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

Venture funding has always been a world of haves and have nots. And these days, the haves are having more than ever. Case in point this week was . The 5-year-old generative AI giant secured $65 billion in Series H funding this week, pushing its post-money valuation to a mind-blowing $965 billion.

After that, the next-biggest financing was a $1 billion round for AI software development tool maker , lifting its valuation to $26 billion. Companies in a range of other sectors also managed to secure sizable though smaller rounds, in areas including commerce logistics, developer AI, insurtech, fusion and more.

1. , $65B, foundational AI: Generative AI company Anthropic raised $65 billion in a Series H funding round, more than doubling its post-money valuation to a staggering $965 billion. San Francisco-based Anthropic said , , and led the financing, and that , , , , and co-led the investment.

2. , $1B, AI software development: Cognition, developer of AI software engineer Devin, has closed on over $1 billion at a $26 billion valuation. , , and 1��led the financing for the San Francisco-based company.

3. , $250M, logistics: Atlanta-based Stord, developer of a fulfillment network, software and AI tools for independent brands, secured $250 million in Series F funding. The round set a $3 billion valuation for the 11-year-old company.

4. , $113M, AI for developers: OpenRouter, a marketplace for AI models, secured $113 million in Series B funding. led the financing for the New York-based startup.

5. , $106M, insurtech: San Francisco-based Corgi Insurance, developer of an AI-native insurance platform for startups, picked up $106 million in Series B1 funding led by . The financing, which set a $2.6 billion valuation, comes just three weeks after Corgi $160 million in Series B funding at a $1.3 billion valuation.

6. (tied) , $100M, fusion energy: Kearny, New Jersey-based Thea Energy, a developer of technology for fusion energy systems, raised $100 million in Series B funding led by . Thea says the funding will go toward manufacturing infrastructure.

6. (tied) , $100M, healthcare data: Garner Health, a platform for finding healthcare providers, closed on $100 million in Series E funding led by . The financing set a $2.74 billion for the New York-based company.

8. , $90M, space tech: Observable Space, a space tech startup that develops and builds advanced optical systems, says it raised $90 million in Series A funding led by to scale manufacturing and develop its technology. The Santa Monica, California-based company also announced that it secured a $94 million contract with the.

9. , $59M, AI video: Reactor, a San Francisco-based developer platform for real-time generative video, emerged from stealth with $59 million in funding led by .

10. , $52M, cancer detection: San Diego-based ClearNote Health, a developer of early detection and monitoring tests for multiple forms of cancer, picked up $52 million in Series D financing. Founding investor led the round.

Methodology

We tracked the largest announced rounds in the Crunchbase database that were raised by U.S.-based companies for the period of May 23-29. 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:

Although the number of women-owned businesses keeps growing, startups led by women continue to fall behind their male counterparts when it comes to raising venture funding.

That’s why former executive teamed up with , a veteran and marketing executive, to found , an -registered, funding portal.

The platform, also called AQi, gives women-led businesses — those that are at least 50% women-owned — a way to raise capital through , a securities framework aimed at opening up startup investing.

Launched in 2024, AQi seeks to help female entrepreneurs reach everyday investors by simplifying regulatory disclosures and business documentation. As a member of the , the platform has passed a rigorous federal vetting process and agrees to operate under strict oversight to protect investors and ensure transparency.

Crunchbase News recently spoke with Huyck and Konwinski to hear more about what led them to start AQi, why they think women don’t need to give up board seats early on, and how they want to help female entrepreneurs raise and hold on to more equity.

This interview has been edited for clarity and brevity.

Crunchbase News: What is your platform’s mission and what led you to launch this company?

Huyck: I spent 21 years at PayPal, where I mentored women through a partnership with the . It was there I learned about the $5 trillion gap in global GDP resulting from women entrepreneurs lacking access to capital.

In the U.S., while women start nearly half of all businesses, they receive only 2% of venture capital and less than 20% of small business loans. I wanted to build an innovative system to solve this. I considered starting a fund, but many already exist. Instead, I wanted to create a crowdfunding platform exclusively for women, providing an additional avenue to raise money. The economic irony is that women entrepreneurs earn 78 cents for every dollar invested, compared to 31 cents for men. It simply didn’t make sense, and I wanted to build a system that truly enables women.

Konwinski: To add to that, we are a very distinct entity. We are not a broker-dealer; we are an SEC-registered and FINRA-member crowdfunding platform. Following the 2012 JOBS Act, Reg CF (Regulation Crowdfunding) was created to allow nonaccredited investors to invest in private, early-stage companies. There are about 50 active platforms in the U.S., but we are the only one founded by women, owned by women, and exclusively serving women-owned businesses.

Beyond just providing a neutral platform, we act as a “quarterback.” We help entrepreneurs navigate the process — whether they are just starting or ready for a “glow-up” — by providing access to accountants, lawyers and marketing firms. We are creating a community where women can get the resources they need to build their businesses without competing for attention in male-dominated tech circles.

