This is a weekly feature that runs down the week鈥檚 top 10 announced funding rounds in the U.S. Check out last week鈥檚 biggest funding deal roundup here.

This week, most of the largest U.S. startup funding rounds centered around the sector one would suspect: artificial intelligence. This was true for the week鈥檚 largest venture financing, a $1.5 billion Series F for AI inference technology provider , as well as a majority of rounds in the Top 10. Beyond that, the next-biggest area for startup funding was biotech.

1. , $1.5B, AI inference technology: Baseten, a provider of systems software to run AI applications workloads, raised $1.5 billion in Series F funding, its fourth fundraise in 18 months. , , , and co-led the round, which set a $13 billion valuation for the San Francisco-based company.

2. , $1B, digital marketing: AppsFlyer, a San Francisco-based provider of data analytics with digital marketing as a core use case, reportedly secured more than $1 billion in a Series E funding round at a post-money valuation of $2.7 billion. Backers reportedly include , , and .

3. , $650M, AI inference technology: San Francisco-based Groq closed on $650 million in new funding led by and that it says will be used to scale its AI inference cloud technology and infrastructure. The investment comes just over six months after an acquihire-type transaction in which hired away its founder and key team members and licensed its technology.

4. , $330M, ophthalmic therapies: Ollin Biosciences, a developer of therapies for vision-threatening diseases, picked up $330 million in Series B funding. and led the financing for the Austin-based company.

5. , $320M, foundational AI: General Intuition, developer of a foundational AI model based on gameplay, secured $320 million in Series A funding at a $2.3 billion valuation. led the financing for the New York-based company, while backers including and participated.

6. , $250M, government software: Peregrine Technologies, provider of a platform used by public safety agencies and other government entities, secured $250 million in Series D financing. , , , , and led the financing, which set a $6.8 billion valuation for the San Francisco-based company.

7. (tied) , $200M, risk intelligence: Palo Alto, California-based Quantifind, developer of a risk intelligence platform for financial crime detection and national security operations, closed on $200 million in growth financing led by .

7. (tied) , $200M, foundational AI: San Francisco-based Mirendil, a frontier lab building systems that excel at AI R&D, says it raised a seed round of $200 million led by and . The startup also counts as a backer.

9. (tied) , $190M, AI infrastructure: AI networking infrastructure startup Upscale AI raised $190 million in Series A extension funding, bringing total financing to $500 million. led the round, which set a $2 billion valuation for the Santa Clara, California-based company.

9. (tied) , $190M, biotech: San Francisco-based Osanni Bio, a therapeutics platform focused on ophthalmic therapies and other treatments, secured $190 million in Series B funding led by .

Large non-US deals:

The week also brought some large European rounds:

, $569M, defense tech: Berlin-based defense tech startup Stark reportedly raised $569 million in a financing led by and .

, $546M, insurance: Paris-based health insurance startup Alan secured $460 million in new investment in primary and secondary equity led by .

Methodology

We tracked the largest announced rounds in the 附近上门 database that were raised by U.S.-based companies for the period of June 18-26. Although most announced rounds are represented in the database, there could be a small time lag as some rounds are reported late in the week.

Illustration:

Those were the unsurprising findings of a 附近上门 analysis of U.S. startup acquisition outlays in 2026. So far this year, acquirers have spent at least $119.8 billion buying private, venture-backed companies, on pace to exceed 2025鈥檚 record-setting tally.

For 2026, however, about half of total M&A spending on U.S. startups comes from a single deal: 鈥檚 $60 billion of AI coding tool Cursor and its parent company . SpaceX first announced an option to the company in April and consummated the deal after its IPO this month.

The Cursor purchase represents the largest startup acquisition of all time, nearly double the size of the prior frontrunner, 鈥檚 purchase of for $32 billion. After that, the next-biggest startup M&A deal was 鈥檚 $19 billion acquisition of in 2014.

Other big M&A deals

While other 2026 startup purchases weren鈥檛 setting records, many of them were still on the historically large size.

To illustrate, we used 附近上门 data to put together a list of the 10 largest disclosed-price U.S. startup acquisitions this year.聽1 The bottom nine range from $2 billion to $7 billion.

Biotech was a standout

Biotech was especially big. This is due in large part to , which announced in April that it was acquiring , a developer of gene therapies with a particular focus on cancer treatment, in a deal valued at up to $7 billion in cash. Per 附近上门 data, the high end of the purchase price represents the largest acquisition of a venture-backed biotech company in years.

Lilly was also the acquirer in two other deals in our Top 10 ranking. The pharma giant bought , a developer of RNA therapeutics, for up to $2.4 billion, and , a developer of blood cancer therapies, for up to $2.3 billion.

Overall, half of the 10 largest deals this quarter were biotech transactions. However, in most cases the number represents the maximum potential acquisition price, which will require the acquired company to meet pre-determined milestones, typically around clinical results and commercialization.

Brex, Modular and more

Outside of biotech and, of course, Cursor, the next-largest acquisition was 鈥檚 purchase of business credit card and account provider for $5.15 billion. It’s followed by ‘s acquisition, announced yesterday, of AI chip startup for $4 billion.

Further down the list is 鈥檚 2聽acquisition this month of , a provider of AI-enabled customer experience tools, and 鈥檚 purchase of , an industrial AI platform, each at $3.6 billion.

With the second quarter winding to a close, we wouldn鈥檛 rule out the likelihood of another big deal making headlines in coming days. Even if that doesn’t happen, however, it鈥檚 already clear that 2026 is shaping up as a big spending year for startup M&A.

Related 附近上门 queries:

Illustration:

led the financing, which included participation from , and existing backers. The raise brings the company鈥檚 total funding to more than $76 million since its 2018 inception and values it at $127 million post-money. That鈥檚 more than double the valuation of its previous funding round 鈥� a $25 million Series A that closed in December 2023.

“Healthcare has spent decades generating enormous amounts of patient data without a reliable way to make that information usable,鈥� said xCures CEO in an exclusive interview with 附近上门 News. 鈥淲e鈥檙e changing that.鈥�

Venture investment in healthcare and biotech companies that have an AI bent has been on an upward trajectory in recent years. As of June 22, investors have put an estimated $8.5 billion into seed- to growth-stage funding for companies in AI-powered health tech categories, according to 附近上门 data. In 2025, funding to the sector across all stages $15.8 billion. This year鈥檚 total is already nearly as much as the $8.6 billion raised in the category in all of 2024.

Pivoting to solve a problem

Founded in 2018 as a spinout from by , xCures initially launched to provide decision-support tools for patients with advanced cancer. At its inception, the company focused on patients with Stage 3 or Stage 4 recalcitrant cancer diagnoses, where standard care options were exhausted.

While working with thousands of patients across the country in a direct-to-consumer setting to build its initial model, the company encountered a systemic bottleneck.

鈥淲hat we learned in the process was that the decision-making was hard,” Newton said. “These are complicated things, but doable. But the even harder thing was to get our hands on the data and information about the patient that we needed in order to give them the advice in the first place.鈥�

At the time, patient records were arriving at the company in boxes and over fax machines. This logistical hurdle prompted xCures to pivot to build the underlying infrastructure needed to connect directly to national healthcare interoperability networks. Today, xCures hooks into these electronic exchanges on behalf of its customers, shifting its primary focus to structuring what Newton described as the industry’s 鈥渄irty data.鈥�

鈥淭he data in those medical records is incredibly dirty, so it’s duplicative. There are pictures of things, scans of things. There are errors that are caused because it’s all human entry,鈥� Newton explained. “There鈥檚 lots of narrative information, and we turn it all into something that basically is clinical intelligence or the clinical clarity an organization needs to make its next decisions.鈥�

Creating a 鈥榗linical clarity engine鈥�

Patient information remains scattered across thousands of labs, hospitals, imaging centers and electronic medical records, often arriving as unstructured documents that are difficult to use in clinical workflows. This is where xCure can provide a differentiated experience, according to Newton.

鈥淭hey’re [competitors] really in the transport business 鈥� moving data from Point A to Point B,鈥� he noted. “We think of our product as the executor’s clinical clarity engine. We’re in the business of taking that transported data and making it into something that’s actually instantly useful, versus just moving it from one space to another.鈥�

The xCures Clinical Clarity Engine, he said, solves this by integrating capabilities to generate decision-ready checklists from automated patient histories, backed by evidence-grade data. Newton estimates that the engine is three to five years ahead of anyone else in the market. To date, xCures has processed more than 300 million medical records sourced from more than 550,000 healthcare locations nationwide, supporting clinical decisions for millions of patients across the U.S., per the company.

To manage this volume without incurring the extreme processing costs associated with running massive, unstructured files through generic models, xCures utilizes a variety of AI, combining its own home-built machine learning models with commercial frontier models from existing vendors. The company manages these tools through a proprietary governance framework.

鈥淲e really see it as the harness for 鈥� the process for applying AI, and how we make sure that the tasks that we’re asking the AI to do are appropriate and well-governed, and that the rules of engagement are really clearly defined,” Newton said.

High growth and enterprise adoption

This technological approach has driven impressive traction. Operating on a usage-based SaaS model with committed caps, xCures grew from roughly $3 million to $10 million in annualized recurring revenue in 2025, according to Newton, and it鈥檚 on track to break $20 million in 2026.

While xCures achieved cash-flow breakeven last year, the company has intentionally entered a capital-burn phase to build its team for its 2027 business pipeline, he added.

The startup鈥檚 enterprise customer base consists of 25 clients, including lab diagnostic companies such as , and . Large hospital networks use the tool to 鈥渋nstantly鈥� generate patient histories for operating room scheduling, screen for comorbidities and estimate operative times ahead of surgeries. The engine is also used by telehealth providers lacking robust Electronic Health Record architectures, as well as by Medicare Advantage plans seeking to automate population risk stratification, prior authorizations, medical-necessity documentation and administrative appeals.

Solving healthcare’s most expensive grunt work

Ultimately, Newton believes that reducing the immense administrative drag built into the American healthcare system is crucial.

“Companies like xCures really reduce the administrative burden and represent the fastest path to realizing value in healthcare for everybody who’s involved in it,” Newton said. “This idea that we can use AI not to do things that doctors should do, but just to make it all better, easier, faster, cheaper and better for everybody involved … there’s just a lot of, like, grunt work that you should do that’s really expensive, and so that’s probably the most immediate opportunity.”

, partner at Innovius, wrote via email that his firm backed xCures because it was impressed with its ability to 鈥渓ocate, extract, and normalize messy data across thousands of incompatible sources.鈥� By applying real clinical context to surface exactly what matters, the investor noted that Mika Newton and his team are successfully “building the foundational AI data layer that will power the entire healthcare industry.”

Related 附近上门 query:

Related reading:

• 附近上门 Sector Snapshot: Funding To AI-Related Healthcare Startups Is Robust This Year

Illustration:

The Menlo Park, California-based firm highlighted its early investment in , which last month overtook rival as the top-valued frontier lab in the world with a staggering $965 billion valuation. While Menlo Ventures鈥� investment in Anthropic鈥檚 was not its first bet on artificial intelligence, the firm described it as its 鈥渇lag-planting moment.鈥�

鈥淲e made our first investment in Anthropic in 2023, when the company was pre-product, pre-revenue. By then, ChatGPT was a household name, and many believed the LLM race was already decided. We saw it differently,鈥� the firm wrote in published Tuesday. 鈥淚n and his founding team 鈥� arguably the most accomplished researchers in the field 鈥� we saw the rare mix of technical depth and clarity of purpose that defines a category leader. We were convinced there was room for another independent foundation model company, that Anthropic was the team to build it, and that an investment in Anthropic could anchor our broader AI strategy.鈥�

The firm went on to lead Anthropic鈥檚 the following year.

鈥淭hat early relationship gave us a rare vantage point on the model layer and on the infrastructure, workflows, and application opportunities forming around it,鈥� the firm said this week.

Two new funds

The firm鈥檚 new capital is across two funds: , earmarked for seed and Series A startups, and , a growth fund for Series B and later startups that are 鈥渁lready pulling away from the pack and on their way to becoming the breakout names of the AI era.鈥�

Along with Anthropic, other notable Menlo Ventures investments over the years include , , , and . Anthropic, which has filed plans for a 2026 IPO, would be the largest exit to date for one of its portfolio companies by far, with an expected IPO target of $1 trillion or more.

Related 附近上门 query:

Related reading:

• Anthropic Nears $1T Valuation And Leapfrogs OpenAI On 附近上门 With Massive Funding Round

Illustration:

During his tenure as chair from 1987 to 2006, Greenspan was renowned for his cryptic utterances on the economy, leaving rate-watchers befuddled as to whether they presaged a likely cut or hike. His wife, veteran correspondent , famously that their marriage took time because 鈥渉e claims he proposed three times before I was able to understand. He was so oblique. It was like his testimony.鈥�

In spite of his long history of obfuscation, however, Greenspan is best known for a fairly unambiguous two-word phrase: 鈥渋rrational exuberance.鈥� He coined it in a 1996 to the聽 , a conservative-leaning think tank, titled 鈥淭he Challenge of Central Banking in a Democratic Society.鈥�

One of the speech鈥檚 core points was the notion that pricing logic in an industrial economy dominated by durable goods and materials is far simpler than for a modern economy increasingly dominated by software and services.

鈥淲hat is the price of a unit of software or a legal opinion? How does one evaluate the price change of a cataract operation over a 10-year period when the nature of the procedure and its impact on the patient changes so radically?鈥� he mused, before turning to that most famous insight.

That insight, if I am translating Greenspan-speak correctly, was linked to the question of how one can establish long-term confidence in valuations of assets tied to fast-changing technologies and business models, like software, where prior notions of unit economics no longer applied.

鈥淗ow do we know when irrational exuberance has unduly escalated asset values, which then become subject to unexpected and prolonged contractions,鈥� he wondered. It鈥檚 a conjecture that 30 years later still has no obvious answer.

Notably, Greenspan鈥檚 speech actually predated the most heated periods of the dot-com boom, bubble and implosion, which began in the late 1990s and culminated with the hitting its cyclical peak in early 2000. During and shortly after that period, money-losing e-commerce companies like online grocer and pet supply retailer famously went public at then sky-high valuations before abruptly shuttering. Internet infrastructure providers fared even worse, exemplified by networking equipment maker going from Canada鈥檚 most valuable company to penny stock in a couple years.

But while losers lost big, winners eventually eclipsed them. Dot-com-era megastars and , for instance, are now worth nearly $8 trillion combined.

That brings us to one of Greenspan鈥檚 other well-known analogies: the lottery ticket.

In Congressional testimony in early 1999, pressed for his thoughts on then fast-rising share prices of hot internet companies, the Fed chair the stock-buying frenzy to playing the lottery. He observed that people have long been willing to pay more for a lottery ticket than their chances of winning would justify, simply because they are drawn to the remote chance of a huge win.

”And undoubtedly some of these small companies, which have stock prices going through the roof, will succeed and they very well may justify even higher prices,” he said. ”The vast majority are almost sure to fail. That’s the way the markets work in this regard.”

Fast-forward to today, and one is easily drawn to apply Greenspan鈥檚 analogy to the current AI mania. Once again, we鈥檙e seeing unprecedented valuations attached to money-losing companies, many in still relatively nascent stages of development.

In other ways, however, this time it鈥檚 not a dot-com lottery ticket redo. For one thing, the companies in which a retail investor might be buying said ticket are by no means small. , at its current market cap, is the sixth-most valuable U.S. public company. It鈥檚 priced like a winner, not a wanna-be.

Same holds true for recent valuations for and , both of which have confidentially filed for public offerings likely to debut in coming months. Anthropic hit a $965 billion post-money valuation, while OpenAI鈥檚 was recently around $852 billion.

One wonders what Greenspan would say about these stratospheric asset price levels. I鈥檇 suspect there are better than lottery-ticket odds that it would be something cryptic.

Related 附近上门 query:

Related reading:

• The AI Startup Funding Boom Is Not A Global Phenomenon
• The SpaceX IPO Filing Looks Nothing Like Those Of The Elite Group Of Tech Giants It’s Hoping To Join

Photo: Dr. Alan Greenspan, former Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve, speaks at the Per Jacobsson Foundation Lecture, October 21, 2007, in Washington, DC. (Photo by International Monetary Fund Photograph/Stephen Jaffe used under the .)

Illustration:

It used to be that if you invested in SaaS, you slept well at night. Returns were predictable because the business model was subscription-based and incredibly scalable: build a horizontal cloud-based platform to target as wide a market as possible, charge per seat and grow by expanding the user base.

1, and their peers returned billions to investors on that model. But now, due to AI, where AI agents are replacing humans as the user (through what the industry calls 鈥渉eadless鈥� models) and upending the per-seat model, the SaaS market has lost its predictability. January’s $300 billion single-session wipeout is a leading indicator that the old SaaS model has passed its peak.

Investors are retrenching and trying to predict what鈥檚 next as the three frontier AI companies vault into the public markets at multitrillion-dollar valuations. We would argue that these infrastructure platforms enable the next wave of software innovation: AI-native software that automates and enables the $2 trillion white-collar services market.

Generic, horizontal SaaS, as we know it, is a declining legacy model (like on-premise software before it), but investors still have reason to be optimistic about the software market. That鈥檚 because AI-native software is going after a much larger opportunity than SaaS ever claimed and the productivity gains and value creation opportunities are unprecedented. The target markets are vertical industry focused and highly specialized, priced differently and built on proprietary data moats that didn’t exist five years ago.

Death of per-seat pricing

SaaS has always been priced on a per-seat basis. That model evaporates the moment AI agents generate most of the usage. A company that once needed 100 CRM licenses for its sales operations team may soon need just 50.

Technology companies facing that reality have to choose a new path forward beyond connecting people鈥檚 workflow: perform and charge for the actual work done (usage) or based on outcomes (ROI). A legal AI platform charges per contract drafted, doing the work of a lawyer. Here the software charges for some fraction of the labor it replaces. A spend management AI-native software application can take a percentage of overages found or a chargeback software application could take a fee on the value of the chargebacks it successfully recovers.

The next era of AI-native software runs on automation and performing knowledge-worker actions, not connecting workers or workflows. These solutions reach beyond IT budgets to much larger labor budgets. The companies that adapt will build faster, deliver more value and command a premium for it.

Horizontal is a liability

Generic horizontal SaaS is the most vulnerable to this changing market. If an entire product is a wrapper around a workflow that an AI agent can now handle autonomously, the value proposition may be greatly reduced. Form builders, project management platforms, SMB-focused CRMs, off-the-shelf social schedulers: these categories are compressing fast and may not recover.

The defensible positions now belong to vertical niche specialists, companies that have built what we call the three 鈥淒s.鈥� Distribution through a recurring and longstanding customer base.

Domain expertise specialized to operate in regulated or complex industries. Proprietary data that drives decision-making and is closely held by customers and inaccessible to frontier models.

When your product is built around the specific workflows, terminology and compliance requirements of one industry, ending a vendor relationship is less about migrating data and more about rebuilding a complex web of experiences, corner cases and historical knowledge. Customers stay not because they’re trapped, but because the cost of retraining, reconfiguring and finding a vendor who understands their world is too high.

The more deeply a company understands the regulatory environment, the operational constraints, and the institutional logic of a specific industry and a specific customer, the harder it becomes to displace.

Legal contract repositories, insurance underwriting criteria, bank loan performance data; once embedded in a model and a workflow, these assets create high switching costs that dwarf anything a generic SaaS contract ever produced. You can export a Salesforce contact list. You cannot export your underwriting logic.

People are part of the product

The model that will define the next decade of B2B software deliberately combines software and services, what practitioners call Human-in-the-Loop, or HITL: pairing agentic intelligence with human judgment at the points in a workflow where it matters most.

Legal, healthcare, cybersecurity, construction, financial services, defense; these verticals are defined by high stakes, regulatory complexity and contextual judgment. Routine and repetitive tasks may be mostly automated, but some portion of decisions will always require human judgement because the cost of errors or omissions is prohibitive.

This solutions-centric customer relationship changes what a software company fundamentally is. When a vendor is embedded in how a client operates, handling onboarding, workflow design, optimization and quality control, it accumulates something pure SaaS rarely achieved: proprietary data, domain expertise and institutional trust. Every client engagement makes the product smarter and each deployment deepens the moat.

This is why the most durable software businesses of the next decade will be built inside verticals, not across them. The companies that understand this will stop treating services as a cost of implementation and start treating them as a compounding asset.

A bigger market than SaaS ever was

Even capturing a small fraction of what projects is a $6 trillion annual productivity opportunity from AI transformation dwarfs the traditional enterprise software market. AI-native vertical platforms no longer just compete for the technology budget, they also compete for the labor budget, the compliance budget and the risk budget. That’s a much bigger pie and a more strategic partnership conversation than any per-seat SaaS vendor ever got to have.

The winners won’t be companies that bolt AI onto existing SaaS products, or that add a services layer as an afterthought. They will be the firms with true subject matter expertise that happen to run on AI-native software. They will collapse the boundary between software and services entirely, building businesses whose value compounds with every customer relationship and every data asset they accumulate.

The AI-native software company is a fundamentally different kind of company than the SaaS era ever produced. And it’s worth considerably more.

is the founder, managing partner and chair of the investment committee at . He launched Lateral with a strategy to allocate first institutional growth capital to independent, owner-operated middle-market businesses underserved by typical buyout firms. Previously, he served as a managing director at , a venture capital and growth equity firm that has invested in more than 300 companies including , , , , and . De Silva also previously co-founded , a marketplace for construction equipment that was sold to for nearly $800 million. He received an MBA from , a master of philosophy from the , and an undergraduate degree from .

Related 附近上门 query:

Illustration:

Globally, robotics startups have so far raised $18.8 billion in 2026, compared to $15 billion in the full year of 2025. The figure also handily surpasses the $14.1 billion raised in the peak venture funding year of 2021, and we still have more than six months of fundraising left.

The impressive rise in funding reflects a marked shift in perception among venture investors about the robotics sector, which was traditionally considered an expensive, asset-heavy hardware gamble. In particular, investors appear to be drawn to startups working on embodied AI, or artificial intelligence with a physical body that interacts with the real world in real time.

Noteworthy recent rounds

The surge in funding is driven by a number of robotics-focused startups raising considerable capital from investors this year. Also, interestingly, two of the five largest raises in 2026 to date have been by Austin-based companies.

Topping the list of largest deals in 2026 so far is Austin-based , a defense tech startup focused on autonomous sea vessels. In March, the 4-year-old company raised $1.75 billion in Series D funding, bringing its total funding to around $2.6 billion. led the round, which set Saronic鈥檚 valuation at $9.25 billion 鈥� more than double its Series C level in 2025.

Earlier this month, Germany鈥檚 , a developer of AI infrastructure for robots to learn, collaborate and operate across real-world environments, said it secured up to $1.4 billion in Series C funding. led that raise.

In January, , a robotics company building an 鈥渙mni-bodied鈥� brain to operate any robot for any task, announced that it had raised $1.4 billion, tripling its valuation to over $14 billion. That financing came just over seven months after Skild raised at a $4.5 billion valuation. led the startup鈥檚 latest round, which included participation from , 鈥檚 venture capital arm.

On June 15, Beijing-based , which creates water robots and intelligent unmanned equipment, raised $1 billion in a massive Series A round led by .

And in February, AI-powered robotics company raised $520 million in an extension of its $415 million Series A raise in February 2025, bringing the total round to over $935 million. Existing backers , , and joined new investors, including and manufacturing giant in participating in the extension.

Interestingly, spinout has already raised two rounds in 2026. In March, the Palo Alto, California-based startup closed on a $500 million Series A round, co-led by and . Then in May, it raised another $400 million in a financing led by . The company is developing an AI-enabled industrial robotics platform focused on automating industrial and manufacturing tasks at scale.

Exits

While mergers and acquisitions have been relatively robust with several strategic buyouts, the robotics IPO landscape is a bit quieter, particularly in the U.S.

In China, however, a number of robotics companies have recently gone public. The of , targeting a $3 billion to $7 billion valuation, was considered a milestone for the industry. In March, the company filed for an to list on the , and its IPO was widely expected to spur other startups in the space to pursue their own public-market debuts.

, a startup based in China鈥檚 Shandong province that makes lightweight industrial robots, in May listed on the , raising about $86 million. And it did not disappoint. Robotphoenix closed its first full day of trading at HK$53.75 ($6.86 U.S.), up nearly 80%, though shares have dipped to the HK$37 range more recently.

On the M&A front, a number of Big Tech and automotive giants have been aggressively acquiring embodied AI and humanoid talent to anchor their physical automation strategies.

In February, AI-powered supply chain provider acquired , an Austin-based maker of autonomous forklifts and lift trucks.

Skild AI in April that it had picked up the robotics arm of in an effort to deploy its technology to warehouses.

And in May, tech giant entered the humanoid robotics field directly by acquiring San Diego-based . The team was absorbed into Meta’s Superintelligence Labs unit to accelerate training of its foundational physical AI model.

Related 附近上门 queries:

Related reading:

• 5 Startup Sectors Seeing Big Funding Growth
• The Year Of Humanoid Robots
• Embodied AI Fuels Record Robotics Funding In China As IPO Momentum Builds
• Amid Record Robotics Funding, Apptronik Raises $520M Series A Extension To Boost Production Of Humanoid Robot Apollo
• Robotics Startup Skild AI Lands $1.4B, Tripling Valuation To $14B In Just 7 Months

Illustration:

This is a weekly feature that runs down the week鈥檚 top 10 announced funding rounds in the U.S. Check out last week鈥檚 biggest funding deal roundup here.

This week was not an exceptionally busy one for large funding deals, though we saw sizable rounds in a lively mix of sectors ranging from AI to fintech to quantum computing and cybersecurity. The biggest raise was for AI world-model developer, which secured a $310 million Series B. Venture investors also put money into AI infrastructure and AI models for biotech.

1. , $310M, artificial intelligence: Menlo Park, California-based Odyssey raised $310 million at a $1.45 billion valuation in a Series B round led by . Other investors included ,,,, and . Odyssey develops AI world models that create multimodal simulations of real-world environments. The startup has now raised $337 million in funding to date, .

2. , $140M, fintech: New York-based Chronograph secured a $140 million private equity round led by . The company provides portfolio monitoring, reporting and diligence software for private capital investors, an increasingly important market as private assets continue to grow. The new raise, which it describes as growth capital, brings its total funding to date to $160 million, according to .

3. (tied) , $100M, AI infrastructure: Boulder, Colorado-based Hydra Host raised a massive $100 million Series A led by . A of other investors joined, including ,, , and . The company operates a bare-metal GPU platform that connects customers to distributed AI computing infrastructure. With the latest investment, it has raised just under $119 million to date.

3. (tied) , $100M, cybersecurity: Startups that promise to protect companies in the AI era are also raising massive sums right out of the gate. This week, Santa Clara, California-based Ent.AI emerged from stealth and said it has raised $100 million in seed funding led by. Other investors included,, 1,, and. The company, founded by former executives and members of the Security Copilot team, offers an AI-powered workspace security platform that it says can analyze user and AI-agent behavior in real time to proactively prevent cyber threats.

3. (tied) , $100M, cybersecurity, defense: Arlington, Virginia-based Twenty Technologies secured a $100 million Series B at a $1 billion valuation. The round was led by, with participation from, and. The company develops AI-enabled cyber warfare systems for the U.S. military and intelligence community, helping automate and accelerate offensive cyber operations at scale. Founded by former cyber operators and defense technologists, Twenty Technologies has now raised $138 million to date,. It鈥檚 part of a growing wave of venture-backed startups building software for military and national security purposes.

3. (tied) , $100M, quantum computing: Berkeley, California-based Atom Computing raised a $100 million Series C led by that brings its total private investment to date to just over $191 million, . and also backed its latest round. Along with the venture money, Atom also received a $100 million Letter of Intent from the under the CHIPS and Science Act that gives the startup additional public backing in exchange for a minority government stake. The company develops neutral-atom quantum computers, one of several competing architectures seeking to commercialize quantum computing. It is one of several quantum startups to receive sizable funding deals this year, following a record-breaking venture investment year for the sector in 2025.

7. , $65M, biotechnology: Watertown, Massachusetts-based Triveni Bio raised a $65 million Series C co-led by and. Additional participation came from. The company develops antibody-based therapeutics for immunological and inflammatory diseases. It has now raised $272 million total from investors, .

8. (tied) , $52M, semiconductor infrastructure: Menlo Park, California-based AttoTude secured a $52 million Series C led by. Other investors included ,,,, 2, and. The startup develops high-speed interconnect technology for AI and hyperscale data centers and has raised $142 million to date, according to . It comes amid robust funding for semiconductor startups this year.

8. (tied) , $52M, digital media: Beverly Hills, California-based Richard Roths Media raised a $52 million venture round led by . The company says it delivered AI-driven marketing and advertising services for 鈥渉igh trust鈥� industries such as banking, law and healthcare. The investment appears to be its first outside capital, per 附近上门.

10. (tied) , $50M, artificial intelligence: San Francisco-based Bland AI raised a $50 million Series C led by . The of other investors includes , , founder , and others. The company develops AI-powered voice agents that automate inbound and outbound phone conversations for enterprises, a category that has seen growing adoption as businesses look to replace traditional call-center workflows. It has raised $106 million to date, according to .

10. (tied) , $50M, fintech: Brooklyn-based Interchecks secured a $50 million Series C led by,, and. The company operates a payments platform that allows businesses to manage deposits and payouts through a single API, reflecting continued investor interest in infrastructure that simplifies financial operations. It has now raised just under $79 million to date.

10. (tied) , $50M, artificial intelligence, biotechnology: Menlo Park, California-based Radical Numerics emerged from stealth and said it has raised a $50 million seed round led by, with participation from , and . The startup is developing AI models designed to simulate and predict biological systems, with the goal of accelerating drug discovery and advancing precision medicine.

Large non-US deals:

• The largest startup deal outside of the U.S. this week was very large indeed, and also very unusual. , the Chinese AI chatbot startup that briefly roiled public AI-related stocks in early 2025, reportedly took its first outside financing, worth roughly $7.4 billion. The Series A deal, however, comes with a lot of atypical caveats, notably that investors in the deal didn鈥檛 actually receive a stake in DeepSeek, but rather in an LLC controlled by founder , per . Those investors also reportedly face a five-year lockup and receive no voting rights.

Methodology

We tracked the largest announced rounds in the 附近上门 database that were raised by U.S.-based companies for the period of June 13-18. Although most announced rounds are represented in the database, there could be a small time lag as some rounds are reported late in the week.

Illustration:

His investment mandate primarily focuses on early-stage technology companies from seed to Series B that align with or impact the global telecommunications, network infrastructure and enterprise software sectors.

Under his leadership, AT&T Ventures targets investments in software, hardware and infrastructure sectors where AT&T’s network scale and internal engineering resources provide a distinct commercial or technical diligence advantage. Portfolio companies include enterprise and deep-tech firms such as , , , , and .

Prior to his current 12-year stint directing AT&T Ventures, Taneja spent more than two decades working across corporate development, venture lending and investment banking. He previously managed M&A and strategic investment activities for during ownership.

Taneja also served as a director at , where he focused on growth-capital debt and equity investments in mid- to late-stage technology businesses, as well as holding corporate finance and investment banking roles at and .

In an email interview with 附近上门 News, Taneja shares why he believes that while AI has drastically lowered the barrier to building software, it has also shifted the definition of seed-stage technical risk.

The new dynamics, in his view, gives AT&T Ventures an opportunity to differentiate itself by offering immediate, real-world technical validation and network integration rather than just capital.

The interview has been edited for brevity and clarity.

附近上门 News: If startups are building fully functioning apps by the seed round using AI, what does that mean for the traditional definition of technical risk? Is tech risk dead at seed, or has it just evolved into something else?

Vikram Taneja: The old definition of technical risk was 鈥渃an they build it?鈥� Although not entirely absent at the seed stage, I鈥檇 say it is becoming less relevant given the dramatically lower barrier to building software with AI tools.

But what replaced it is actually harder to answer: 鈥淚s the tech defensible?鈥� Not just 鈥渄oes it work?鈥� but 鈥渄oes it compound?鈥�

Data moats, proprietary training sets, network effects built into the architecture 鈥� that’s the new measure of durability.

In prior cycles, technical complexity alone created some natural protection. As a result, the technical risk conversation has shifted to focus on how a company defends itself over the next three to four years, especially as frontier labs move down the stack into application layers and start targeting entire verticals.

Similarly, the distribution question shows up much earlier. 鈥淗ow can you get this to market?鈥� is increasingly asked at the seed stage rather than later in the cycle.

We鈥檙e also seeing increased competition for investors to secure larger stakes at seed that they would have previously pursued at the A round. This is driving investors to be more thorough at the seed stage, and founders have to be prepared to meet higher expectations across the board.

When anyone can use AI tools to spin up a working app in a weekend, product execution happens fast, but moats can be incredibly shallow. At the seed stage, how are you separating a truly defensible platform from a beautifully executed wrapper?

Taneja: In early 2025, we saw a wave of AI wrapper companies built on top of frontier models like ‘s GPT, 鈥檚 Claude or LLaMA, and a lot of capital flowed into them. What鈥檚 changed is that frontier LLMs have now clearly started to take more of a platform approach 鈥� moving into the application layers and beginning to pick off the low-hanging fruit.

This is why defensibility becomes critical in AI investing. No platforms are totally defensible, but on some level, you have to ask that question now at the seed stage.

We鈥檙e looking for platforms using proprietary data that can鈥檛 be replicated by AI, companies that have embedded deep domain expertise 鈥� areas where general-purpose AI still lacks industry context 鈥� into their workflows, or highly specialized ecosystems or niche markets that provide another layer of insulation in categories that are too targeted for frontier labs to pursue directly.

Are you seeing a change in the actual headcount or makeup of seed teams? If AI handles the heavy lifting of the initial code, are these founders spending their seed capital on engineers, or are they shifting resources immediately to distribution and go-to-market?

Taneja: There is still an engineering focus in the early stage, as there should be, but we are increasingly seeing product, sales, or partnership roles becoming sought after earlier than in the past. And the reason is, as you stated, that it鈥檚 easier to build a working prototype, or even a production-ready application, so the focus very quickly turns to establishing trials with customers or exploring distribution paths to dial in the product features.

For strategic investors like AT&T Ventures, where we often do proof-of-concepts with potential portfolio companies, this is very exciting. We get a chance to work with companies earlier in their formation, can get real technical validation much earlier than otherwise, and can similarly try to find a path to collaborate more quickly.

AT&T Ventures has traditionally played heavily in the Seed to Series B space. If institutional VCs are rushing to seed to grab larger stakes because the tech is mature, how does that change the competitive landscape for CVCs? Are you finding yourself competing directly with traditional multistage funds earlier than before?

Taneja: The makeup of seed rounds has definitely changed. Multi-stage funds used to show up at Series A or B when there was enough traction to underwrite. Now they’re at seed because, as we discussed, the companies are mature enough, and they are trying to find winners earlier in the cycle. So yes, we’re in the same rooms as before.

But I’d push back on the idea that we’re competing directly.

A Tier 1 financial VC鈥檚 seed check and an AT&T Ventures seed check are different instruments. They are offering capital, brand, guidance and pattern recognition from backing hundreds of companies.

We’re offering something a financial VC structurally does not: our network teams working with your product in a production environment, oftentimes before we even write the check, for example. That’s free diligence running in both directions. We’re validating the company, but it’s also receiving a real-world signal from one of the world’s largest network operators.

For a seed-stage company that’s already solved the building problem and now needs distribution, that鈥檚 tangible value and complementary to what financial VC firms are providing. So that competitive pressure has actually sharpened our value proposition. It forces us to bring more than just capital to the table.

Historically, corporate partners want to see enterprise readiness, security compliance and scalability 鈥� things a seed startup rarely has. If a seed startup has a fully functioning product but is still a two-person team, can an enterprise like AT&T actually run a pilot with them, or does the corporate integration timeline become a bottleneck?

Taneja: It starts with strategic rationale. That has always been the entry point for us at AT&T Ventures, and that hasn鈥檛 changed. If that is in place, then it doesn鈥檛 always require full enterprise readiness to start a pilot. It can be a structured trial or a highly targeted engagement, depending on the company’s stage.

We have a number of ongoing proof of concepts with portfolio companies across areas such as AI-RAN, connected infrastructure and computer vision.

The key is clarity upfront 鈥� clarity on what the objective of the engagement is and how we measure success. Once that is clear, even early-stage companies can be integrated into a learning or testing environment without unnecessary delay. The goal is to make the AT&T relationship feel like an accelerant to further adoption.

If seed is the new Series A in terms of product maturity, are you seeing Series A pricing bleed into the seed round? How are you disciplined about valuations when the product looks like a Series A, but the company infrastructure is still very early?

Taneja: Seed pricing indeed looks different than maybe four or five years ago. We鈥檙e routinely seeing seed deals priced in the low- to mid-single-digit-million range at about $20 million to $25 million post-money. This is pretty much where Series A deals were a few years ago. But it鈥檚 not necessarily unjustified 鈥� the makeup and traction of seed-stage companies are much further along than predecessor vintages as we鈥檝e discussed.

We stay disciplined by being explicit about what we’re actually underwriting. We’re not just underwriting the financial return on this round 鈥� we’re underwriting the strategic value of the relationship over a five- to 10-year horizon.

Does this company make AT&T’s network more intelligent? Does it open up a new customer segment? Does it validate a thesis we’re building around? Are there commercial opportunities beyond our initial thesis? When you frame it that way, it gives us a longer horizon to work with and provides multiple levers to pull.

And honestly, that’s where our engineering and product teams play a key role. They help us decipher whether the product that looks like a Series A is actually built like one, or whether it’s a great demo sitting on a foundation that hasn’t been stress-tested. That technical read bolsters our conviction when making investments.

A functional AI app at the seed stage still requires massive infrastructure. When you evaluate these early-stage companies, how much does their underlying architecture and how they handle data processing or edge computing factor into your decision?

Taneja: Architecture is a key part of our diligence process. The way we think about it really depends on the ultimate use case. Is it for internal use 鈥� i.e., a tool that AT&T will be working with in our environments 鈥� or is it something we鈥檇 be distributing or incorporating into some form of product offering?

If the former, all aspects of the architecture will be reviewed, and this is most likely to occur throughout trials and proof of concepts as we develop a technical understanding of the application or product. If it鈥檚 the latter, then we鈥檙e likely most interested in understanding how this product architecture scales over time and what it means from a cost, latency and infrastructure perspective. We love to see companies embracing edge-related technologies, but that doesn鈥檛 preclude us from working on applications that use traditional data processing methods.

You鈥檝e spoken before about your interest in 鈥減hysical AI鈥� and robotics (like Apptronik). The software lifecycle is easily compressed by generative AI, but hardware and physical deployment take time. Does this 鈥渟eed is the new Series A鈥� trend apply to pure-play software strictly, or are you seeing AI accelerate physical tech and IoT at the early stage too?

Taneja: Physical AI is a sector we鈥檝e been looking at quite a bit, particularly because inference and decisioning in autonomous systems, robotics and connected devices create a very different type of demand profile on networks.

The software layer is clearly accelerating 鈥� things like perception, control systems and decisioning are moving faster because of AI (the rounds show it!). That will ultimately help pave the way for the adoption of physical AI. However, the physical deployment cycle still takes time, so you don鈥檛 see quite the same level of time compression there.

What is interesting for us at AT&T is the intersection 鈥� how intelligence is moving closer to the edge and how that changes the way networks need to be architected to handle those workloads.

Related 附近上门 queries:

Related reading:

• In Charts: Seed Deals Keep Getting Bigger As Odds Of Reaching Series A Fall Dramatically
• Amid Record Robotics Funding, Apptronik Raises $520M Series A Extension To Boost Production Of Humanoid Robot Apollo

Illustration:

Six months later, a new tech came along that shook the market. While only a few customers left and the financials remained strong, the stock went down, fast.

This is the danger boards must confront. Disruption rarely announces itself during a crisis. It often appears when the business still looks strong.

For boards, AI, and eventually quantum computing, and other technologies, should not be treated as another technology trend. These technologies can reshape pricing, customer expectations, cybersecurity, product development, talent needs and the company鈥檚 business model itself.

Under this fast pace, evolving tech world, company boards should consider the following three points.

Measure the cost of inaction, not just the cost of adoption

Most boards ask: 鈥淗ow much will this AI initiative cost?鈥� That鈥檚 the easy question.

The harder question is: 鈥淲hat will it cost if we are late?鈥�

If a competitor uses AI to reduce costs, accelerate delivery, improve personalization or launch faster products, the cost of delay may be far greater than the investment required. The company may lose pricing power, customer loyalty and market relevance before the damage fully appears in the financials. Every major technology discussion should include a 鈥渃ost of inaction鈥� analysis.

What happens if the company is 12, 18 or 24 months behind? Which margins come under pressure? Which customers become vulnerable? What market image will I have that will impact future clients? Which parts of the product become commoditized?

Challenge the business while it still looks successful

Boards often become more aggressive only when performance weakens. By then, options are limited. The real test is whether the board can challenge management when revenue is growing, customers are renewing and the strategy still appears to work. Success may blur your vision as to what can go wrong.

Boards should regularly ask: Which part of our business would be most vulnerable if AI (or the next big tech change) made it cheaper, faster or easier to deliver? Which revenue stream depends on friction? Which product feature could become free? Which customer process could be automated by someone else?

These questions may feel uncomfortable when things are going well. That is precisely when they matter most.

Build the company that would disrupt your current company

Instead of asking only how to defend the current model, boards should ask management to design the competitor they would fear most.

What would that competitor do differently? How would it price? What teams would it build? What technologies would it use? Which costs would it eliminate? Would it bypass traditional distribution channels?

This exercise forces the company to think offensively. It pushes management to consider bold changes before they become urgent.

For AI, the impact is already visible across software, services, analytics, support, marketing and operations. For quantum, the timeline may be longer, but the strategic implications could be significant in cybersecurity, finance, pharma, logistics and materials science.

Boards do not need to chase every trend. But when technology changes how work is done at the core, when it changes cost structures, speed of development, brand reputation and distribution channels, it becomes a board-level issue.

is a strategic adviser to tech companies, investors, CEOs and boards, specializing in strategy, growth and M&A. He is a guest contributor to 附近上门 News and a university lecturer on strategy, finance and entrepreneurship. Learn more at and connect with him on .

Illustration: