That said, the UI is encouraging visitors to prioritize information that isn't important. For example, % equity, $ per %, and average funding.
The equity stuff isn't important because all of them take so little that an early-stage company shouldn't be worrying about it. The mindset that "we're gonna be a $1B company, so 1% is worth $10M to me" is common and insane. New founders need to snap out of that.
I've seen tons of founders quibble over a few percent, and none of them were successful. Successful founders get past those issues and execute.
As for the average funding: the most successful company won't need to raise anything at all after going through an accelerator. So the metric of "how much was raised after leaving the accelerator" is lumping the failures along with the super successful. That makes it a useless metric.
Here's the data that would be ideal, although I'm well aware that it's not necessarily possible:
0. Reviews! Great idea. These will be absolutely vital once you get some traction. You need to have a very strict way of verifying identities though -- maybe force people to show you their certificate of incorporation for the company that went through the accelerator, even if their review is anonymous to the public. Some accelerators will act like a cabal and game the rankings if you don't do this.
1. % funded companies that either exit or survive for 5 years
2. % of mentors who have successfully exited in the past (an accelerator with investor-only mentors is just a shitty angel investment)
3. [x] alumni with highest valuations (3 would probably be enough)
4. Age of accelerator