Global venture funding to financial technology startups totaled $12 billion across 751 deals in 2026 as of April 6, per 附近上门 . That鈥檚 a 5% increase in dollars raised compared to the $11.4 billion raised across 1,097 鈥� or 31.5% fewer 鈥斅燿eals during the same time period in 2025.

This trend signals larger deal sizes. Indeed, late-stage or growth funding in the first quarter of 2026 totaled $6.9 billion, up 8% compared to $6.4 billion raised at those stages in the 2025 first quarter.

However, sequentially, the $12 billion raised is down 33% compared to the fourth quarter of 2025, when fintech startups raised $17.8 billion globally. The $6.9 billion raised in late-stage or growth funding is also down markedly 鈥� by 43% 鈥� compared to the $12.1 billion raised by fintech startups in Q4 2025.

The trend in the first quarter also mirrors what we saw in 2025 as a whole, with global venture funding to fintech startups climbing to its highest level in several quarters, boosted by later-stage deals.

Total global funding to VC-backed financial technology startups totaled $53.8 billion in 2025, per 附近上门 . That鈥檚 an approximately 29.3% increase from 2024鈥檚 total of $41.6 billion raised.

US booms

U.S.-based startups have historically raised more fintech funding than any other country in the world, and the first quarter of 2026 was no different.

Of the $12 billion raised by startups globally, just over half 鈥� or $6.3 billion 鈥� flowed to fintech companies based in the U.S. That was an impressive 47% increase compared to the $4.3 billion raised by U.S. fintech startups in the 2025 first quarter. However, it was down 50% from the $12.6 billion that U.S. financial technology startups raised in the fourth quarter of 2025.

The United Kingdom was the second-largest recipient of venture capital, with startups in the region raising a total of $1.2 billion. India came in third, raising $900 million.

Big deals for unicorns

Several fintech startups raised nine-figure rounds in the first quarter, with some doubling their valuations since their last venture financings.

Predictions marketplace was the largest recipient of capital in the first quarter. In March, the company doubled its valuation to $22 billion in just three months with a $1 billion raise led by . The New York-based startup had just raised $1 billion in Series E funding at an $11 billion valuation in December.

In February, , a digital savings platform, raised $385 million in a Series E funding round co-led by and . The New York-based startup said its new valuation was $2 billion, double it achieved when raising its $125 million Series D round in December 2023.

And in January, , which is building infrastructure for payments with stablecoins, raised $250 million in a Series C funding round led by . Its post-money valuation was $1.95 billion, up 17x from last March.

Investors remain bullish

, partner and head of U.S. at , said his firm has been investing at a slightly slower pace so far in 2026 than in years past. But he cited it as 鈥渕ore a quirk of deal flow鈥� and where it gets conviction, rather than a decision to slow the firm鈥檚 investing pace.

鈥淚t’s certainly true that macroeconomics and geopolitics play a role,鈥� he told 附近上门 News, 鈥渂ut mostly we’re just focused on finding high-conviction companies to back.鈥�

QED is extremely bullish on the application layer for AI in fintech and stablecoin opportunities, and has backed several startups that Gerety said 鈥渉arness the power of LLMs with the security and reliability guarantees that finance needs.鈥� (, which raised a $45 million Series B in January and is building an AI assistant for financial advisers, is one of those companies.)

鈥淛ust in the last few months, agents are now actually able to be effective in many processing tasks, but the stakes in finance are too high for LLMs to conquer financial workflows alone,鈥� Gerety said. 鈥淔inance runs on trust, not probability.鈥�

Looking ahead, he said QED remains bullish on fintech overall for the year. Part of the excitement is around the fact that larger companies are 鈥渢ransforming鈥� their operations with agentic workflows, Gerety noted.

鈥淢ore and more transformation is moving from the 鈥榗o-pilot鈥� phase, and we鈥檙e moving into the ‘OpenClaw’ phase, when reasoning agents will start to actually do all the work that was too tedious and slow to be done manually,鈥� he added.

The geopolitical situation will likely hinder some companies from taking the IPO plunge, in Gerety鈥檚 view, although a few companies in QED鈥檚 portfolios are 鈥渂ubbling.鈥�

, partner at , said his firm is on track to make eight to 10 core investments in Seed or Series A companies this year 鈥� about the same number as in previous years.

鈥淲e鈥檙e investing in AI-enabled applications while maintaining patience and focus in our deployment of capital,鈥� he said. 鈥淲e look for durable, enduring businesses that we believe will withstand the current hype cycle and investment frenzy.鈥�

While TTV is investing in AI-enabled companies, Kapur said it also agrees with that 鈥渁n AI reset is coming.鈥�

鈥淢any investors have already made their money by getting in on the ground floor, and others are trying to replicate their success,鈥� he told 附近上门 News. 鈥淲e鈥檙e focused on investing in the application layer of AI, and we鈥檙e still in the early days with more widespread prosperity and a democratization of enterprise value creation yet to come.鈥�

In particular, TTV sees the biggest opportunity in early-stage AI-native companies that are solving problems in mission-critical workflows 鈥渨hile building durable moats.鈥�

鈥淭hese platforms will earn the right to be distribution endpoints for financial products 鈥� and are even more valuable in the age of AI,鈥� he said.

He believes we may see some fintech IPOs in 2026, but that they will largely depend on how the potential mega IPOs (from the likes of , and ) perform.

鈥淚f those IPOs underperform, others may opt to stay private longer,鈥� Kapur said.

Looking ahead, he predicts we鈥檒l continue to see accelerated adoption of AI in financial services, first through straightforward applications, then more operationally complex use cases.

鈥淢ore broadly, we鈥檙e watching how the foundational LLMs further move up into the application layer, which is imperative to the long-term sustainability of their business models,鈥� Kapur said. 鈥淲e think financial services and fintech are unique enough categories where de novo startups and standalone businesses will beat platforms building experimental applications.鈥�

Related 附近上门 query:

Related reading:

• Fintech Funding Jumped 27% In 2025 With Fewer Deals But Bigger Checks
• Kalshi Secures $1B To Expand Predictions Market Platform
• Digital Savings Startup Vestwell Lands $385M, Doubles Valuation
• Stablecoin Startup Rain Raises $250M Series C at $1.95B Valuation 鈥� Its Third Round In Less Than A Year
• Exclusive: Zocks Raises $45M Series B From Lightspeed, QED For AI Assistant To Financial Advisers

Illustration:

The first quarter of 2026 was unlike any other for venture investment, driven by unprecedented spending on AI compute and frontier labs. 附近上门 data shows investors poured $300 billion into 6,000 startups globally in the quarter, up over 150% quarter over quarter and year over year.

That marks an all-time high for global venture investment not approached by any other quarter on record. In fact, startup investment in the first quarter of 2026 alone totaled close to 70% of all venture capital spending in 2025. The quarterly sum also tops all full-year investment totals prior to 2018.

Q1’s startup investment largely went to AI startups and disproportionately to a handful of U.S.-based companies in record-setting deals. Four of the five largest venture rounds ever recorded were closed in Q1 2026, with frontier labs ($122 billion), ($30 billion), ($20 billion) and self-driving company ($16 billion) collectively raising $188 billion, or 65% of global venture investment in the quarter.

Overall, AI shattered records last quarter, with $242 billion 鈥� 80% of total global venture funding in Q1鈥� going to companies in the sector. The previous record was set in Q1 2025, when AI accounted for 55% of global venture funding.

Table of Contents

• Valuation surge, capital concentration
• US above 80%
• Late-stage hike
• Early stage up over 40%
• Seed funding up over 30%
• IPO slowdown, M&A pick up
• Public pressure
• Methodology
• Glossary of funding terms

Valuation surge, capital concentration

Along with the three major frontier labs and Waymo, another 10 companies raised funding rounds of $1 billion or more in Q1, in sectors spanning generative and physical AI, autonomous vehicles, semiconductors, data centers, robotics, defense and prediction markets.

Those outsized rounds pushed overall startup valuations higher in Q1. The 附近上门 附近上门 added $900 billion in value during the quarter, marking the largest valuation bump in a single quarter.

US above 80%

U.S.-based companies raised $250 billion, or 83% of global venture capital in Q1, 附近上门 data shows. That鈥檚 up significantly from 71% in Q1 2025, which was already well above historical averages in the decade before 2024.

The second-largest market globally for venture funding in Q1 was China, with $16.1 billion invested. The U.K. followed, with $7.4 billion invested. Both countries were up quarter over quarter and even more significantly year over year.

Late-stage hike

The Q1 funding surge was concentrated in late-stage funding, which reached $246.6 billion 鈥� up 205% year over year 鈥� across 584 deals. A total of $235 billion was invested in 158 late-stage companies that raised rounds of $100 million and more.

Early stage up over 40%

Early-stage funding totaled $41.3 billion across 1,800 deals, 附近上门 data shows.

Funding was up marginally quarter over quarter but up 41% year over year from $29.4 billion. Much of that increase went to Series A rounds, 附近上门 data shows. Series B deals were down quarter over quarter but still up year over year.

Seed funding up over 30%

Seed funding totaled $12 billion, up 31% year over year, though the increase was entirely due to larger rounds, with deal counts falling 30% year over year to 3,800.

IPO slowdown, M&A pick up

Record venture investment in U.S. companies did not translate into a stronger IPO market in Q1.

In fact, the U.S. market for new listings slowed in Q1 amid a broader stock market selloff in software, although China鈥檚 IPO market picked up.

A total of 21 venture-backed companies exited globally above $1 billion in Q1. Thirteen of those were from China, four more from elsewhere in Asia, and four from the U.S.

The largest IPO in Q1 was Japan-based , a fintech for mobile payments valued at $10 billion upon listing.聽 Two foundation lab companies from China 鈥� and 鈥� debuted on the , each valued at more than $6 billion.

While the IPO market was somewhat lackluster, startup M&A was strong in Q1 with exits cumulatively valued north of $56.6 billion, 附近上门 data shows. That marked the third-highest startup M&A quarter since the downturn of 2022.

The largest M&A deals in Q1 were 鈥檚 $6 billion planned acquisition of 鈥檚 gaming platform , and 鈥檚 planned $5.15 billion acquisition of fintech startup .

Public pressure

While frontier lab megarounds defined Q1 2026, a closer look at the data shows every startup funding stage grew last quarter, as did round sizes across the board.

And unlike the cloud and mobile era, this cycle is also being built in the physical world, with massive capital flowing not just into software, but infrastructure, autonomous vehicles, robotics and manufacturing.

Now, with startup valuations surging and a backlog of companies with unprecedented sums of private capital behind them, pressure is intensifying on the IPO markets to reopen in 2026.

Related 附近上门 queries:

Methodology

The data contained in this report comes directly from 附近上门, and is based on reported data. Data is as of March 31, 2026.

Note that data lags are most pronounced at the earliest stages of venture activity, with seed funding amounts increasing significantly after the end of a quarter/year.

Please note that all funding values are given in U.S. dollars unless otherwise noted. 附近上门 converts foreign currencies to U.S. dollars at the prevailing spot rate from the date funding rounds, acquisitions, IPOs and other financial events are reported. Even if those events were added to 附近上门 long after the event was announced, foreign currency transactions are converted at the historic spot price.

Glossary of funding terms

Seed and angel consists of seed, pre-seed and angel rounds. 附近上门 also includes venture rounds of unknown series, equity crowdfunding and convertible notes at $3 million (USD or as-converted USD equivalent) or less.

Early-stage consists of Series A and Series B rounds, as well as other round types. 附近上门 includes venture rounds of unknown series, corporate venture and other rounds above $3 million, and those less than or equal to $15 million.

Late-stage consists of Series C, Series D, Series E and later-lettered venture rounds following the 鈥淪eries [Letter]鈥� naming convention. Also included are venture rounds of unknown series, corporate venture and other rounds above $15 million. Corporate rounds are only included if a company has raised an equity funding at seed through a venture series funding round.

Technology growth is a private-equity round raised by a company that has previously raised a 鈥渧enture鈥� round. (So basically, any round from the previously defined stages.)

Illustration:

Swarmer鈥檚 debut is modest by tech IPO standards. The Austin, Texas-based startup sold 3 million shares at $5 apiece, raising about $15 million in the process and giving it an initial market cap of $60 million. But by the close on Tuesday, its market cap had soared to more than $382 million.

Its IPO, of course, comes at a prescient time, with the U.S.鈥� war in Iran spiraling into a larger regional conflict even as the Russia-Ukraine war continues into its fifth year.

Public-market investors鈥� reception for Swarmer mirrors the fervor with which venture investors have backed defense tech startups in recent years. Investment to venture-backed companies in the sector 鈥斅爓hich we define as the industries of military, national security and law enforcement 鈥� topped $8.4 billion last year, an all-time record and more than double 2024鈥檚 total, per 附近上门 .

Among 2025鈥檚 top venture-funded defense companies were Southern California-based , which raised a $2.5 billion Series G led by ; Germany-based , which raised about $693 million in a round led by , , and other investors; and Austin-based , a maker of unmanned maritime security vessels that raised $600 million in an -led round.

Potential defense tech IPOs

Swarmer鈥檚 impressive public-market entrance could pave the way for other defense tech startups to pursue IPOs. Using 颁谤耻苍肠丑产补蝉别鈥檚 , we鈥檝e put together a list of 12 other defense startups that are deemed likely IPO candidates.

Methodology

颁谤耻苍肠丑产补蝉别鈥檚 utilize 附近上门 data 鈥� including funding and valuation, and milestones such as financial growth, key leadership hires, market share expansion and headcount growth 鈥� to forecast the likelihood of a private company launching an IPO, providing a probability score and its supporting evidence. Read more about 颁谤耻苍肠丑产补蝉别鈥檚 Predictions & Insights and its methodology for IPO predictions .

Related 附近上门 queries:

Related reading:

• 5 Startup Sectors Seeing Big Funding Growth
• Defense Tech Unicorn Onebrief Raises $200M, Acquires Seed Startup As VC Funding For Military-Related Tech Surges
• Sector Snapshot: Defense Tech Funding Hits Record High

Illustration:

To understand what鈥檚 holding the IPO market back and what could unlock it, 附近上门 News recently spoke with , U.S. IPO services leader at , via email. He discussed how companies are rethinking IPO timing this year, how investor expectations have shifted since the 2021 boom, and why the next wave of large listings could raise the bar for smaller and mid-cap tech companies.

This interview has been edited for brevity and clarity.

附近上门 News: How are companies thinking about timing, pricing and capital needs in this uncertain market?

Bellin: The companies we work with have become significantly more sophisticated in their approach to all three dimensions, and the most important shift we’ve seen is a move away from calendar-driven thinking toward readiness-driven thinking.

On timing, companies are no longer asking “when is the window?” They’re asking, “Are we ready when the window opens?” That’s a meaningful evolution.

After years of intermittent issuance windows, late-stage companies have learned hard lessons about the cost of being caught flat-footed. The companies that priced successfully in 2025 had invested 18 to 24 months in advance in governance upgrades, financial reporting infrastructure, and refinement of their equity story.

That institutional preparation is now table stakes. As we’ve noted in our , market windows can open and close quickly, which makes continuous readiness and flexibility essential, regardless of where macro conditions stand on any given day.

On pricing, there’s been a healthy reset in expectations. The exuberance of 2021, when companies could access the market at growth multiples untethered from near-term fundamentals, is not what we’re operating in today.

Investors today are paying a premium for scaled, cash-generative stories with clear paths to profitability. That means founders and their boards have had harder conversations about the right price relative to where comparable public companies trade, rather than anchoring to the last private-round valuations.

The good news is that median pre-money valuations have begun to rise for the first time since 2021, particularly for AI-enabled businesses and later-stage companies with clear profitability trajectories. The reset isn’t a permanent discount; it’s a quality filter.

On capital needs, we’re seeing more disciplined thinking about sizing. Nearly every company going public targets a raise that covers 18 to 24 months of operations, ideally through to profitability.

What’s changed is that companies are also thinking harder about their post-IPO capital structure: How do the IPO proceeds interact with existing debt, what is the all-in cost of capital as a public company, and how does the public currency (stock) open doors for strategic M&A or talent retention?

The best-prepared companies treat the IPO not just as a fundraiser but as a balance-sheet transformation.

It feels like the IPO market is moving more slowly so far this year than expected. Why do you think that is? Do you expect it will pick up?

There are several factors at play, and it’s worth separating the structural from the situational.

On the situational side, the October-to-November 2025 government shutdown had a materially disruptive effect on the capital markets calendar that is still being felt. The SEC reported that issuers filed more than 900 registration statements during the shutdown, all of which required review and processing once operations resumed. That backlog doesn’t clear overnight.

Companies that had been in process for a Q4 2025 or early Q1 2026 launch found themselves delayed, recalibrating roadshow timing, and in some cases choosing to wait for the market to absorb other supply first. So, some of the slowness we’re seeing in early 2026 is the shadow of that disruption.

On the structural side, macro uncertainty 鈥� including tariff policy, interest rate trajectory, and geopolitical volatility 鈥� has raised the bar for when boards and investors feel confident enough to move forward. Companies are increasingly patient because they have deep pools of private capital supporting them. That optionality is valuable, but it also means that when uncertainty spikes, the default decision is to wait.

That said, we do expect the market to pick up, and we’re cautiously optimistic about the balance of the year. The underlying fundamentals for the IPO market are strong: 2025 demonstrated healthy investor appetite for high-quality offerings, traditional IPOs raised the most proceeds since 2021, and the backlog of IPO-ready companies entering 2026 is among the largest in a decade, with more than 800 unicorns that have now spent additional years strengthening their balance sheets and operating discipline.

As the clears its backlog and macro visibility improves, we expect activity to accelerate, particularly in AI infrastructure, software and specialty risk. The first few deals of any re-opening tend to be conservatively priced to rebuild confidence, and if those hold their post-IPO performance, the door widens for the cohort behind them.

What sorts of companies do you expect to hit the public market this year?

Based on where investor appetite is concentrated, we see the strongest IPO pipeline in several distinct sectors. AI infrastructure, including data centers, power capacity, and chip-adjacent services, leads the pack.

Physical AI: Investor demand for direct exposure to the physical layer of the AI economy is significant, and large-scale, capital-intensive businesses in this space have been able to command premium valuations. The 2025 AI infrastructure IPO set a powerful precedent: Institutional investors proved willing to underwrite capital-intensive, high-growth models when the contracted revenue visibility is strong.

AI-enabled software: This also continues to be a top investor preference. The key distinction from earlier software cycles is that investors are no longer willing to pay high multiples purely on growth. They want to see that AI is genuinely embedded in the product, that net dollar retention is strong, and that the path to margin expansion is credible. Platforms with high switching costs and essential utility are commanding the best multiples.

Insurance and specialty risk: This sector had a strong 2025, and that momentum is continuing into 2026. These businesses tend to offer the cash-flow predictability that institutional investors increasingly prize.

Industrials, aerospace and defense: These are also moving up the IPO pipeline, supported by reshoring policy tailwinds and supply-chain realignment.

How are these listings influencing the strategies of smaller and mid-cap tech companies?

It is real and somewhat sobering. High-profile listings serve as both a benchmark and a warning.

When a well-known, scaled company prices and trades well post-IPO, it recalibrates expectations across the sector, validating the category and giving smaller companies a comparable reference.

But it also raises the implied bar. Investors who have a scaled, cash-generative AI infrastructure company available at a $40 billion to $50 billion valuation will apply that lens to every software or infrastructure company in their pipeline.

Smaller companies are watching their larger peers closely and, in many cases, extending their private timelines. They use the interval to strengthen unit economics, hit profitability milestones, and build out the public company infrastructure (board composition, financial controls, investor relations capability) that institutional investors now expect to see in place on day one.

Given that 2026 has seen a massive surge in venture secondaries, is an IPO still the 鈥淕old Standard鈥� exit? Or is PwC seeing founders use secondaries to delay their IPO even further?

This is one of the most important structural questions in the private markets right now, and the honest answer is nuanced.

The IPO remains the aspirational end-state for most venture-backed companies. It provides the broadest access to capital, the most liquid currency for acquisitions and talent retention, and the clearest signal of institutional legitimacy. In that sense, it retains its status as the gold standard. But what has clearly changed is the sequencing and the role that secondaries play in getting there.

The secondary market has undergone a structural transformation. What was once considered a signal of distress 鈥� such as an insider selling before a company was 鈥渞eady鈥� for the public markets 鈥� has been normalized as a sophisticated liquidity tool.

As noted in our , nearly half of asset managers are already using continuation funds to unlock liquidity, and GP-led secondaries and continuation vehicles are now mainstream instruments. Secondary transaction volume surpassed $60 billion in 2025, and the market is projected to continue growing significantly in 2026. Secondaries are expected to remain the dominant exit route for private equity, with IPOs still accounting for only a limited share of total private equity exits.

For founders specifically, we see secondaries being used for several distinct and legitimate strategic purposes:

First, personal liquidity without forced exit timing. Founders who are a decade or more into building their companies have reasonable personal financial planning needs. Secondaries allow them to diversify without forcing the company into a public exit on a suboptimal timeline.

Second, employee retention. Extended hold periods have put pressure on the equity value of employees who joined years ago and expected a liquidity event. Secondary programs provide a release valve, allowing companies to retain talent they might otherwise lose.

Third, valuation discovery in a more forgiving setting. Private secondary pricing, while increasingly sophisticated, is still conducted without the full scrutiny of a public offering, allowing companies to establish a market-clearing price on their own terms.

What we caution founders about, however, is treating secondary access as a reason to indefinitely postpone the public markets journey. The median time to IPO for companies that went public in 2025 has reached over 11 years, the longest in a decade.

Extended private holding periods can be constructive, but they also delay price discovery, compress LP distributions, and ultimately reduce the competitive tension that keeps acquisition valuations high.

The IPO window is selective but open, and companies with the right fundamentals shouldn’t mistake the availability of secondary liquidity for permission to wait indefinitely.

Is PwC advising late-stage founders to prioritize GAAP profitability over top-line growth to satisfy the current 鈥渇light to quality鈥� among institutional investors?

We’re not advising founders to make a binary choice between growth and profitability, but we are advising them to have a credible, investor-grade answer to both.

The market signal from 2025 and into 2026 has been clear: Institutional investors are no longer willing to pay premium multiples on growth alone. The “Rule of 40,” the principle that a company’s revenue growth rate plus its profit margin should exceed 40%, and which may now be more a rule of 60, has re-emerged as a baseline screening metric for public market investors evaluating software and tech businesses.

Investors are paying a premium for scaled, cash-generative stories with clear paths to profitability. The emphasis is on paths.

GAAP profitability at the IPO date is not a requirement, but an articulated, credible, time-bound roadmap to it absolutely is.

What has changed is the tolerance for ambiguity. In 2021, investors were willing to fund a narrative about future profitability at an indefinite horizon.

Today, they want to see demonstrated progress in unit economics, such as improving gross margins, reducing customer acquisition costs as a percentage of revenue, and expanding net dollar retention, paired with a specific operating-leverage story. When do sales and marketing efficiency improve? When does R&D spend as a percentage of revenue compress? Where does operating margin land at scale? These are questions that founders must be able to answer with precision, not just aspiration.

The GAAP-versus-non-GAAP debate is also something we work through carefully with companies. Adjusted EBITDA and non-GAAP operating income are widely used and accepted, but institutional investors have become more sophisticated in looking through those metrics to understand certain adjustments as a real economic cost, and to evaluate true free cash flow generation.

Companies that present GAAP financials in a clear, transparent, investor-friendly way, rather than burying them under adjustments, tend to build more durable institutional credibility.

Our practical advice to late-stage founders is this: Make sure your growth spending is efficient and that every dollar of investment is generating measurably improving unit economics.

The investors we work with are sophisticated enough to reward capital-efficient growth with premium valuations and to discount growth that appears to require permanently escalating spending to sustain it.

Governance maturity, financial reporting infrastructure, and a compelling, data-supported equity story are as important to IPO success today as the top-line numbers themselves.

Related 附近上门 query:

Related reading:

• IPOs Are Holding Up In 2026, But SaaS Debuts Aren鈥檛 Happening
• 鈥榃hy Not?’ How Sales Automation Unicorn Clay Uses Tender Offers To Reward Employees Without An Exit In Sight
• The IPO Window Won鈥檛 Stay Open On Its Own

Illustration:

In the less imaginative realm of venture funding, the term denotes a far less magical but much more visible creature: A space tech company with major funding and a valuation north of $1 billion.

These days, this more staid version of space unicorn is moving up the funding tallies at a faster-than-usual clip. More than two dozen companies in the sector have raised rounds of $100 million or more in the past year, per 附近上门 data.

Meanwhile, the biggest unicorn of all 鈥� 24-year-old 鈥� is reportedly seeking a valuation of around $1.5 trillion for an anticipated IPO later this year, featuring rocketry and satellite technology that should make even marshmallow lasers look primitive.

The broad trend: Unlike most startup sectors, which have seen uneven rebounds after hitting a funding peak over four years ago, space tech is hitting fresh highs. Contributing factors include public market enthusiasm for the sector, increased appetite for defense-related investments, and of course advances driving cheaper, more scalable and more technologically sophisticated orbital operations.

The numbers: Venture funding to companies in 附近上门 space tech and satellite categories hit a high last year of over $12 billion. So far, 2026 is off to a brisk start as well, with more than $2 billion in reported investment.

While investment is way up, round counts have remained flatter, as charted below.

Noteworthy rounds

Megarounds have been stacking up over the past six months.

By far the biggest of these was Kent, Washington-based , a developer of reusable rockets. The company announced a Series D extension in October that brought the total round size to $860 million.

Houston-based , which is developing a successor to the International Space Station, was a more recent mega-fundraiser, in new financing in February.

And in the satellite communications space, one of the larger financings came this week, as spinout , a developer of software that configures communications satellites to meet demand, secured funding.

For a bigger-picture view, below we put together a list of eight significant space- and satellite technology-related financings of the past six months.

Exits and more

The IPO market has also been receptive to space tech of late, although companies haven鈥檛 always held on to early gains.

One exemplar of this pattern is , a provider of launch, land and in-space services for national security and commercial customers, that went public in August. Shares of the Cedar Park, Texas-based company soared higher in initial trading but have subsequently shed about half their value.

, a Denver-based defense and space tech startup that went public in June, is also down from its initial trading price. On the flip side, , which went public early last year, is on a tear and was recently valued over $11 billion.

Meanwhile, it鈥檚 still early innings for space tech company , which went public just four weeks ago.

Heating up

Overall, in recent quarters space and satellite tech are looking like a sector in vogue. With large financings, regular IPO activity and a giant SpaceX offering on the horizon, we鈥檙e not seeing clear signs of a slowdown ahead for the space unicorn crowd.

Related 附近上门 queries:

Related reading:

• SpaceX IPO At $1.5T Valuation Would Be 10x Larger Than Biggest VC-Backed Listing Of All Time
• Voyager Technologies Sets Price Range For IPO As Spacetech Funding Takes Off
• Spacetech Startup Funding Charts A New Course
• In The Era Of Unicorn Valuation Escalation, A Trillion Dollars Isn鈥檛 What It Used To Be
• Northwood Space Raises $100M Series B And Lands $50M Government Contract As Space Tech Funding Rockets Higher

Illustration:

Nonetheless, the first couple months of the year have brought a steady stream of market entries from companies in sectors such as construction tech, space tech and biotech. Noticeably absent, however, are new offerings from SaaS companies, long an IPO market staple.

Per 附近上门 data, 11 venture- or seed-backed U.S. companies went public on major exchanges so far this year, raising just over $3 billion. Comparatively, that鈥檚 a fairly robust showing for the first couple months of the year, which tends to be a reasonably active period for IPOs.

Looking at recent years charted below, the first couple months of 2026 are well above the bottom ranks, but still far below the 2021 market peak for volume of offerings and total raised.

Leading offerings weren鈥檛 your typical VC-backed deals

The lineup of companies going public so far this year, however, includes many that don鈥檛 look like your typical VC-backed offering.

This includes the year鈥檚 largest VC-funded IPO: , a service that provides construction equipment rentals and support for building projects. The 11-year-old, Columbia, Missouri-based company raised more than $700 million in its January offering and had a recent market cap of over $7 billion.

The second-largest debut was also somewhat of an outlier: space tech company , which is majority-owned by private equity firm . It鈥檚 down from its initial trading price but recently valued around $3.4 billion.

Per 附近上门 data, there have been six IPOs of venture-backed companies this year that raised $200 million or more, which we list below.

SaaS squashed

It鈥檚 also noteworthy who isn鈥檛 on the list. For years, enterprise software companies have been among the more reliable IPO market entrants. This year, however, they鈥檝e been notably absent as the sector contends with an extended selloff fueled partly by concerns of AI-abetted disruption.

We鈥檙e also not seeing SaaS companies in the immediate IPO pipeline. A perusal of so far this year showed no venture-backed SaaS unicorns that submitted a new IPO filing in 2026.

It鈥檚 a sharp contrast to just a few months ago. One of last year鈥檚 splashiest IPOs 鈥� design software platform 鈥� is now down more than two-thirds from its peak. Another of the more recent big SaaS offerings 鈥� business travel and expense platform 鈥� has shed more than half its value.

Meanwhile, -backed , which provides tools for marketers and app developers, withdrew its planned IPO this month, amid the software route. It鈥檚 likely a delay, as that Liftoff filed a new confidential plan shortly afterward.

IPO market in an odd place

Overall, the IPO market is in an odd place at the moment. It鈥檚 an unfriendly scene for companies with business models viewed as vulnerable to AI-driven displacement. At the same time, there鈥檚 still continued buzz around the potential for record-setting offerings from , and .

Of those, the one rumored to be closest on the horizon is SpaceX, newly combined with at a reported $1.25 trillion valuation. The company is said to be eyeing a market debut as early as this summer.

If that happens, and the current SaaS squeeze continues, it wouldn鈥檛 be surprising to see a pattern of record-setting IPO returns coinciding with a very small number of actual debuts.

Related 附近上门 queries:

Related reading:

• 附近上门 Predicts: IPOs Picked Up In 2025 And The Outlook For 2026 Is Even More Optimistic
• 附近上门 Predicts: 15 Companies That Could Go Public In 2026 As The IPO Market Gains Momentum
• SpaceX IPO At $1.5T Valuation Would Be 10x Larger Than Biggest VC-Backed Listing Of All Time
• Yes, I鈥檓 Biased. But Still, Leading Unicorns Like Anthropic Should Be Prepping For IPOs

Illustration:

Over the past two calendar years, acquirers have agreed to pay more than $38 billion to purchase聽1 venture-backed companies in 附近上门 biotech industry categories. So far, 2026 is off to a brisk start as well, with this month to pay up to $2.4 billion for , a startup focused on engineering immune cells in vivo.

Per 附近上门 data, 2025 and 2024 were two of the strongest years on record for biotech M&A. While we鈥檙e still below the 2021 peak, we鈥檙e also well past the subsequent low point, as charted below.

Largest deals in recent quarters

Since last year, at least nine funded U.S. biotech companies have sold in transactions valued at $1 billion or more, including potential milestone payments. Using 附近上门 , we assembled a list, ranked by deal size.

The largest deal was 鈥檚 purchase of , a developer of targeted oral therapies for solid tumors, for $3.05 billion in cash late last year. The pharma giant expressed particular interest in adding Halda鈥檚 clinical stage oral therapy for prostate cancer to its portfolio.

The two next-biggest acquisitions were both in the area of in vivo therapeutics, which enable a patient鈥檚 own body to generate cell therapies that can treat underlying disease.

One was Lilly鈥檚 aforementioned purchase of Watertown, Massachusetts-based Orna, which had聽 previously raised over $320 million in venture funding from lead backers including , and .

The other was 鈥檚 mid-2025 acquisition of , a clinical-stage biotech developing targeted in vivo RNA technologies, with an initial focus on autoimmune diseases. AbbVie agreed to pay up to $2.1 billion in cash to acquire the San Diego-based startup,which previously raised $340 million in venture funding.

Biotech funding share slides, and IPO volume remains weak

While some large acquisitions are happening, the overall picture for biotech funding and exit activity looks more muted.

Last year, less than 9% of all U.S. startup funding went to companies in 附近上门 biotech categories. That鈥檚 the lowest share in years, and largely a function of more capital going to companies in other hot sectors like generative AI.

In terms of total finding, biotech looks more stable. In 2025, just over $25 billion went to U.S. startups in the space, roughly flat year over year.

IPO activity is lower than usual. Last year, just 21 biotech, pharma or medical device companies went public, per 附近上门 data, the lowest number in years.

So far this year, we鈥檝e had four debuts, including most recently the debut this month of , a developer of cancer therapies recently valued around $900 million.

Not a slump, and not a boom

Overall, biotech funding and exit data paints a picture of a sector that鈥檚 neither booming nor in a protracted slump. That鈥檚 not the most exciting place to be, but it can be quite viable for quite a long time.

Related 附近上门 query:

Related reading:

• In The Era Of Unicorn Valuation Escalation, A Trillion Dollars Isn鈥檛 What It Used To Be
• Biotech Share Of US Funding Hits Lowest Point In 附近上门 History
• Biotech Isn鈥檛 Partaking In The IPO Rebound

Illustration:

Clay鈥檚 back-to-back tender offers underscore a growing shift among high-growth startups: rewarding employees with liquidity long before an IPO is in sight. As companies stay private longer 鈥� and hit major revenue milestones at breakneck speed 鈥� secondary sales are becoming a tool not just for retention, but for signaling strength. In Clay鈥檚 case, the two tenders followed rapid valuation jumps and a sprint to $100 million in ARR, positioning liquidity as a performance-based reward rather than a prelude to exit.

鈥淏uilding a generational business is a marathon, and tenders help equity feel real when top talent has options,鈥� said , a partner at who noted that as companies stay private longer and talent competition intensifies, tender offers can be a powerful tool for recruiting, morale and retention.

Still, he noted, there tend to be limits. 鈥淚n the tender offers we鈥檝e participated in, most employees were limited to selling just 10-25% of their vested holdings, and nearly half of founders didn鈥檛 sell a single share, signaling long-term conviction,鈥� he wrote via email. 鈥淓ven modest liquidity can make a big difference, translating to life milestones like a down payment on a first home, a child鈥檚 education, or helping a loved one transition into care.鈥�

Clay鈥檚 previous tender, led by , happened in May 2025 at . In between the two tender offers, the startup closed at a $3.1 billion valuation. In total, New York-based Clay has raised $206 million in equity since its 2017 inception. It has 300 employees, up from 80 to 90 a year ago, and 14,000 customers.

Tender offers have become more common as an increasing number of startups choose to stay private longer. Other high-profile examples include payments giant , which has already undergone a few tender offers and is reportedly considering that could value it at more than $140 billion. Generative AI company is also believed to be working on its own at a valuation of at least $350 billion.

In Clay鈥檚 case, the motivation was twofold, according to CEO and co-founder . The tender offers have served as a way to allow new investors to come in, and for employees to feel like their equity is 鈥渞eal.鈥�

附近上门 News recently spoke with Amin to dig deeper into the company鈥檚 decision to launch not just one but two tender offers in the past nine months. The interview has been edited for clarity and brevity.

附近上门 News: Before we dig into the tender offers, tell us more about what Clay does.

Amin: We help businesses find and grow their best customers. You can think of Clay as an AI go-to-market tool which implements any creative idea you have for sales and marketing.

Go-to-market is just a new name for sales, marketing and customer success 鈥� the whole apparatus that helps you find customers and grow them, and implement any idea. Our vision is that in sales and marketing, you need to constantly be doing something different that’s unique for you, different from everybody else. Otherwise, it just becomes noise.

And we let you implement these strategies. It might be something like personalized landing pages to, 鈥淗ey, let’s analyze all the video calls with sales calls that you’ve had, figure out why you lost the customer, and put that into .鈥澛�1 I like to think of it as 鈥渓ike is for designers, Clay is for go-to-market teams.鈥�

So what drove you to do not just one, but two, tender offers over the past year?

It鈥檚 interesting actually to think of it as the inverse: Why not do a tender offer?

Two reasons you don’t do a tender offer is either you don’t have the demand, or you think you’ll demotivate the team. Because we’re growing super quickly, we have the demand, and people want to invest in the company because we’re extremely efficient. Our burn is very, very low.

We don’t actually need more primary capital. We haven’t touched the primary capital. So this is a way to allow new investors to come in. This is also a way to bring in new partners without diluting the whole cap table.

It鈥檚 also a way for employees to feel like their equity is real. And some employees are having some real-life events. People are getting married, people are having kids, and this allows them to be a little bit more comfortable and do things like buy a house or buy a car. There are a bunch of people who’ve told me they’ve worked in startups for 10 years and never gotten any liquidity, and this is their first opportunity.

People might only stay at a company because they want liquidity if they don’t like the culture 鈥斅� and they’re just withstanding it for the money. But we prefer people to stay because they want to do the work and they see that the value that they’re generating is real. I actually think it motivates the team.

Plus, it makes the ecosystem grow.

When you did the earlier tender offer, did you think you would be doing another one in less than a year鈥檚 time?聽聽

No, I don’t think that we were. The way I’m thinking about it is [it makes sense to do a tender offer] every time we hit certain milestones. So we hit $100 million ARR really fast (in December). Tender offers are a way to reward the team each time it performs to a level where we get to the next milestone for the company. I think it makes sense to allow some people to get some of the value that they’ve created.

Do you have an exit plan?

Sometimes even investors ask this question. And we don鈥檛. It is nonproductive to think about that. You’re only building this type of company if you want to see how big it can be. I always say it’ll be as big as it wants to be, and as long as there are problems for us to solve for customers. That’s what we should be focused on, and the valuations and the exits, those are things that are a result of that.

The other way to think about it is we’re basically close to being profitable all the time. Like we can choose to become profitable. (The company touts that it was cash-flow positive for parts of 2025, earning more in interest than it burned.)聽 We want to be in a place where we have options.

Going public is a way to fund things so you can do more for customers. So I think whenever I start going down that line, I refocus back on, 鈥淚s there work to do for customers? Can we make the product better?鈥� And the answer right now is, yes, we’re nowhere near achieving our mission, which is how we help you finally grow your best customers. And as long as there’s work to do around that, we should keep doing it.

Do you think you’re going to be doing any more tender offers in the near future?

I think as long as we hit the next set of growth milestones, we’ll consider it. We鈥檙e still early in this. There are no exits on the horizon.

Related 附近上门 query:

Related reading:

• Q&A: Why Deep Tech Investors Are Turning To The Secondary Market For Liquidity
• Secondary Financings Offer Lifeline In A Slow Exit Market

Illustration:

Today, an estimated 50 million men and 30 million women in the U.S. face androgenetic alopecia, or heredity-linked hair thinning or baldness, the . And while there are some longstanding treatments, they commonly come with high cost, discomfort, side effects or inconsistent effectiveness.

Startups and their backers have taken note. Over the years, investors have poured hundreds of millions into companies working on hair-loss treatments and platforms to make them more widely available.

This week, public investors are also getting a fresh entry into the space. , a developer of an oral treatment for pattern hair loss, began trading on the . Its shares closed up 122% to $137.65 despite a mostly down day for broader markets, indicating investors are enthused about the product. The 7-year-old company trades under the ticker symbol MANE.

Veradermics itself raised around $256 million in the offering, which priced slightly above the projected range. The New Haven, Connecticut-based company plans to use the proceeds from the offering to help secure approval for its hair-loss drug and to support commercialization.

Not receding

Among startups working on hair regrowth, Veradermics has one of the more further-along treatment candidates. It plans to report topline results from one advanced trial in the first half of the year and from a Phase 3 trial in the second half. If all goes well, the company says it could be the first oral, nonhormonal FDA-approved therapy for pattern hair loss.

That said, it鈥檚 far from the only venture- or seed-backed company addressing the space. Using 附近上门 data, we put together a list of 10 startups funded in the past couple years with businesses centered around developing hair-loss treatments or making them more widely available.

Los Angeles-based is the largest funding recipient on the list, mostly due to a $120 million October Series B co-led by and . The startup is applying stem cell biology to develop regenerative medicines for hair loss and plans Phase 3 trials for its lead candidate later this year.

, an Irish startup focused on enabling at-home treatment for cancer patients, raised $21 million in an expanded Series A this month. It鈥檚 currently pursuing trials for a device aimed at reducing hair loss for chemotherapy patients.

And back in San Francisco, longevity startup has raised more than $46 million for a lineup of self-care products including a scalp serum that promotes thicker, denser hair.

Hair attracts high spending

It helps that hair is one of those aesthetic areas where people are more comfortable spending what it takes to get desired results. From premium shampoos and hair-care products to salon visits, many of us spend hundreds of dollars annually on our hair.

Hair-loss treatment represents a particularly large market. Per Veradermics, the current U.S. commercial opportunity for pattern hair-loss treatments is valued around $9 billion annually, despite low patient engagement and high dissatisfaction with today鈥檚 options.

Consumers would be willing to spend more too, if there were treatments they liked. Veradermics says its internal research found that 93% of pattern-hair-loss patients would like to address the condition, yet only 9% are satisfied with their current treatment.

Investors have put considerable capital behind backing that big market vision. Between 2021 and 2025, Veradermics raised more than $260 million from a long list of venture backers. Per its IPO prospectus, the current largest stakeholders are (11% post-IPO stake), followed by and , with about 6% each.

For now, it looks like public investors see plenty to support in that vision as well.

Illustration:

All that sets the stage for what the industry insiders we spoke with expect will be another robust year for startup investment, acquisitions and new public-market listings. At the same time, there鈥檚 growing concern about capital concentration as venture dollars accumulate in a relatively small cohort of companies, many of them based in the San Francisco Bay Area.

With that, here鈥檚 a closer look at six trends we expect to see unfold in 2026.

1. A strong showing from the IPO market

Although the IPO window didn鈥檛 stay open the whole year, 2025 turned into an unexpectedly strong one for new offerings. At least 23 U.S.-based companies listed above $1 billion in value in 2025 compared to nine in 2024. Total valuations at IPO price for those billion-dollar listings reached at least $125 billion 鈥� more than doubling year over year.

This year, experts we spoke with expect that momentum to continue. In this market, 鈥渁 profitable company 鈥� particularly one that either is an AI play or has a good story of how AI will be a tailwind for their business 鈥� are good candidates for a 2026 IPO,鈥� , a corporate partner at who was involved with the , and IPOs, told my colleague Gen茅 Teare in late December.

