RVPI vs TVPI vs DPI vs MOIC: which multiples measure private equity fund performance

Introduction

Imagine two private equity funds, presented to two institutional investors in the same quarter. Both show a TVPI of 1.8x on EUR 100 million of called capital. On paper, their performance is identical. Yet the first has already returned EUR 160 million in cash to its investors, while the second has returned only EUR 30 million and keeps the rest as a value estimated by its own manager. The two investors will not decide the same way, and their investment committees are right not to confuse the two situations.

This gap is not theoretical. According to Bain & Company's Global Private Equity Report 2026, distributions to investors, relative to the net asset value of funds, stayed at about 14% in 2025, a level last seen in 2008 and 2009 during the global financial crisis. This ratio has remained below 15% for four consecutive years. The sector still holds around 32,000 unsold companies, valued at about USD 3.8 trillion, and the average holding period at exit approaches seven years.

The report puts it this way: « distributions measured this way have lagged historical averages for four straight years, a new record for the modern private equity industry » (Bain & Company, Global Private Equity Report 2026).

The problem lies in how these funds communicate their performance. The TVPI adds two elements of a different nature: cash already received, which is a fact, and the value of unsold holdings, which is an estimate. The same TVPI can therefore reflect secured performance or performance still to be proven. This is precisely the distinction that the four reference multiples, DPI, RVPI, TVPI and MOIC, make it possible to restore, provided they are read together.

The stakes are concrete for business leaders. A shareholder selling to a fund, a co-investor negotiating an entry into the capital, or a family deciding whether to reinvest needs to know whether the financial counterparty is under liquidity pressure. The new performance template published by the ILPA in January 2025 reinforces this requirement: it obliges fund managers to report their multiples in a standardised way, on a gross and net basis, with and without the effect of subscription credit lines.

This publication sets out the definition of each multiple, traces the origin of their use, shows how to calculate and combine them, and offers a numerical demonstration of the pitfalls of reading TVPI in isolation. It then examines the bias of unrealised valuations, the effects of subscription lines, the role of the IRR, the most common mistakes, and two cases handled by Hectelion in France and Switzerland, before answering the most frequent questions.

Have the real situation of your financial counterparty analysed

Hectelion supports business owners and selling shareholders in transactions involving a private equity fund. Reading the fund's multiples is part of the preparation: it helps anticipate the balance of power, the timing and the structure of the negotiation. When the fund comes in through an LBO structure, the question of debt and financing structure also arises, as explained on our page on financial structuring and in our publication on LBO, MBO, MBI and OBO structures.

→ Book a confidential 30-minute call

Estimate your company's value online for free

Before going into the detail of these multiples, know that Hectelion has developed Acontos, an online audit, due diligence and business valuation tool, powered by Anthropic's Claude Sonnet 5 artificial intelligence and calibrated against Hectelion's own methodology. It produces, within minutes and free of charge, a first estimate of the value of your shares, without retaining any document.

You can launch the valuation simulator to get an order of magnitude, then keep reading to understand how these fund multiples are built.

What DPI, RVPI, TVPI and MOIC measure

The DPI (Distributions to Paid-In) divides the cumulative distributions already paid to investors by the called capital, that is, the share of promised capital that the manager has actually drawn. It is the realised component of performance: every unit of DPI corresponds to cash received.

The RVPI (Residual Value to Paid-In) divides the net asset value of the holdings still owned by the called capital. It is the unrealised component: an estimate prepared by the manager, revised periodically, but never received in cash as long as the assets are not sold.

The TVPI (Total Value to Paid-In) adds the two, so TVPI = DPI + RVPI. It measures the total value generated by the fund, realised and unrealised, relative to called capital. It is the multiple most often reported by managers, and the one most open to misreading.

The MOIC (Multiple on Invested Capital) follows a similar logic, but at another level of analysis. It divides the proceeds from sales and the residual value of a deal by the capital actually invested in that deal, generally on a gross basis, before fees and carried interest. The TVPI, by contrast, is calculated at fund level, on a net basis, over a called capital that includes drawdowns for management fees.

The distinction between the two levels matters. A high MOIC on a single investment says nothing about the net TVPI actually received by the investor, once fees and carried interest have been deducted at fund level.

• Scope: DPI and RVPI break down what TVPI adds together.
• Nature of the figure: only DPI corresponds to an amount actually received in cash.
• Level of analysis: TVPI is read at fund level and on a net basis, MOIC at deal level and on a gross basis.
• Time dimension: none of these four multiples indicates how long the performance took to generate.

From a gross multiple to reporting standards

Before the 2010s, the performance of private equity funds was measured mainly through gross multiples close to today's MOIC, supplemented by the internal rate of return. These indicators did not systematically separate the realised part of performance from the unrealised part. The widespread use of the DPI, RVPI and TVPI as a reference trio took hold over the following years, as institutional investors, faced with longer holding periods and growing unrealised valuations, asked for a finer breakdown.

This demand was carried by the investors themselves, grouped within the ILPA (Institutional Limited Partners Association). Its latest performance template, published in January 2025, is the most recent step in this standardisation, with implementation beginning in the first quarter of 2026. Data providers such as Cambridge Associates, Burgiss or Preqin also make it possible to position a fund against its vintage year and strategy.

Why read these four multiples together

No single one of these multiples is enough to judge a fund. Each hides part of the information that the others reveal, and reading them in isolation leads to predictable errors.

• TVPI alone does not distinguish cash from paper: a TVPI of 1.8x made up 90% of RVPI offers no guarantee of liquidity, whereas the same 1.8x made up 90% of DPI represents performance already secured.
• RVPI depends on a valuation by the manager: the value of unsold holdings is revised by the fund manager, with real room for judgement, especially when market multiples compress.
• DPI understates a young fund: a fund in its early years logically shows a low DPI, because the J-curve delays the first distributions.
• MOIC and TVPI are not directly comparable: mixing a gross performance on a single position with a net performance at fund level overstates the performance the investor actually receives.
• None of the four gives the duration: a TVPI of 2.0x achieved in three years is not worth the same as a 2.0x achieved in ten years.

How to calculate these four multiples

The calculation starts from cumulative called capital, meaning the sum of the drawdowns made by the manager on the total commitment subscribed by the investor since the fund's launch. The DPI divides the cumulative distributions actually paid by this capital, net of management fees and carried interest already deducted. The RVPI divides the net asset value of the remaining holdings by the same capital, as estimated by the manager under the applicable valuation standards.

The TVPI is obtained by addition. The MOIC is calculated separately at deal level: it divides the proceeds already received and the residual value of the holding by the gross amount invested in that deal.

The ILPA model of January 2025 now requires a consistent presentation of these calculations, with a systematic gross and net breakdown. Managers must also report their multiples with and without the effect of subscription lines, using one of two methodologies, known as granular and gross-up, depending on how they track cash flows.

Which multiple to prefer depending on the question

Each multiple answers a specific question. The table below summarises the right use of each one, and reminds you that none should be read alone.

Question asked	Multiple to prefer	Why
How much has the fund actually returned to date?	DPI	The only multiple that corresponds to cash actually received
How much potential remains in the portfolio?	RVPI	Measures unrealised value, to be weighed by the freshness of the valuations
Quick overview of total performance	TVPI, never on its own	Must always be broken down into DPI and RVPI before any decision
Performance of a specific deal or co-investment	MOIC	Isolates the gross performance of one position, regardless of fund fees
Re-up decision with the same manager	DPI, cross-checked against the IRR	Proven ability to return cash outweighs unrealised valuation

Numerical demonstration: two funds with the same TVPI

Numerical example built for teaching purposes, unrelated to any real engagement.

Fund Alpha and Fund Beta both show, at the same stage of their life, a TVPI of 1.8x on EUR 100 million of called capital. On the surface, their reported performance is equivalent.

Fund Alpha has already sold most of its holdings. Its DPI stands at 1.6x, that is EUR 160 million actually distributed, and its RVPI at 0.2x, that is EUR 20 million of residual value. Fund Beta has kept most of its portfolio: its DPI reaches 0.3x, that is EUR 30 million distributed, and its RVPI 1.5x, that is EUR 150 million of value still estimated by its manager.