How does your platform differ from sites like ?

Konwinski: Kickstarter and are for charitable gifting. We are not asking for charity; we are facilitating investments. We are on par with platforms like or , but our fee structure is more founder-friendly. On platforms like Kickstarter, you might only keep about 60% of the funds raised. Our success fee is only 6.5%. When investors invest in these businesses, they receive equity in return. Furthermore, there is a clear social return: Studies show that for every dollar a woman earns in her business, she creates significant economic benefit for her community and family.

How many businesses have you helped raise capital for thus far?

Huyck: We spent our first year building the technology and another six months on the rigorous SEC and FINRA registration process. We believe this high level of regulation is critical to ensuring investor trust. We currently have a pipeline of 20 businesses. We closed our first campaign earlier this month and have two more launching in the coming weeks.

Since Reg CF has a $5 million cap per 12-month period, how do you position yourselves for high-growth startups? And do you view this as a permanent alternative to traditional venture capital, or a bridge?

Huyck: I don’t see the VC space changing soon because it is heavily reliant on “pattern matching,” where investors look for people and paths that resemble previous successes. Until that breaks, women founders face significant barriers. Crowdfunding is a vital, viable alternative.

Konwinski: I would challenge the notion that $5 million isn’t enough. For many of the companies we work with, that is a strong runway for 18 to 24 months. Because Reg CF allows for rolling raises, a company can raise up to $5 million every 12 months. We see companies use this to reach a significant milestone and then potentially pursue a Series A later. We aren’t trying to be a broker-dealer for Series A deals. We are here for those who get “ghosted” by VCs or don’t want to leverage their homes to secure an SBA loan.

Does a distributed ownership structure with many unaccredited investors create a “messy” cap table that scares off traditional VCs?

Huyck: We utilize special-purpose vehicles. This consolidates all Reg CF investors into a single line item on the company’s cap table, often with a lead investor managing voting rights. This keeps the cap table clean.

Konwinski: Additionally, one of the greatest benefits of our model is that founders retain autonomy. VCs often demand board seats, veto rights and up to 20% equity. With us, founders usually give up only 5%-10% equity, allowing them to maintain control of the company they built from the ground up.

Without the pressure of a VC board, how do you help founders maintain operational discipline? And what do exit horizons look like?

Konwinski: Women entrepreneurs are natural “hustlers” who are inherently self-motivated. They are also excellent at collaborating and leveraging their community rather than operating with ego. Many of the founders we work with are Gen X, balancing business with family, and they have developed an incredible ability to multitask and execute.

Huyck: We also encourage founders to bring on advisers rather than giving up board seats too early. As for exit strategies, many women founders are mission-driven and haven’t historically been forced to consider an exit. We provide the guidance to help them think through those horizons — whether that’s acquisition or long-term growth — so they can make informed decisions rather than being forced into a timeline by traditional VC pressure.

Finally, how does your platform compare to other equity crowdfunding sites like Wefunder?

Konwinski: It is apples-to-apples in terms of our SEC/FINRA licensing. Where we differ is our value proposition: we provide a “concierge” service. On many larger platforms, you are processed through an AI-driven, automated checklist. We are building relationships, talking to our founders, and acting as their partner throughout the process.

Related reading:

• The Portion Of US VC Funding That Went To Female Founders Hit A New Peak In 2023, Thanks To Massive AI Deals
• How Female Founders Can Access Capital In A Tight VC Funding Market
• Is There A Gender Bias in Funding? Yes. Here’s How Female Founders Can Overcome

Illustration:

AI’s share of venture funding climbed to 80% this quarter, up from 55% a year ago. The deployment is real. The liquidity question behind it is the one founders should be paying attention to.

In 2025, Crunchbase roughly 2,300 venture-backed acquisitions against just 65 IPOs. In aggregate, the LPs sitting behind every venture fund have been in since 2022. Record deployment in Q1 doesn’t change the math at the LP level, and that pressure is reshaping every term sheet, follow-on decision and board conversation in venture right now.

Know what’s actually driving the firm across the table

When a partner walks you through their thesis, they’re telling you a story about your market; rarely are they telling you a story about their fund. That second story determines whether they can write your bridge in 18 months, whether they’ll fight for pro rata in your Series B, and whether their behavior in the next downturn looks like patience or anxiety.

LPs are demanding cash back. Paper markups aren’t enough. Some firms are responding well, consolidating into their best companies and being deliberate about new commitments while others are pretending it’s still 2021. Founders should know which type they’re sitting across from before signing anything.

Ask the questions founders rarely ask

Three reference calls with portfolio CEOs used to be enough due diligence on a VC. Not anymore.

Ask what vintage the partner’s current fund is and how much dry powder is left. Ask how many of their 2018 through 2020 companies have produced realized returns rather than paper markups.