Among the companies most closely watched for potential offerings this year are fintech unicorns such as and , and buzzy AI companies including , and .

Still, in the first month of this year, some of that enthusiasm has tempered. As contributing reporter Joanna Glasner notes, even when open, the IPO window is always just a quick market turn from slamming shut once again.

So while a new offering from a buzzy company like or OpenAI would help prop the window open, more humdrum IPOs from run-of-the-mill enterprise SaaS startups probably won鈥檛 be enough to fuel a new IPO boom.

2. A flurry of M&A activity

Startup acquisitions are also expected to become more common this year, especially if the IPO market does gain steam.

鈥淎 healthy IPO market tends to increase M&A activity rather than reduce it,鈥� , technology, media and telecoms deal advisory and strategy leader for , told contributing reporter Mary Ann Azevedo. 鈥淢any companies pursue dual-track strategies, simultaneously preparing for an IPO while exploring M&A, which gives them greater flexibility and leverage in negotiations. The threat of a public offering can be used as a bargaining chip to drive up a startup鈥檚 sale price.鈥�

Last year, there were around 2,300 M&A deals for venture-backed startups, per 附近上门 data. Industry insiders we spoke with said they expect dealmaking to continue at a steady pace in 2026, in part as larger companies make strategic buys for startup talent, and as startups last funded in the boom five years ago look for exit opportunities.

鈥淥n the one hand, big corporates are snapping up seed/Series A startups for talent and tech 鈥� we can call that the AI acqui-hire trend. Many teams with fewer than 100 employees have landed $100 million-plus exits,鈥� , technology sector leader, told us. 鈥淥n the other hand, a cohort of 3- to 6-year-old unicorns that stalled on IPO plans is finally selling.鈥�

3. Strong funding, especially for these sectors

Four investors who spoke with Mary Ann all concurred that they expect another uptick in venture funding this year, with predictions ranging from a 10% to 25% year-over-year increase.

Those investors expect funding in 2026 will continue to concentrate into AI-related companies and adjacent sectors such as robotics and defense tech, at the expense of areas like climate tech, crypto and vertical AI that doesn鈥檛 have a strong differentiation or moat.

鈥淟ast year demonstrated that it鈥檚 difficult to survive as an AI wrapper company,鈥� , managing director at told Mary Ann last month. 鈥淓ven the vertical AI providers have to be deeply embedded into industry workflows to differentiate themselves from a foundation model doing more of the repetitive work in the market.鈥�

Many of the investors also said they expect capital to concentrate on two ends of the startup spectrum: big growth rounds for established players to maintain a market lead, and larger seed and early-stage deals to promising startups that look poised to disrupt.

鈥淚 expect net new dollars to concentrate more in seed and growth deals, primarily because the seed rounds are getting quite large thanks to fundraises by the likes of neolabs, neoclouds, and others. Furthermore, the capital needs of existing high-growth companies will continue to grow due to dependencies on frontier lab and hardware spend,鈥� partner told us.

Already, we鈥檙e seeing those predictions about the rise in early-stage megarounds pan out.

4. Capital concentration and heightened AI bubble fears

Last year鈥檚 venture funding disproportionately went to a select group of companies. OpenAI, , , and each raised more than $5 billion in 2025. Altogether, those five companies raised $84 billion, or 20% of all venture funding last year 鈥� an unprecedented amount for the largest fundings in any given year, an analysis of our data shows.

Last year was also defined by new startup records: the largest private funding round of all time ($40 billion to OpenAI), the largest private valuation ever recorded (SpaceX鈥檚 $800 billion valuation), and the largest venture-backed acquisition on record (鈥檚 $32 billion purchase by ).

All that鈥檚 to say: Investors placed bigger, bolder and riskier bets on a smaller cohort of companies. That capital concentration 鈥� along with between companies such as OpenAI, and 鈥� have heightened concerns about an AI bubble that could have far-reaching fallout for both private and public tech companies, and the global economy overall.

5. More tech layoffs due to AI

AI has also prompted mass layoffs. Last year, we saw job cuts at companies including , and blamed at least in part on artificial intelligence.

鈥淚鈥檝e reduced it from 9,000 heads to about 5,000, because I need less heads,” Salesforce CEO said last fall, the San Francisco-based company鈥檚 decision to slash its customer-service headcount.

All told, around 55,000 U.S. layoffs in 2025 cited AI as a factor, staffing firm .

Unfortunately, we expect to see more tech employers make similar moves this year as companies focus on cutting costs and replacing some portion of their human workers with cheaper AI substitutes.

6. Fintech鈥檚 rebound

One of the startup sectors that experienced a particularly healthy bounce last year was fintech, with funding to the sector jumping 27% year over year to $51.8 billion. Investors in the space are bullish on 2026 as well.

Fintech VCs told Mary Ann they expect funding growth in 2026 to continue to concentrate into pre-IPO companies, for M&A to tick up, and to see robust investment into startups that add value to their fintech offerings with AI.

Vice President said he expects stablecoins, agentic payments and AI-native tools to be particularly strong areas for fintech investment this year.

The underlying growth and performance of companies in the age of AI is 鈥渁stounding and unlike anything we鈥檝e seen before,鈥� even relative to 2020 and 2021, partner and head of U.S. investments at , told us.

鈥淎bsent a broader recession, we expect some pullback and return to rationality in the funding market,鈥� he said, 鈥渂ut we believe funding in fintech and at the AI application layer should remain quite strong.鈥�

Related reading:

• 附近上门 Predicts: Why The Race For Talent And Tech Could Accelerate Startup M&A In 2026
• 附近上门 Predicts: Why Top VCs Expect More Venture Dollars, Bigger Rounds And Fewer Winners In 2026
• 附近上门 Predicts: IPOs Picked Up In 2025 And The Outlook For 2026 Is Even More Optimistic
• 附近上门 Predicts: 15 Companies That Could Go Public In 2026 As The IPO Market Gains Momentum
• Fintech Forecast: Momentum Builds With Big Deals, IPO-Ready Companies And More AI
• Global Venture Funding In 2025 Surged As Startup Deals And Valuations Set All-Time Records

Illustration: