Cross-Sector entity

In-Q-Tel

vc_firm
7.8

Accel is the most frequent co-covered peer, appearing in 3 of the 4 tracked stories. That works out to roughly 0.3 stories per week across a 107-day span. The busiest single day carried 3. The clearest coverage concentration is defense-tech: 1 of 4 stories, with the rest divided among 3 other categories.

4 verified stories tracked

Last mentioned: Jun 18, 2026

Entity pulse

Recent coverage · In-Q-Tel

4 stories
7.8 avg impact
75% positive
0% negative

Coverage balance Positive coverage leads. Positive coverage exceeds negative coverage by 75 percentage points.

  • 75% positive
  • 25% neutral

Figures are computed live from our source-verified story record — see our methodology for how impact and sentiment are derived.

What the coverage shows about In-Q-Tel

Accel is the most frequent co-covered peer, appearing in 3 of the 4 tracked stories. That works out to roughly 0.3 stories per week across a 107-day span. The busiest single day carried 3. The clearest coverage concentration is defense-tech: 1 of 4 stories, with the rest divided among 3 other categories. We currently track 4 Cross-Sector stories that mention In-Q-Tel, published between March 4, 2026 and June 18, 2026. The tracked stories average 2.5 original sources each.

Stories tracked
4
Per week
0.3
Sources per story
2.5

Computed from the 4 stories linked to this entity. Beat comparisons are omitted because no baseline was available for this window.

Coverage cohort

Appears alongside

Other entities that clear the same relevance threshold in stories also covering In-Q-Tel. Shared-story counts are live from our verified record — not editorial picks.

Stories mentioning In-Q-Tel 4

Startups market trends Neutral 7

Colossal Biosciences Faces Ethical Backlash Over $225M Mammoth Revival Project

Colossal Biosciences is advancing its mission to revive the woolly mammoth by 2028, sparking intense debate over the ethics of de-extinction. While the startup has secured over $225 million in venture capital, critics argue the project is a costly distraction from urgent conservation efforts for living species.

4 sources