Ask whether their LPs have been pushing for GP-led secondaries. If the answer is yes, the firm is operating under a cash-flow constraint that will show up in your boardroom. These aren’t rude questions. They’re the same ones serious LPs are asking that partner this quarter, and high-quality firms welcome the conversation.

Build your buyer relationships now

If you’re raising in 2026, you’re statistically far more likely to get acquired than to ring the bell at the . Q1 2026 alone produced, the third-busiest quarter since 2022. Of the 21 venture-backed exits over $1 billion globally last quarter, only four happened in the U.S. The exit window for American founders is narrower than the headline funding numbers suggest.

Smart founders design for that reality from Series A. They know which platform companies have an active corporate development team. They build product surface area that maps cleanly into someone else’s stack. They cultivate executive relationships at the most likely acquirers years before any sale conversation, so when one starts naturally the introduction is already there.

Capital is plentiful. Discipline is what separates outcomes.

Every dollar concentrated into the four AI mega-rounds is a dollar that hasn’t returned anything to LPs yet. Founders who understand the LP-to-GP-to-startup chain end up with better partners, smarter terms and companies built for more than one path to a great outcome.

As the co-founder and managing partner of , is committed to establishing MGV as the premier venture firm for world-class tech entrepreneurs to accelerate their visions. Under Schröder’s stewardship, MGV has swiftly ascended to a top-quartile firm, surpassing the performance of 95% of venture funds. The performance of MGV is driven by Schröder’s unique approach to venture investing — that providing intensive sales training, devising robust fundraising strategies and securing follow-on investments is the best way to support founders and drive the deepest return for investors. has recognized him as one of the Top 100 global seed investors, and his perspectives are published regularly in Crunchbase News and other leading publications.

Related reading:

• What The Record Venture Funding Quarter Actually Means For Your Startup’s Fundraise
• Q1 2026 Shatters Venture Funding Records As AI Boom Pushes Startup Investment To $300B

That means the San Francisco-based startup has now surpassed its closest rival, , in terms of valuation. In February, OpenAI announced it had closed a $110 billion round at an $840 billion post-money valuation. That financing marked the largest raise ever, according to .

, , and led Anthropic’s latest raise. , , , , and co-led the round. The financing also included $15 billion of previously committed investments from hyperscalers, $5 billion from , which, interestingly, also participated in OpenAI’s most recent round of funding.

Anthropic’s massive round comes just over three months after the startup raised $30 billion in a Series G that valued it at $380 billion post-money. It has now raised nearly $144 billion since its 2021 inception, .

Since that round, Anthropic says it has grown its enterprise customer base. Its run-rate revenue crossed $47 billion earlier this month, according to the company.

“Claude is increasingly indispensable to our growing global community of customers, and we work tirelessly to make tools like Claude Code and Cowork more helpful, more powerful, and more adaptable to their needs,” said , chief financial officer of Anthropic, in . “This funding will help us serve the historic demand we are experiencing, stay at the research frontier, and bring Claude to more of the places where work happens.”

Related Crunchbase queries:

• The Crunchbase Unicorn Board

Related reading:

• Q1 2026 Shatters Venture Funding Records As AI Boom Pushes Startup Investment To $300B
• OpenAI’s New $110B Raise At A $840B Valuation Marks The Largest Venture Deal Ever
• Anthropic Raises $30B At $380B Valuation In Second-Largest Venture Funding Deal Of All Time

Illustration:

The global innovation economy remains largely defined by agglomeration dynamics. Worldwide, 19 ecosystems dominate the innovation landscape, increasingly concentrating innovation demand (corporates) and supply (scaleups) — attracting further growth capital (investors).

Meanwhile, other ecosystems struggle to achieve a meaningful presence on the global innovation map and are at serious risk of technological disruption and economic downfall.

Yet something is happening below the surface. Over the past decade, the composition of the Global Innovation Ecosystems Life Cycle Curve changed dramatically, as the number of scaleup ecosystems worldwide has more than doubled.

The trend is not stopping just here: we expect these figures to even triple in the coming years.

In this new scenario, emerging innovation economies hold the potential for disrupting the agglomeration paradigm, toward a new scheme of interconnected networks of specialized local innovation hot spots.

Among them, there is also Africa. While the continent still lacks ecosystems at the most advanced stages of maturity, it now counts four ecosystems at the startup stage and 40 at the standup stage, compared with respectively 25 of those 10 years ago, according to by my organization, , in collaboration with and .

Africa: the awakening giant of the coming decade?

As of today, Africa’s innovation economy includes 883 tech scaleups that have raised a combined $24.7 billion. Despite this progress, the continent still represents only about 1% of global figures.

The African innovation landscape remains highly concentrated around four main hubs: South Africa, Egypt (North-East), Nigeria (West Africa) and Kenya (East Africa). The North-Western corner of the continent still lacks a dominant hub, although Tunisia, Morocco and Algeria remain the leading candidates.

A testbed for clean technologies?

Emerging innovation economies that thrive on the global innovation map typically build on top of highly specialized, unique local strengths.

Our recent analysis has identified clear evidence that Africa holds significant potential over the development of clean energy systems and technologies.

The relative prominence of the cleantech sector in Africa is evident from the data:

• Africa is home to 95 cleantech scaleups, representing roughly 11% of the total scaleup base.
• Collectively, they have attracted approximately one-fifth of all capital deployed to African ventures.
• Cleantech has also generated a disproportionate share of high-growth leaders, accounting for around 20% of both scalers (scaleups that raised more than $100 million) and super scalers ($1 billion-plus).

Within cleantech, a highly specialized vertical is also emerging, what we might call “gridtech”:

• It comprises 16 scaleups (17% of the cleantech total) and two scalers (25% of total).
• It has attracted around 30% of total cleantech funding.
• Africa’s sole cleantech tech giant, Kenya-based , operates within this gridtech vertical.

That said, the numbers still point to a gap.

The elephant in the room

The main challenge is the grid infrastructure deficit, which remains the primary bottleneck to scaling energy system technologies. As shown in the map below, Africa’s grid infrastructure is highly fragmented: High-voltage networks are concentrated in a few densely populated areas, while large parts of the continent remain largely disconnected.

As a result, grid infrastructure development and electrification are key to unlocking Africa’s growth — consider that Africa still accounts for only about 5% of global energy supply — and its innovation potential.

At the same time, the continent holds world-class renewable resources, including approximately 13% of global technical hydropower potential and around 60% of the world’s best solar resources.

Africa’s energy system is expanding, but fully unlocking its economic and innovation potential will depend on accelerating electrification and strengthening grid infrastructure.

Blended finance will be critical to enable this growth. Both private and public capital are required: private capital drives innovation, while public finance enables foundational infrastructure such as grid expansion.

In particular, private capital needs to be complemented by structured public finance initiatives to address the inherent limitations of a relatively small domestic VC market, which remains heavily focused on early-stage investments.

Public capital will be essential for infrastructure development. In gridtech especially, public investors are expected to account for up to about 80% of total investments by 2030, reflecting the capital intensity and risk profile of grid infrastructure.

International capital still dominates the market, with approximately 69% of active investors originating outside Africa, underscoring continued reliance on foreign capital despite growing local participation.

Get the full story in our report:

is chairman of and a professor at . He is a serial entrepreneur who has started three startups in his career, the last of which is , among the five Italian scaleups that have raised the largest amount of capital. He is recognized among the leading international experts in open innovation and has wide experience in setting up and managing open innovation projects — venture clients, venture builders, intrapreneurship, CVCs — with large multinational companies, as well as advising and training on this subject. Onetti has a column on () and several other tech blogs.

Photo by on .

The share of U.S. venture funding going to companies with Black founders in 2025 remained low, even as overall startup investment ticked slightly higher, Crunchbase data shows.

Only around $942 million — or just 0.32% of total U.S. venture funding — went to startups with a Black founder or co-founder last year, per Crunchbase data. That’s one of the lowest shares in years, and down more than two-thirds from just three years prior.

This year has started off on a slightly rosier note, with $643 million raised by U.S.-based startups with a Black founder or co-founder as of May 20. The majority of that was raised in the first quarter, marking the most raised in a single quarter since Q2 2022, when $653 million was raised by a Black founder or co-founder.

It’s important to note that the relatively robust quarter was in large part due to an outsized round — a February $350 million Series E raise by Palo Alto, California-based . Co-founded in 2017 by chief technologist , the AI chip startup has raised a total of $1.5 billion in known funding. and co-led its latest raise.

As such, it’s not surprising that the $643 million raised so far this year was secured across just 34 deals, signaling larger deal sizes overall.

It’s important to note that the total funding raised by startups with a Black founder or co-founder so far this year is still a small percentage of the $252 billion raised by U.S.-based startups in 2026.

Last year’s total also represents a sharp decline from the record venture funding year of 2021, when investment in Black startup founders hit a high of $5.2 billion in the wake of the 2020 racial justice movement. Still, even during the peak year, investment in Black founders represented just 1.5% of U.S. venture funding, per Crunchbase data.

, managing partner at said the decline in venture funding to Black entrepreneurs coincides with a marked shift in the political environment. “There are fewer conversations on the topic as many are afraid to speak on it directly, which is concerning,” he told Crunchbase News via email.

Overall, Pierre-Jacques believes venture capital is about finding outliers. “That isn’t going to change for any group,” he said. “I focus on what we can do as a firm and then advocate for underserved founders.“

Notable rounds

Similar to 2025, much of the funding tally for Black-founded startups in 2026 came from a few larger rounds. Standouts include:

• SambaNova, the AI hardware and software company mentioned above. It specializes in providing infrastructure for AI and machine learning applications. Notably, tech giant reportedly in SambaNova to 8.2% following its investment in the Series E round.
• , a New York sweepstakes-based sports prediction market, picked up $75 million in a February Series B round led by at a $500 million post-money valuation. The platform has users participate in peer-to-peer wagering on sporting events.
• San Francisco-based , which is building an AI-native insurance brokerage for SMBs, also raised in February, a $47 million Series A led by . It is an alumnus of the prestigious startup accelerator .
• Live events platform in March raised a $37 million Series B led by .
• , which sells AI-driven government contracting software, raised $30 million in a January Series B round co-led by and.

Relationships and networking

Investors and founders who spoke with Crunchbase News on the topic said that in the current AI-centric funding environment, relationships and networking have only become more important for startup founders, particularly Black and other historically overlooked entrepreneurs.

“In an age of AI, who you know matters more than ever,” Pierre-Jacques said. “There are fewer deals getting done by firms and partners. You have to build personal relationships in order to make it to the top of the stack. It isn’t just about KPI comparisons.”

is a two-time startup founder currently raising capital for his fintech startup, . He agrees with Pierre-Jacques on the importance of Black founders widening their networks as much as possible.

Spearman urged younger or Black founders who are building and raising for the first time to gain as much insight and inside knowledge as possible from other founders.

“This can save significant headaches, time and limited resources, especially during the early stages,” he said. “Black people in America have defined, and continue to shape, what it means to be in community, and I’m thankful to play a small role in that ecosystem.”

Having worked at , an Austin analytics software company, Spearman said that he built a network over time that included exited founders whom he was able to turn to as “adviser-investors.”

“These advisers can write checks, make intros and think like operators, which is sometimes better than seeking advice from VCs who haven’t been operators during the zero-to-one stages,” he said. He also recommends that new founders, particularly those in focused sectors such as fintech or insurance tech, consider attending industry-specific conferences like Money 20/20 or ITC to make connections with VCs “months and sometimes years before you’re ready to raise.”

Spearman also said Black founders should be open to sources of funding other than traditional venture capital, particularly when first starting out. Many are steered toward accelerators at the early stages, he noted.

“I don’t think this is bad counsel,” he told Crunchbase News via email, “especially if it involves an accelerator like the one offers annually.” TenYour participated in that accelerator in 2025, which resulted in both an investment and industry connections, he said.

Looking forward, not back

The startup funding landscape has drastically changed in the span of just five years. In 2021, the aftermath of the COVID pandemic, a heated 2020 presidential election, and the high-profile killings of Black Americans including George Floyd, Breonna Taylor and Ahmaud Arbery spurred many of the largest startup investors to make high-profile pledges to back more Black and other underrepresented founders.

Now, “we are so far from 2020, not only in the pledges made but also in the social and venture landscape,” Spearman said.

Still, “rather than looking back,” he said, “I’d recommend we collectively continue to push forward to envision and co-create the world we want. For founders, that often starts with their ventures and the choice to solve a meaningful problem that other founders (and investors) may overlook.”

, co-founder of and an investor with , is frustrated that funding to Black-founded startups relative to overall venture investment funding has fallen in the past few years. That’s especially disheartening, she said, given research indicating that Black Americans are more active consumers of AI tools than the general population, with a reported 53% using such tools daily or weekly, versus 39% of people overall.

“To me, this shows early signals that the investment cycle creating wealth from AI is not flowing back to the communities using AI the most,” she said.

In 2021, Lal and started VC Unleashed, a nonprofit, to increase access to the venture capital world for both founders and aspiring investors. While the organization is open to all, Lal said, Unleashed uses its platform “to uplift underrepresented founders as much as we can to help them access capital and build their network,” including through its upcoming conference.

When asked if she could change one structural aspect about how venture capital operates to improve outcomes for Black founders, Lal said it would be moving the conversation upstream from general partners at VC firms to those firms’ limited partners.

“GPs deploy capital that LPs give them, and if a pension fund or endowment isn’t asking its VC managers about founder portfolio composition with the same rigor it applies to sector concentration or stage exposure, that absence gets transmitted all the way down to the founder level,” she wrote via email. “Questions on founder demographics, asked consistently and at scale, would do more to shift behavior than anything else.”

Related Crunchbase queries:

Related reading:

• Share Of Startup Funding For Black Founders Hits Multiyear Low
• Funding To Black Startup Founders Quadrupled In Past Year, But Remains Elusive

Methodology

The data contained in this report comes directly from Crunchbase, and is based on reported data provided by our partners, venture partners, our community network and news sources. The data in this report is focused on the U.S. market for underrepresented minorities, namely Black-/African-American-founded companies.

Crunchbase’s dataset is constantly expanding, but there are gaps. A company may not have founders listed, or the Diversity Spotlight data may not be updated on its Crunchbase profile.

We do believe we are missing companies, especially at the early stages of funding.

If you notice missing data, please reach out to spotlight@crunchbase.com or verify with your company email to update your company’s Diversity Spotlight tags directly onsite.