The two additions both give 1.8x. Yet an investor choosing between the next vintages of these two managers does not have the same information. The first has shown its ability to turn value into cash. The second still has to prove that ability on a large part of its reported performance.

An investment committee that compared only the two TVPIs would wrongly conclude that the performance is equivalent, whereas liquidity risk and the reliability of the performance differ profoundly.

The bias of unrealised valuations

The RVPI rests on an estimate, and an estimate can be generous. The manager revises the value of its holdings under supervised methods, but these leave real room for judgement, especially for illiquid companies or when comparable market multiples move quickly.

A well-informed investor does not reject the RVPI, but questions it. They ask when the holdings were last revalued, on what method, and whether a recent sale confirmed or contradicted the value retained. A gap between the estimated value and the price obtained in a partial sale is a particularly useful signal.

In a negotiation, this reading also helps measure the manager's real room for manoeuvre. The larger the unrealised share and the older the valuations, the more the fund may have an interest in making sales to make its TVPI more credible to its own investors.

Where the fund stands on its J-curve

The fund's position on its J-curve determines how every multiple should be read. The table below stays deliberately qualitative: it describes typical trends by phase, without precise figures by vintage year, because no verifiable primary source gives an exact benchmark.

Fund stage	Typical state of the multiples	Implication for the negotiation
Deployment (first years)	Almost no DPI, TVPI close to 1.0x or slightly below because of fees and acquisition costs	A low DPI at this stage signals nothing unusual; the fund is not structurally under liquidity pressure
Early harvest	First exits, DPI starting to rise, RVPI still dominant in the TVPI	An early signal, not enough to judge the manager's real ability to return cash
Confirmed harvest	DPI expected to rise clearly; stagnation at this stage becomes a signal to examine	A DPI that stalls here strengthens the seller's position: the manager really needs exits
End of fund life	DPI is expected to converge towards the TVPI, with a small residual RVPI	A still high RVPI at this stage signals maximum liquidity pressure, often the ground for continuation funds

Subscription lines: when an IRR can mislead

A subscription facility allows the manager to finance its investments temporarily through debt at fund level, before calling capital from investors. This mechanism delays capital calls.

The result is mechanical: the apparent IRR can improve, because the money invested leaves the investor later, without the value created having changed. The TVPI does not move, which explains why the ILPA now requires it to be presented with and without the effect of these lines.

For a business leader, the consequence is simple: a high IRR must be read in light of the use of the line, and a TVPI presented without any indication on this point should be requested in its version without the subscription effect.

What each multiple brings

The DPI offers an objective measure, since it rests on cash flows actually recorded. It is the most reliable benchmark for comparing managers with one another. The TVPI provides a quick overview, widely standardised since the ILPA model, and remains the most useful for a first screening of a large number of funds.

The MOIC offers a simple and intuitive measure of the gross performance of a deal, useful for comparing portfolio positions with one another, regardless of the fund's overall fee structure.

What none of these multiples guarantees

The RVPI, and therefore the part of the TVPI it carries, rests on a valuation produced by the manager. This method is supervised, but it keeps real room for judgement.

None of the four multiples incorporates duration. The MOIC, calculated on a gross basis at deal level, also overstates the net performance the final investor actually receives.

Why always cross-check these multiples against the IRR

The internal rate of return (IRR) measures annualised performance by taking into account the exact timing of calls and distributions. The four multiples ignore it. Systematically cross-checking these multiples against the IRR therefore remains essential to judge the speed at which value is created, not only its final level.

A solid TVPI combined with a disappointing IRR usually signals performance generated slowly, or a J-curve effect that extends beyond the initial investment phase. The reverse, a high IRR supported by a still modest TVPI, may simply reflect a young fund whose first exits are good but whose overall performance remains to be confirmed.

The five mistakes to avoid

Mistake 1: comparing two funds on TVPI alone

Two funds with the same TVPI can have very different DPI and RVPI compositions, as the numerical demonstration above shows. Comparing on TVPI alone exposes you to underestimating the liquidity risk of one fund relative to the other.

Mistake 2: confusing deal-level MOIC with fund-level TVPI

A high MOIC on a deal, on a gross basis, does not predict the net TVPI received at fund level, once fees and carried interest are deducted.

Mistake 3: judging a young fund on its DPI alone

A fund still in its investment phase logically shows a low DPI. The DPI becomes fully informative only once the exit phase is under way.

Mistake 4: ignoring whether the TVPI includes the effect of subscription lines

A subscription line can improve the apparent IRR without changing the real multiple. You must check whether the figure reported is the one with or without this effect.

Mistake 5: never cross-checking these multiples against the IRR

Reading the level of performance without its speed means ignoring the dimension most decisive in private equity.

Case 1: a French family shareholder facing a co-investing fund

Case built for teaching purposes based on observed market practice.

A family-owned company in the Paris region, active in business services, opens a partial sale negotiation with a private equity fund that has been a minority shareholder for five years. Before entering the negotiation, the family shareholders have the fund's position towards its own investors analysed.

The manager's latest public reports show a DPI of only 0.4x on the relevant vintage, for a TVPI of 1.6x, and a fund approaching the end of its investment period. This profile points to liquidity pressure: the manager needs exits to improve its DPI with its own subscribers before its next fundraising.

Hectelion therefore recommends building this balance of power into the negotiation timetable. The fund is objectively keen on a rapid exit, and the analysis of the multiples makes that case visible rather than assumed.

Case 2: a Swiss family office weighing a re-up between two managers

Case built for teaching purposes based on observed market practice.

A Geneva family office, a long-standing investor in two private equity funds of comparable vintages, asks Hectelion to help it decide on a reinvestment, or re-up, in the next vehicle of one of the two managers.

The first manager shows a TVPI of 1.9x, mainly made up of a DPI of 1.3x, the remaining 0.6x being RVPI. The second shows a slightly higher TVPI of 2.0x, but made up to 85% of an RVPI of 1.7x, with a DPI of only 0.3x.

The TVPI alone would point towards the second manager. The breakdown shows the opposite: the first has turned value into liquidity over a significant part of its cycle, whereas the second still has to prove that ability. The family office retains the first manager, giving more weight to the robustness of the DPI than to a higher nominal TVPI.

A word from the CEO

« In our negotiations with private equity funds, we regularly see business owners and family shareholders ignore the fund's real situation across the table. That is a mistake: a manager under DPI pressure does not have the same balance of power as a manager at the start of its investment cycle.

A high TVPI does not guarantee a fund's ability to return cash to its own subscribers within reasonable timeframes. That is exactly what the breakdown between DPI and RVPI reveals, and it is what clarifies the real balance of power in a sale or co-investment negotiation.

At Hectelion, we systematically include the reading of these multiples in the structuring of our transactions involving a financial sponsor, so that our clients negotiate with a clear understanding of their counterparty's real constraints.

Aristide Ruot, Founder and CEO, Hectelion SA

FAQ: frequently asked questions on DPI, RVPI, TVPI and MOIC

Introduction: what to remember before the questions

The following questions cover the most frequent concerns of business leaders and institutional investors when they interpret a private equity fund's performance through these four multiples.

Q1: What is the formula linking DPI, RVPI and TVPI?

TVPI = DPI + RVPI. The TVPI adds the amount already distributed and the amount still held at its estimated value, both divided by the same called capital.

Q2: Why is MOIC not directly comparable to TVPI?

MOIC is most often calculated at deal level, on a gross basis before fees and carried interest. TVPI is calculated at fund level, on a net basis, over a called capital that also includes drawdowns for management fees.

Q3: Does a low DPI always mean poor performance?

No. A fund still investing logically shows a low DPI because of the J-curve, regardless of the quality of its portfolio.

Q4: Why are institutional investors increasingly favouring DPI?

Because the RVPI, and therefore a large part of the TVPI, rests on valuations estimated by the manager. When distributions remain historically low, as in 2025 according to Bain & Company, investors give more weight to performance actually returned in cash.

Q5: What does the ILPA performance template of January 2025 change?

It requires the joint and standardised reporting of IRR and TVPI or MOIC, on a gross and net basis, with and without the effect of subscription lines, with implementation beginning in the first quarter of 2026.

Q6: Can the RVPI be relied upon?

It can, if it follows the applicable valuation standards. But it keeps a degree of judgement from the manager, especially for illiquid assets or when comparable market multiples compress quickly.

Q7: Should these multiples always be cross-checked against the IRR?

Yes, systematically. None of the four multiples indicates how long the performance took to generate, information that only the IRR provides.

Q8: What is a subscription line and why does it affect these multiples?

It allows the manager to delay capital calls by temporarily financing investments with debt at fund level. The apparent IRR can improve without the real multiple changing, which is why the ILPA requires figures with and without this effect.

Q9: How can a business leader use these multiples in a negotiation with a fund?

By identifying the fund's liquidity situation facing them. A manager close to the end of its investment period with a low DPI is structurally keen on rapid sales, and analysing these multiples makes that balance of power visible before the negotiation.

Q10: Are these multiples comparable from one vintage to another?

Only at a comparable fund age. A 2023 fund and a 2018 fund have not had the same time to realise their performance. Comparisons should rely on databases such as Cambridge Associates, Burgiss or Preqin, which segment funds by vintage and strategy.

Q11: How can the estimated value of a fund be checked?

By asking for the date of the last revaluation, the method used and the recent sales, whose price can be compared with the value retained. A repeated gap between estimated value and price obtained is a warning signal.

Q12: Does a growing market mechanically raise the RVPI?

It can inflate it, since market multiples often serve as a reference for valuations. A rise in estimated value should therefore be checked against the sales actually completed.

Q13: Are these four multiples enough to judge a fund?

No. They give the level of performance, but not the quality of the strategy, the concentration of the portfolio or the discipline of the manager. They must be supplemented by an analysis of the portfolio and the team.

Estimate your company's value with Acontos

To extend this reading with a concrete figure, Hectelion provides Acontos, its online audit, due diligence and business valuation tool. Powered by Anthropic's Claude Sonnet 5 artificial intelligence, it estimates the value of your shares within minutes, a useful starting point before any negotiation with a fund shareholder or a buyer backed by a financial sponsor.

You can launch the valuation simulator free of charge. The tool is confidential, retains no document and does not replace a formal valuation, but it gives a first reliable order of magnitude before discussing it with our team.

Conclusion

The DPI, the RVPI, the TVPI and the MOIC are not competing multiples. They are complementary breakdowns of the same performance: what has been received in cash, what remains in the portfolio, the total value, and the performance of a single deal taken in isolation.

In a context where distributions remained historically low in 2025 according to Bain & Company, the DPI has become the reference for judging performance actually delivered. The TVPI keeps its usefulness as an overview, provided it is never read without its breakdown. Cross-checked against the IRR, the set shows both the level of performance and the speed at which it was created.

Summary of the article

The DPI measures distributions actually received, relative to called capital. The RVPI measures the estimated value of unsold holdings. The TVPI adds the two (TVPI = DPI + RVPI). The MOIC measures gross performance at deal level.

The DPI becomes the multiple to prefer for judging liquidity actually received and for a reinvestment decision. The RVPI must always be read with the freshness of the underlying valuations in mind. The TVPI remains an overview, never sufficient on its own. The MOIC has its place in analysing a single deal or a co-investment.

Two funds with the same TVPI can conceal very different liquidity realities. Cross-checking these multiples against the IRR shows how fast value was created, a dimension no single multiple captures.

The five most frequent mistakes are comparing funds on TVPI alone, confusing deal-level MOIC with fund-level TVPI, judging a young fund on its DPI alone, ignoring the effect of subscription lines, and never cross-checking against the IRR.

Sources

• Bain & Company, Global Private Equity Report 2026
• Cambridge Associates, Private investment performance measurement
• Institutional Limited Partners Association (ILPA), ILPA Releases Updated Reporting Template and New Performance Template, January 2025

Author

Aristide Ruot, Ph.D.
Founder | CEO, Hectelion SA