on timing of cash flows)

Interpretation: Atlas Fund I has returned LPs 1.32x their paid-in capital in cash. They still hold portfolio NAV equivalent to another 0.74x. If the remaining portfolio is sold close to current NAV, total returns will be ~2.05x. The fund is performing at the upper end of "good" returns. The 16% IRR is solid but not exceptional.

The fund is in mature harvest phase — most of the value has been realized; the remaining portfolio will be exited over years 7–10.

The games managers play

Three specific games to watch for:

Game 1 — Optimistic NAVs in fundraising periods.

When a GP is fundraising for a successor fund, they have an incentive to report strong NAVs. The same portfolio that might be marked at $300Mduringnormalperiodscouldbereportedat$350M during active fundraising. The audit committee and quarterly reporting provide some discipline, but there is judgment involved.

How to spot: compare NAV trends to comparable public market valuations. If the GP's portfolio is up 20% YTD while public market peers are down 15%, the marks are likely aggressive.

Game 2 — Subscription line manipulation of IRR.

Many funds use credit lines (subscription lines, capital call lines) to delay calling capital from LPs. They invest first using borrowed money, then call capital later. The effect: paid-in capital is delayed, which inflates IRR (less time-discounted denominator).

How to spot: the difference between "called IRR" and "since-inception IRR" is a clue. Sophisticated LPs increasingly request both. The recent ILPA (Institutional Limited Partners Association) guidance has pushed for more transparency here.

Game 3 — Selective IRR reporting.

GPs may report "fund-level IRR" (the actual return to LPs) and "gross IRR" (before management fees and carry). The latter is invariably higher and is less meaningful to LPs. Sophisticated LPs want net IRR — the actual return after all fees.

How to spot: ask for the calculation. Reputable firms disclose the methodology and component cash flows.