Kevin O’Leary says women entrepreneurs generate most of his Shark Tank returns, and he openly admits a bias toward backing them.
He credits their discipline on risk and targets. However, his real edge comes from how fast the money flows back, not how fast the companies grow.
Why Slower Businesses Pay Off Faster
In a video clip posted on X, O’Leary said about 70% of his hit deals involve businesses run by women.
He pointed to a trade-off between growth and reliability.
“These women generally didn’t grow businesses as fast, but they hit their numbers more often.”
To explain it, he cited an old saying that if you want something done, you give it to a busy mother.
That pattern matters because of how he measures success. In Shark Tank deals, he argues, an investor earns nothing until the original capital comes back.
As a result, O’Leary favors royalty deals and structures that pay out distributions every month. Most of these small companies will never go public, so steady cash flow becomes the realistic exit.
The claim is not new. Back in 2022, he told CNBC that 75% of his returns came from companies run by women. However, his figures reflect one investor’s Shark Tank portfolio rather than a broad market study.
Beyond startups, he also chases tangible assets and plans to hold 5% of his portfolio in collectible sports cards.
What Kevin O’Leary’s Bet on Women Entrepreneurs Signals
Meanwhile, his stance runs against how capital usually moves. Industry leaders keep pushing for more women in Web3 ownership and funding, where founders still struggle to raise money.
Wealth managers face a similar gap. A recent BlackRock survey found that advisors misread wealthy women, who mostly built their fortunes through careers.
For Kevin O’Leary, women entrepreneurs represent a return-of-capital strategy rather than a social cause. The same focus on risk shapes his crypto view, since he ties Bitcoin reaching $1 million to resolving quantum computing fears.
If more investors judged founders by cash returned rather than growth speed, the funding gap could look very different.
