Portugal Golden Visa Fund Market in Charts (2026)

Private Capital Leads the Public Profile Set

Private equity and venture capital account for 20 of the 32 public Golden Visa fund profiles in the June 11 dataset.

Private equity is the largest category in the public profile set, with 14 of 32 profiles. Venture capital adds another six. Together, private equity and venture capital make up 63% of the visible dataset.

That does not make either category better for a specific applicant. Strategy affects liquidity, valuation, reporting, exit timing, sector exposure and tax complexity. A private-equity or venture fund can fit the fund-route evidence test and still be unsuitable for an investor who needs predictable liquidity.

For narrower comparisons, use the dedicated strategy guides for private equity, venture capital, and debt or credit.

Thirty Public Profiles Are Open

The public chart dataset contains 30 profiles marked Open and two marked Closed. The broader public count RPC still shows 38 open Golden-Visa-eligible funds because it uses the canonical market-count definition.

The status chart is intentionally based on public profiles, not every internal row. That makes it useful for readers because it reflects the records a user can inspect on the site.

It also explains why there are two counts in this article. The open-market count is 38, using the public count RPC definition: Golden-Visa-eligible funds where status is Open and the ID is not a pilot or clone. The chart dataset is 32 public profiles where public_visible is true and gv_eligible is true. Of those, 30 are Open and two are Closed.

Closed public profiles can still matter. They help users understand market history and avoid treating old fund names as currently open opportunities.

US Availability Is Mostly Unknown, Not Mostly No

Eleven of the 32 public profiles report accepting US persons. The other 21 are unknown in the current public profile data, not confirmed rejections.

US availability is one of the sharpest practical filters in the fund market. The chart should be read carefully: a confirmed yes means the fund reports that it accepts US persons. Unknown means the public profile does not currently confirm acceptance.

That distinction matters because US tax and reporting issues are separate from Golden Visa eligibility. FATCA can create reporting and onboarding obligations for foreign financial institutions and US account holders. Many US taxpayers who invest in foreign pooled funds also need to review Form 8621 and PFIC treatment with a cross-border tax adviser.

For a shortlist, written confirmation is the starting point. US investors should ask whether the fund accepts US persons, how FATCA onboarding is handled, whether PFIC annual information statements or QEF support are available, and how Form 8621, FBAR and Form 8938 reporting will be coordinated with their tax adviser. The fund's Golden Visa evidence and its US-tax feasibility are separate questions.

Verification Coverage Is Uneven

Seventeen of the 32 public profiles were marked Movingto Verified. Ten public profiles had no last-data-review date in the extracted dataset.

Movingto Verified is a documentation and profile-review signal. It is not a fund recommendation, eligibility guarantee, or statement that an applicant will be approved by AIMA.

The review-recency view is useful because a public profile can be visible while still needing fresher source checks. Three profiles had a review date within the previous 30 days. Seven were reviewed 31 to 90 days before the extract. Twelve were more than 90 days old, and ten had no review date.

That does not mean the older profiles are wrong. It means the next diligence step should be document-level confirmation: current prospectus or management regulations, KID or equivalent investor document, subscription pack, fee schedule, AIMA evidence support and current manager confirmation.

Fee Disclosure Is Strongest for Management Fees

Management fee was disclosed on 31 of 32 public profiles. Performance fee, subscription fee and redemption fee fields had more disclosure gaps.

Fee fields should be treated as screening data. They are useful because they reveal where a profile is complete enough to compare. They are not a total-cost calculation.

In the public profile set, management fees were disclosed on 31 of 32 profiles and ranged from 0.5% to 2.5%, with a 1.8% median. Performance fees were disclosed on 30 profiles, with a 20% median and a 30% maximum. Subscription fees were disclosed on 26 profiles, with a 1.4% median and a 5% maximum. Redemption fees were disclosed on 23 profiles, with a 0% median and a 5% maximum.

The important due-diligence question is not just "what is the fee?" It is what the fee applies to, which expenses sit outside it, whether a performance fee has a hurdle or catch-up, how fees vary by share class, and whether the current fund documents match the public profile. The fee comparison hub and hidden-fee guide explain the document-level review.

The data extract was run against the Movingto Funds production database on June 11, 2026. The public count RPC returned 38 Golden-Visa-eligible funds open to new investment, excluding pilot or clone records, 32 public indexed Golden Visa profiles, 11 fund-reported US yes profiles, 21 unknown US profiles, 17 verified public profiles and a latest review date of 2026-06-10.

The charts use the 32 public profile rows where public_visible is true and gv_eligible is true. That dataset includes profile status, category, fund-reported US availability, Movingto Verified status, last data review date and disclosed fee fields.

Missing fields are counted as unknown or not disclosed. They are not counted as zero. US availability is fund-reported or manager-declared; it is not Movingto tax verification. Movingto Verified is a profile/documentation review signal; it is not an investment endorsement or AIMA approval.

Minimum investment and AUM are not charted here because those fields still contain mixed source conventions in the public profile data. Investors should rely on AIMA's current EUR 500,000 fund-route threshold and the fund's current subscription documents rather than a summary field.

This page does not rank funds or recommend an investment. It is a market snapshot for shortlisting and due diligence. Fund terms can change, and the legal, tax and immigration outcome depends on the applicant, the fund documents and current authority practice.