While I appreciate the attempt, this was pretty shoddy data analysis. First, Crunchbase's data is pretty bad. I saw a spreadsheet floated around some time ago that had a lot more YC companies listed on it (~200) so this is def not comprehensive. I'd imagine their TechStars data is even less complete given they tend to cover TS less than YC.

In terms of the analysis, some attempt to normalize the data would have been good.

Also, time-series figures would be more interesting as it would help show which program might be gaining or losing momentum.

In general, the idea of total funding being the best metric is laughable given how a few outliers skew the data.

It would have been interesting to see how quickly companies raise after the programs conclude. In a sense, analyzing by vintage/class would be more useful.

And then to conclude with the following "Y Combinator beat TechStars in many of these metrics, but none of these numbers translate to which (if either) is the best fit for your startup. That’s for you and them to figure out."

If your going to do some data analysis, try to make it actionable/useful and stand by it or take an opinion vs just a shallow attempt at data analysis which you neuter with caveats.