Crunchbase, like all databases of private-market transactions, experiences some reporting delays. The data for 2025 and 2026 will increase over time relative to previous years. As data is added to Crunchbase over time, some of the numbers in this report may shift.

Illustration:

This tracker includes layoffs conducted by U.S.-based companies or those with a strong U.S. presence and is updated at least bi-weekly. We’ve included both startups and publicly traded, tech-heavy companies. We’ve also included companies based elsewhere that have a sizable team in the United States, such as , even when it’s unclear how much of the U.S. workforce has been affected by layoffs.

Layoff and workforce figures are best estimates based on reporting. We source the layoffs from media reports, our own reporting, social media posts and , a crowdsourced database of tech layoffs.

We recently updated our layoffs tracker to reflect the most recent round of layoffs each company has conducted. This allows us to quickly and more accurately track layoff trends, which is why you might notice some changes in our most recent numbers.

If an employee headcount cannot be confirmed to our standards, we note it as “unclear.”

led the round, which included participation from , , , , and others.

Founded in 2020, New York-based Capchase initially made a name for itself by providing revenue-based financing for SaaS companies. However, by late 2022, the company began to evolve into its current iteration: a vendor-financing technology platform. Capchase embeds itself directly into the sales workflows of companies such as original equipment manufacturers, software vendors and cybersecurity providers.

It has entirely discontinued its revenue-based financing, and instead now focuses on B2B buy now, pay later tools that help software and hardware vendors offer flexible payment terms while getting paid upfront.

The concept addresses a longstanding friction point in enterprise sales: vendors want cash immediately, while buyers want to preserve capital. Rather than forcing a buyer to pay $1 million upfront in 30 days, Capchase allows a sales rep to offer more flexible terms — say, $15,000 per month for up to five years. When the deal is signed, Capchase pays the vendor the full amount upfront, net of a financing fee.

“We started to see that there was a very big pull in the market,” , co-founder and CEO of Capchase, said in an interview. “We saw that sales cycles were expanding, CAC was going up, and all of this was driven by the high interest rates. Buyers wanted to pay as late as possible and pay installments.”

He added: “We shipped a product quickly to solve that need, and we started to get very strong market pull to the point that that ended up eclipsing the other product lines, and we decided to focus everything there.”

Displacing a legacy market with AI

The pivot has unlocked impressive growth. Capchase says it has a 400% growth rate over the past 12 months and forecasts another 200% growth in the upcoming year. Its workforce has scaled alongside this momentum, expanding to 75 employees, up from 50 a year ago.

While legacy banks, independent financing firms and captive financing arms have dominated the $1.3 trillion equipment financing market for decades, Capchase says it differentiates itself by replacing 1980s-era workflows with real-time automation.

Traditional financing approvals often require an email-driven back-and-forth that can take four to 17 days, according to Fernandez. Capchase claims to compress that timeline into seconds.

Capchase uses artificial intelligence and machine learning agents across its platform. For example, an “order generation agent” parses uploaded quotes or purchase orders to create flexible payment links in under 60 seconds — down from a manual process that typically took eight hours — according to Fernandez. As another example, an AI email agent automatically handles multiparty coordination between vendors, resellers and buyers, all without human intervention.

“What makes us different is that we are both the lender and the technology. And AI is what makes the combination work at the speed enterprise tech sales demands,” Fernandez told Crunchbase News in an interview. “We built the credit decisioning engines that allow us to look at all the data these other players look at as well, but we were able to do it and infer it in just seconds.”

Moving upmarket and expanding globally

The new capital will primarily support Capchase’s rapid transition into the enterprise space.

“In the past 24 months, we went from serving vendors in the tens of millions of revenue to in the last 12 months in the hundreds of millions in revenue, and now in the multiple billions of revenue,” Fernandez said.

The startup’s platform now underwrites more stable, established borrowers. The average buyer utilizing Capchase has roughly $80 million in annual revenue, has been operating for over 20 years, and is profitable, he added. This profile has allowed Capchase to maintain a highly controlled risk environment and what he described as a “spectacular” default rate.

Capchase currently supports hundreds of tech vendors and tens of thousands of buyers. Its customer roster features enterprise tech giants, public cybersecurity firms and massive distributors, including , , , and .

Though Capchase keeps its specific financials, valuation and cumulative funding figures confidential, Fernandez confirmed that the latest capital injection represents a valuation step up from its 2021 $80 million Series B round. At the time of that raise, the company had raised more than $400 million in equity and debt.

Looking ahead, Capchase will use its fresh capital to scale beyond its core markets in North America — the U.S. and Canada — and Europe, including the U.K., Ireland, Belgium, Netherlands, the Nordics and Spain. Driven by direct demand from its enterprise partners, the company is officially entering the Australian market this year.

Reducing friction with flexible terms

, co-founder and managing partner of 01 Advisors, said he was drawn to Capchase primarily because of how AI has helped it disrupt traditional vendor financing.

Incumbents possessed plenty of capital but “have never been forced to build real technology because their customers had nowhere else to go,” he wrote via email.

AI fundamentally shifts this dynamic, allowing Capchase to “underwrite a buyer and create accurate docs in 30 seconds,” he said.

This solution hits close to home for Bain, who previously ran the sales team at and says he intimately understands the friction Capchase aims to eliminate. In traditional enterprise sales, momentum frequently stalls when a ready-to-buy customer hits a roadblock over payment terms, forcing sales leaders to either “discount to close, wait for the next budget cycle, or spend weeks negotiating.”

Those outcomes drain margin or time. Capchase completely removes that friction, Bain said, by offering instant approvals and flexible terms.

Fintech startups, particularly those that apply AI to traditionally manual or burdensome processes, have benefited from increased investment in recent quarters. Global funding to VC-backed financial technology startups totaled $53.8 billion in 2025, per Crunchbase . That’s a more than 29% increase from 2024’s total of $41.6 billion raised.

Related Crunchbase query:

Related reading:

• Fintech Startups Globally Raise More Money In Far Fewer Deals In Q1 2026
• Exclusive: Capchase Raises $80M Series B To Give Startups Alternatives To Venture

Illustration:

Defense, energy, robotics and government have historically been classic no-go areas for VC investment. These “hard” industries have slow procurement cycles, tight regulatory oversight and high-friction customer migration in common. Legacy software vendors serving them have benefited from a barrier of complexity to innovate slowly without facing the risk of customer churn.

This made the victims of this year’s AI anxiety-driven sell-off all the more dramatic. Software juggernauts serving heavy industries — , , , — have gone from safe bets to being the subject of investor scrutiny.

While headlines have attributed that sell-off to quick-fire launches of tools for vertical industries, there’s more at play. The macro trend is a newfound founder enthusiasm to build AI-native entrants in legacy industries, and the backing they’re enjoying from VCs that can see the once-in-a-generation opportunity to disrupt entire industries.

Why investor perceptions are changing

Context is important. Geopolitical instability, supply chain pressure and energy security concerns have placed industrial resilience at the center of national policy.

Be it the U.S. or across Europe, policymakers are prioritizing investment in grid upgrades, transportation networks and public sector infrastructure, while also re-examining procurement and compliance systems that have slowed the adoption of emerging technologies that could bring said industrial resilience about quicker.

At the same time, quick advances in AI and agentic systems make it possible to build a new class of AI-native software tailored to “hard” industries through deep integration with verticalized tooling and specialist automation of critical workflows.

Age-old incumbent moats, like cumbersome migration cycles that put businesses off moving to new software providers, are also being challenged as embedded automation cuts migration processes down from weeks to days.

The creation of software in and of itself has become commoditised in the AI era, and more investors are spotting that operational depth, intuitive UI/UX, speed to market and seamless integration into complex real-world systems are traits of high-quality vertical software that startups are well-placed to build.

Investors are also realizing that most of the available value from horizontal SaaS has been extracted. In those early post-ChatGPT years, VCs widely backed AI companies building for non-regulated SMB adoption — exactly the audience that foundational model players like and Anthropic are now making inroads with as they push into enterprises. Foundational models are general in nature, and their verticalization can therefore only stretch so far. Given this, AI-native products built for heavy industries are compelling and competitive propositions for VCs.

Growing faith that incumbents are vulnerable

There’s always been lots of skepticism among investors and tech executives that AI startups can meaningfully challenge incumbents that have been on top for decades. But those companies are operating over sprawling product architecture and processes that were built in the pre-AI era.

Pivoting from that state of affairs to AI-native systems is a massive undertaking, whereas new companies are being launched with those systems in place from day one. Incumbents also have a low incentive to innovate at pace when customer churn is limited. But in the current context of breakneck speed improvements to AI models and agentic systems, waiting for churn to show up will be too late.

Scepticism also risks overlooking the profile of outstanding founders building AI-native challengers. Some of the fastest-growing startups in defense, energy, government and the public sector are led by people who came directly from the same industries they are transforming. Their understanding of sector constraints and operational realities gives them an advantage over general software providers that lack the same specialism and experience.

Picking up pace

Savvy entrepreneurship and VC investors are colliding to make a play for hard sectors. Once seen as off-limits due to procurement complexity or regulatory burden, these sectors represent huge, untapped potential in the new AI-native era.

The emerging companies offering solutions designed for these industries with deep, vertical-specific tooling integration and critical workflow automation are well placed to command a growing share of overall AI funding as they serve customer pain points that have gone unanswered for years.

We are talking about disruption within markets worth trillions. The scale of the opportunity for growing VC interest in sectors they’ve historically avoided is no mystery or miscalculation. The vision is an ambitious one. Rather than simply building better software, the foundational sectors of the world economy are about to be reimagined.

is a partner for the U.S. and Europe at early-stage venture capital firm . He currently oversees the deployment of the firm’s latest $1 billion fund, backing a range of AI-native startups building to disrupt legacy industries and business processes. In a personal capacity, Cuvelier wrote an angel check for at pre-seed.

Related Crunchbase queries:

Illustration:

Every year for the past several years, the same prediction circulates: This is the year the IPO market comes back. We said it in 2025. We said it in 2026. We’ll probably say it again in 2027.

And every year, a handful of headline-grabbing offerings get held up as proof. This cycle it’s , and . The narrative writes itself: the window is open, the giants are listing, the market is back.

But here’s the catch: those aren’t IPOs for the rest of the market. They’re exceptions to a rule that has been hardening for 30 years.

The IPO market isn’t closed. It’s shrinking.

The instinct is to treat the IPO drought as cyclical, a consequence of rate hikes, market volatility or investor risk appetite. Fix the macro, the thinking goes, and the listings follow.

The data doesn’t support that story.

In 1996, more than 8,000 companies were listed on U.S. stock exchanges. Today, fewer than 4,000 are, even as the U.S. economy has tripled in size.

The bar to go public has moved in one direction.

In 1980, the median company went public with around $64 million in revenue in today’s dollars. Today, the typical IPO candidate has revenue that would have made it a mid-cap public company a generation ago.

The result: Companies are staying private far longer, and the liquidity that shareholders were counting on keeps getting pushed out.

Every time the IPO window “reopens,” it reopens at a higher threshold than before. Waiting for conditions to return to historical norms isn’t a strategy. It’s a bet against a structural trend that has outlasted every rate cycle, bull market and recovery in recent memory.

The companies left behind

When the bar rises high enough, it doesn’t just delay IPOs. It eliminates them.

There are thousands of private companies in the United States today with $50 million, $100 million, $200 million in annual revenue, with continued growth. Previously, companies at that scale formed the backbone of the public markets. Today they’re still private, and most will stay that way.

Not all of them are great businesses. Some raised at 2021 peak valuations and are quietly running out of runway. But a real subset has grown past the early venture stage. They have revenue, margins and years of operating history. The IPO was supposed to be the exit. For most of them, it won’t be.

Who’s actually suffering

Employees at these companies made a bet: below-market salaries, equity instead of cash, years of building. Their equity was supposed to be liquid by now. It isn’t. Meanwhile, life has continued: mortgages, children, aging parents, career crossroads.

I lived this at . When I left, exercising my options triggered a tax bill I couldn’t afford without finding liquidity for shares I didn’t know how to sell. The market for these shares exists in theory. In practice it’s opaque, fragmented and slow. A transaction that should take weeks can take months, if it closes at all.

Venture general partners are in a different bind. Their funds are locked in companies with no exit path. Distributed to Paid-In capital is near historic lows. Limited partners who expected returns from prior vintage funds are still waiting, either holding back re-commitments or concentrating capital into the megafunds that can generate deal flow regardless of exit conditions. The mid-tier manager without DPI is struggling to raise.

A small number of the most prominent companies can run tender offers, giving employees a company-sponsored, structured opportunity to sell their shares.

For everyone else, there are brokered secondary marketplaces that work, slowly and imperfectly, for a narrow slice of the most in-demand names. According to , 90% of all venture secondary volume was concentrated in just 15 companies last quarter. For the rest, the market barely functions.

We’ve been here before

This situation has a historical parallel most people in finance have forgotten.

In the late 1800s, the was the only legitimate listing venue, and it was selective. Hundreds of real companies couldn’t meet the requirements, so brokers took matters into their own hands. They gathered on Broad Street, outside the NYSE, and began trading unlisted stocks on the curb. Literally on the sidewalk. It was chaotic, informal, fragmented. No centralized pricing. No standardized process. No real infrastructure.

But the companies were real. And the demand was real.

Over time, the curb traders organized. They moved indoors. They built rules and infrastructure. The Curb Market became the . The companies that traded there weren’t defective, the system was.

The private secondary market today looks a lot like that sidewalk. Fragmented brokers. Inconsistent pricing. Transactions that depend on who you know. The companies being traded are real. The demand is real. The infrastructure doesn’t exist yet, but it’s coming. Markets that serve real economic needs don’t stay informal forever.

The original Curb Market didn’t fail. It grew up. What’s happening in private secondaries today will do the same. The only variable is timing, and the shareholders waiting on liquidity are the ones absorbing the cost of that delay.

�� is the founder of and managing partner of Earlyasset Capital, where he is building infrastructure for and investing in the venture secondary market. Earlier in his career, he was part of the original founding team at .

Related Crunchbase query:

Related reading:

• The IPO Window Won’t Stay Open On Its Own
• Forecast: 2024 Was Slow For Tech IPOs, But 2025 Could Be Different
• Crunchbase Predicts: IPOs Picked Up In 2025 And The Outlook For 2026 Is Even More Optimistic

Illustration: