A recent study found that going first is the worst, and going second isn't much better, at least in the realm of pitching startup ideas against others, according to the Harvard Business Review.

The researchers came to this conclusion after running four pitch contests with business student entrepreneurs judged by a panel of local investors. The order in which entrepreneurs went was random. Despite this, the study found that judges consistently rated the first two pitches lower than later pitches. This was the result even after controlling for factors such as race and gender, which have been found to affect how people perceive business pitches.

The authors of the study are unsure as to why judges consistently rated earlier pitches lower than later ones. It could be just a calibration process in their heads, it could be the result of exposure to different markets or ventures at different stages, or it could be how much capital the entrepreneurs needed. All they know is that the results show that if one is pitching against multiple people, then it's best not to go first.

Whether it's better to go earlier or later in a contest varies widely between what kind of contest it is: previous research has shown that, in sports and music competitions, those who go last have the advantage, but in sales or persuasive argumentation, studies have shown going first is the best option. It would seem, perhaps, that pitches for startups have more in common with music and sports, at least in this respect.