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:

I can definitely understand their logic in wanting a valuation that builds on top of the previous valuation. I also understand that they have strong underlying tech, a good team and the belief that the right buyer would see the potential upside.

And to be fair, there are cases that support this line of thought.

But in the current AI cycle, we’ve seen transactions that look disconnected from fundamentals.

structured a roughly $650 million licensing and talent deal with , effectively bringing in most of the team and its technology. has done similar deals around AI startups, combining technology access with hiring key teams. and others have been active in this space as well.

In rare situations, they can be replicated. When they are, they can lead to exceptional outcomes and everyone involved would welcome that. But they cannot be the working assumption.

The main reason I decide to walk away from a deal is simply because expectations are not aligned with how M&A actually works. If we are not aligned on that from the beginning, I am setting myself up for failure.

Here are the patterns I see most often:

1. Narrative without enough proof

Founders tend to focus on what the company can become. Buyers focus on what has already been demonstrated. Technology and vision matter, but they need to be supported by real signals: Revenue quality, growth, retention and how easily the product fits into a buyer’s ecosystem all carry weight.

When expectations are built mainly on potential, the gap becomes hard to close.

2. Using exceptional outcomes as reference points

The market always has headline deals that shape perception, especially in AI. While these examples are real, we cannot use them as a baseline.

Most transactions are still priced on traction, growth and strategic fit. When a process is anchored on rare outliers, it is likely doomed to fail.

3. Capital raised vs. commercial reality

When a company raises capital at a certain valuation, it sets a reference point. Founders and investors expect the next outcome to build on that. Buyers look at something else entirely. Current performance and future synergies. If the business has not grown into the expectations created by earlier funding rounds, a gap forms, and it is a gap we need to address.

is a strategic adviser to tech companies and investors, specializing in strategy, growth and M&A, a guest contributor to Crunchbase News, and a seasoned lecturer. Learn more about his advisory services, lectures and courses at . for further insights and discussions.

Illustration:

Clay’s 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 — and hit major revenue milestones at breakneck speed — secondary sales are becoming a tool not just for retention, but for signaling strength. In Clay’s 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.

“Building a generational business is a marathon, and tenders help equity feel real when top talent has options,” 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. “In the tender offers we’ve participated in, most employees were limited to selling just 10-25% of their vested holdings, and nearly half of founders didn’t sell a single share, signaling long-term conviction,” he wrote via email. “Even modest liquidity can make a big difference, translating to life milestones like a down payment on a first home, a child’s education, or helping a loved one transition into care.”

Clay’s 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’s 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 “real.”

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

Crunchbase 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 — 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, “Hey, 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 .”��1 I like to think of it as “like is for designers, Clay is for go-to-market teams.”

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

It’s 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’s 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 —�� 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’s time?����

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’t. 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.)�� 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, “Is there work to do for customers? Can we make the product better?” 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’re still early in this. There are no exits on the horizon.

Related Crunchbase 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:

When it came time to sell, one company received multiple bids within weeks. The other struggled to generate interest.

The difference wasn’t the product. It wasn’t even the financial profile. It was purely relationships.

In M&A, relationships often matter more than tech. Founders who build visibility, credibility and direct access to buyers from day one end up with faster processes.

Known CEOs generate stronger processes

When a CEO is already on the radar of potential buyers, either from speaking engagements, thought leadership or previous partnerships, there is less friction at every stage. Buyers feel like they already know the person behind the company. The initial outreach is warmer, conversations move faster, and internal buy-in is easier to secure.

What I see is that well-networked CEOs tend to attract interest earlier in a process. Buyers familiar with a founder’s reputation and strategic vision are more likely to prioritize the opportunity and engage with fewer reservations.

In contrast, companies led by technically strong but lesser-known founders often require a much longer ramp-up. More diligence, more explanation and more effort to convince buyers why this company and this team are worth betting on.

Buyer confidence is built over years, not weeks

Acquirers look at more than just the product and financials. They evaluate leadership, culture fit and long-term integration potential. When a CEO is already viewed as a credible, insightful voice in their domain, that evaluation process becomes easier.

Reputation and access also matter earlier in the funnel. When a CEO has built trust with VCs, industry executives or corp dev leaders over time, they gain strategic optionality. They can engage in early conversations that later mature into real offers.

Start focusing on networking and visibility

Not every founder is naturally inclined to public speaking or personal brand building. Many are product-driven and prefer to stay focused on building. That’s a legitimate strength, but it comes with tradeoffs.

Networking, visibility and building industry presence are not secondary tasks. For CEOs leading companies that plan to grow, fundraise or explore strategic exits, these are core responsibilities. Founders who invest time in building relationships with investors, potential customers, partners and buyers create long-term strategic value.

That visibility does not have to mean being constantly on stage or posting daily. But there needs to be a deliberate effort to build credibility and access across the ecosystem.

If the founder is not in a position to do that, and has no will to invest in visibility, bringing in a well-known operator is one option.

In the end, company value is shaped not just by tech, but by who is telling the story and who is listening.

is a strategic adviser to tech companies and investors, specializing in strategy, growth and M&A, a guest contributor to Crunchbase News, and a seasoned lecturer. Learn more about his advisory services, lectures and courses at . for further insights and discussions.

Illustration:

In 2024, slightly less than half of planned, highlighting significant disruptions in the startup ecosystem due to market volatility and economic uncertainty.

Traditionally, IPOs have been pivotal exit strategies for venture-backed companies, enabling them to access liquidity and fuel growth. However, current market conditions have challenged their reliability, forcing many companies to reevaluate their paths to public markets. That’s why I’d like to delve into why companies are facing these challenges, but also how to adapt and explore alternative strategies.

Navigating delayed IPOs

Delayed IPOs significantly impact businesses, investors and employees. Market volatility, economic downturns and geopolitical tensions all create uncertainty, prompting companies to reconsider IPO timing and compressing the IPO window.

also deter IPO launches, as market corrections and heightened investor caution lead to diminished startup valuations. Regulatory scrutiny, with its evolving standards and stringent reporting requirements, adds another layer of complexity. Lastly, investor sentiment, whether bullish or pessimistic, directly influences IPO activity.

Stakeholders across the spectrum feel the pinch of delayed IPOs. Late-stage startups face funding shortfalls, while venture capital firms encounter extended timelines for their exits, complicating future fundraising.

Employees face consequences as well, as delayed IPOs affect stock option values, which are often central to their compensation packages.

Emerging risk profiles: valuation and financial risks

Delayed IPOs create a cascade of interconnected risks for startups. One of the primary concerns is valuation risk, where companies unable to meet their target IPO valuations may be forced into accepting down rounds. A down round means new financing occurs at a lower valuation than previous funding rounds, which can severely damage investor confidence.

This problem is compounded by a lack of liquidity; with IPOs delayed, investors face prolonged illiquidity, limiting their ability to capitalize on investment gains. This reduced liquidity strains investor patience and can pressure venture capitalists to seek alternative exit strategies, sometimes leading to hastened decisions.

Unfortunately, illiquidity also leads to significant financial risks. Startups reliant on IPO proceeds often face funding shortfalls and increasingly turn to debt financing. While this approach can temporarily ease cash flow pressures, it heightens financial vulnerability by increasing leverage and interest obligations, which may limit a company’s financial flexibility in the long term.

Moreover, these conditions can expose weaknesses in startups with unsustainable business models. Companies heavily dependent on continuous external funding may find their operational weaknesses starkly exposed when the IPO route is closed, risking insolvency or forced mergers and acquisitions at unfavorable terms without rapid adjustments.

IPO alternatives and risk management solutions

In this challenging environment, despite several companies kicking off roadshows, alternative exit strategies are becoming essential for startups. Mergers and acquisitions have gained prominence, with companies strategically aligning with larger entities to benefit from synergies, immediate financial returns and reduced market uncertainty.

Beyond M&A, other options have also emerged as viable paths to liquidity. For example, a direct listing allows a company to go public without issuing new shares, providing liquidity to existing shareholders without the typical IPO fanfare. Private equity buyouts also offer an by allowing a private equity firm to acquire a controlling stake in the company, providing an immediate exit for founders and investors.

Robust risk management solutions are also critical. Startups can proactively manage cash flow and anticipate funding shortfalls through accurate financial planning and forecasting. Streamlining operations, optimizing resource allocation and controlling costs can strengthen financial resilience, while detailed contingency plans ensure agility.

Additionally, comprehensive insurance solutions, such as directors and officers and errors and omissions coverage, protect startups and their leadership from financial and legal liabilities, maintaining stakeholder confidence amid uncertainty.

Best practices to avoid legal pitfalls

Directors and officers have fiduciary duties, which legally oblige them to prioritize the best interests of the company and its shareholders, ensuring responsible decision-making. Simply put, accuracy and transparency are crucial.

Regulatory compliance must be a priority. Failure to adhere to these regulations can result in significant legal and financial repercussions, undermining investor confidence and potentially jeopardizing the company’s future viability.

Companies should prioritize long-term sustainability and value creation, resisting pressures for short-term gains. By adopting these best practices, businesses foster investor confidence,, and ultimately position themselves for sustained success.

is the COO and co-founder of . Previously, he spent the first years of his career in roles across the venture ecosystem. From venture due diligence at to growth hacking and modeling for portfolio companies at to M&A negotiations at , he’s seen how companies succeed (and fail) from all angles. Niedbala is energized by the possibility of rethinking the way the insurance industry works through technology, best-in-class customer service, and cutting-edge marketing and branding. In 2021, Founder Shield joined , where Niedbala now leads digital product strategy and innovation.

Related Crunchbase query:

Related reading:

• 5 Companies Kick Off IPO Roadshow

Illustration:

The Santa Clara, California-based company priced shares at $19 each late Wednesday, the top of the projected range. The offering brought in $908 million for Netskope, which is trading on under the symbol NTSK.

Founded in 2012, Netskope was formed with a vision to build security tools optimized for the cloud computing era. It’s honed its offerings over the years as new technologies, in particular those enabled by AI, have added fresh online risks for enterprises to face.

Per Crunchbase , Netskope has been a prodigious venture fundraiser over the years, pulling in $1.4 billion in early- through late-stage financing. Its largest venture stakeholders are and , each with around 19% of Class B shares, followed by , with 9%.

Today, Netskope generates substantially all of its revenue from the sale of cloud subscriptions to its Netskope One platform. The company says it generally prices subscriptions based on the scale of a customer’s organization and the products it deploys, usually with a contract term of one to three years.

In recent quarters, Netskope has posted significant and growing revenue, along with large yet shrinking losses.

For the first six months of this year, revenue totaled $328 million, up 31% year over year. Concurrently, Netskope posted a $170 million net loss for the first half of 2025, down from $207 million in the year-earlier period.

The company’s market debut follows a relatively bullish period for cybersecurity startup dealmaking. Per Crunchbase data, cybersecurity was a hot area for venture investment in the first half of 2025, with total funding to the space hitting its highest level in three years.

Related Crunchbase queries:

Related reading:

• Cybersecurity Funding Surged Higher In Q2
• The IPO Market Is Opening Up. These 14 Companies Could Be Next.

Illustration:

On top of that, most of those companies are too large, or simply don’t want or need to be acquired. However, they are under pressure to provide liquidity to investors, shareholders and employees alike.

As such, many companies are turning to secondary transactions. In 2025 alone, several larger startups conducted secondary share sales. Expense management startup in March nearly doubled its valuation to $13 billion after . A group of investors bought the secondaries from employees and early investors.

In February, fintech-turned-HR company to and an unnamed “sovereign investor” — giving early investors a payout.

More recently, is said to be prepping to sell around $6 billion in stock as part of a secondary sale that would value the company at around $500 billion, according to an Aug. 15 .

With IPOs and M&A exits scarce, it’s no surprise that GPs and LPs are turning to secondary transactions as “a creative lifeline to unlock liquidity and reset fund timelines,” notes , partner at law firm .

In an email interview with Crunchbase News, Resendiz shares his views on what’s driving this momentum, how these deals are structured, and more.

Besides the obvious (companies not wanting to yet go public), what exactly is driving the momentum in secondary transactions?

Liquidity needs are driving this demand in the secondary markets. Some investors need cash. Some want to move dollars to other investments or reweigh their portfolios. They are willing to sell certain private investments at discounts for that liquidity that, in many instances, has been otherwise delayed or stalled by the current M&A and IPO climates.

Meanwhile, founders and employees are increasingly searching for de-risking, diversification and liquidity solutions for a portion of holdings in their private company employer holdings, especially as the road to organic liquidity grows longer.

How are these deals structured exactly? Does it vary depending on age, size and valuation of the company?

Sellers of private company interests have to be mindful and structure their sale transactions to comply with the various transfer restrictions applicable to those private shares. Those include right of first refusal, drag and tag rights, and the underlying company confidentiality provisions when obtaining company information in connection with the evaluation of the transaction.

Sellers also have to be cognizant of the company’s final say on transfers. It has the right to approve transfers and may ask many questions around the sale price and the impact on its cap table when considering granting consent to the sale. There are some relationship considerations to juggle in these processes.

Other than that, there’s not a lot of magic to the transfer documentation and typically, transactions take the form of relatively straightforward stock purchase sales.

Pricing comes down to the attractiveness of the underlying company and its perceived risk and reward metrics.

There are instances where buyers are asked to buy derivative securities or other instruments meant to mimic the economics of the underlying private company equity or buy the equity through other holding companies or SPVs (special purpose vehicles). Buyers should clearly understand what drives those requests. Those transactions often generate significant legal, tax and regulatory compliance considerations.

How are they reshaping fund strategy and investor relations?

A developing secondary market for portfolio company interests has given fund managers more options, in certain instances, when exploring liquidity opportunities especially for older vintage funds, away from the traditional M&A and IPO avenues that have not been as robust recently. Fund managers are still under a lot of pressure to produce tangible exits and generate DPI (Distributed to Paid-In Capital).

Investors want liquidity. The pricing for those underlying portfolio company secondary transactions vary greatly, and are largely driven by the company fundamentals and upside trajectory. At the same time, other managers are becoming buyers in these moments, seeking to capitalize on discounted prices opportunities. Secondary funds can’t keep up with investor demand and investment opportunities these days.

Illustration:

The most highly valued to join last month was , which raised a $2 billion seed round at a $12 billion value.

The U.S. led unicorn creation in June with 11 companies, followed by China with four. Israel, India, UAE and Switzerland each added one, as did New Zealand, with its first unicorn company, per Crunchbase data.

Eight exits

Six companies from the board went public, including four from the U.S. The most notable of the bunch was neobank , which went public at a value of $9.8 billion. Other U.S. unicorns that exited in June include , a stablecoin service for payments, AI-driven precision medicine startup , and behavioral health company .

Two unicorn companies from China went public: voice AI company and vehicle sharing service .

Two unicorns were also acquired in June: SMB accounts payable service , was purchased by New Zealand-based accounting software service , and , which was acquired by private equity firm .

June’s newly minted unicorns

Here are the 20 newly minted unicorns in June, by sector.

AI

• ’s AI research lab raised a $2 billion seed round — the largest seed round on record — led by . The less than 1-year-old San Francisco-based company was valued at $12 billion.
• , a conversational AI for customer experience, raised a $131 million Series C led by and Andreessen Horowitz. The 2-year-old San Francisco-based company was valued at $1.5 billion.
• deploys GenAI for companies and governments. It raised a $17.3 million first close in a round of funding, led by and . The 4-year-old Reston, Virginia-based company was valued at $1.2 billion.
• , an AI meeting assistant, raised a secondary financing for its early team members, valuing the company at $1 billion. The 9-year-old San Francisco-based company is reportedly profitable and says it’s used by people at 75% of Fortune 500 companies.

Robotics

• , developer of humanoid and quadrupedal robotics for industrial and consumer use, raised a $97 million Series C led by . The 8-year-old Hangzhou, China-based company was valued at $1.7 billion.
• , a robotic AI inspection service for defense, energy and manufacturing, raised a $125 million Series D led by . The 12-year-old Pittsburgh-based company was valued at $1.3 billion.
• , a developer of a humanoid robot for retail that manages inventory, replenishment and packaging, raised a $153 million funding led by . The 2-year-old Beijing-based company was valued at $1 billion.

Financial services

• , a platform to trade on event outcomes, raised a $185 million Series C led by . The 6-year-old New York-based company was valued at $2 billion.
• , a fund administration platform for private equity and venture, raised a $130 million Series D led by . The 12-year-old San Francisco-based company was valued at $1.1 billion.

Developer tools

• , a product management tool for software teams, raised an $82 million Series C led by Accel. The 6-year-old San Francisco-based company was valued at $1.3 billion.
• , a real time data observability platform for software, raised a $115 million Series E led by . The 9-year-old Tel Aviv, Israel-based company was valued at $1.1 billion.

Web3

• , a cryptography company building encryption solutions for blockchain, raised a $57 million Series B led by and . The 5-year-old Switzerland-based company was valued at $1.2 billion.
• , a blockchain infrastructure developer integrated into , raised a $29 million Series A led by Ribbit Capital. The 3-year-old Dubai-based company was valued at $1 billion.

Software

• , an open source operating system to compete with Windows and MacOs in China, raised a $418 million corporate funding led by The 5-year-old Guangdong, China-based company was valued at $1.6 billion.

Healthcare

• , a medical imaging equipment company that can identify, diagnose and recommend treatment, raised a $139 million Series A led by and. The 7-year-old Shanghai-based company was valued at $1.4 billion.

Sports

• , a software service for high performance sports team development, raised a $235 million Series F led by existing investor . The 15-year-old Durham, North Carolina-based company was valued at $1.2 billion.

Defense tech

• Military planning software company raised a $24 million Series C extension led by . The 6-year-old Honolulu-based company was valued at $1.1 billion. Its Series C funding 3 months earlier led by and valued the company at $650 million.

Network services

• , a networking infrastructure company, raised a $170 million Series C led by General Catalyst. The 9-year-old San Francisco-based company was valued at $1 billion.

E-commerce

• , a B2B e-commerce marketplace for food and groceries, raised a $120 million Series D led by . The 9-year-old Bangalore, India-based company was valued at $1 billion. Jumbotail also announced in June that it completed an acquisition of , a B2B marketplace, incubated by SC Ventures.

Devices

• , a smart collar technology to manage cattle grazing, raised a $99 million Series D led by . The 9-year-old Auckland, New Zealand-based company was valued at $1 billion.

Related Crunchbase unicorn lists

• (1,605)
• (77)
• (112)
• (102)
• (803)
• (501)
• (209)
• (37)
• (454)
• (523)

Methodology

The Crunchbase Unicorn Board is a curated list that includes private unicorn companies with post-money valuations of $1 billion or more and is based on Crunchbase data. New companies are as they reach the $1 billion valuation mark as part of a funding round.

The unicorn board does not reflect internal company valuations — such as those set via a 409a process for employee stock options — as these differ from, and are more likely to be lower than, a priced funding round. We also do not adjust valuations based on investor writedowns, which change quarterly, as different investors will not value the same company consistently within the same quarter.

Funding to unicorn companies includes all private financings to companies that are tagged as unicorns, as well as those that have since graduated to .

Exits analyzed here only include the first time a company exits.

Please note that all funding values are given in U.S. dollars unless otherwise noted. Crunchbase 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 Crunchbase long after the event was announced, foreign currency transactions are converted at the historic spot price.

Illustration:

This year, however, that often hasn’t been the case. Because private company valuations hit such frothy heights a couple years ago, even good-sized exits are commonly well below peak.

To illustrate, we used data to assemble a list of the as well as . We then pulled out examples of multiple cases where exit valuations were well below peak, charted below

Small to moderate markdowns

The discounts to peak pricing aren’t always vast. Marketing automation provider , for instance, went public at a valuation only a couple percentage points below its boom-era high.

A more middle-of-the-road outcome was for , a provider of video collaboration tools that sold to for $975 million in October. While that looks like a large purchase by 2023 standards, Loom actually sold at a discount from a $1.5 billion peak valuation for its Series C in 2021.

There was a slightly larger discount from peak for ’s $435 million sale to . Boston-based Corvus raised a $100 million Series C led by in March 2021 at a $750 million valuation.

Bigger discounts

Others saw larger drops.

Probably the best-known case in point is . The grocery delivery platform hit a peak valuation of $39 billion as a private company, but reduced that number on multiple occasions as it prepped for a public offering under less giddy market conditions.

By the time it actually did IPO in September, the company went out with an initial valuation of $8.3 billion. Since then, it’s sunk to around $6.6 billion.

Another once-vaunted unicorn, digital mortgage provider , saw an even steeper valuation drop as the climate turned and refinance activity on its platform shriveled in the wake of interest rate hikes.

After hitting a roughly $4 billion valuation in 2020, the company prepped to go public via a SPAC merger in 2021 at a $7.7 billion value. In August, when Better finally did make it to market, it was worth a tiny fraction of that sum. Since then, it’s sunk further, with a recent market cap around $360 million.

Still, there were big wins too

Despite the breadth of post-peak markdowns, we have seen some exits that look strong for investors at all stages.

Among these is game developer , acquired by for $4.9 billion in April in what ranks as the largest deal of the year.

, a developer of obesity drugs that agreed to acquire in July for up to $1.93 billion, looks like another big win. It’s a big number considering that Oakland, California-based Versanis was only founded in 2021. That year, the company raised its only known venture round, a $70 million Series A led�� by and .

Backers of generative AI startup also came out ahead after signed a definitive agreement in June to acquire the company for $1.3 billion. Previously, San Francisco-based MosaicML had reportedly raised $64 million since launching in 2021.

Can’t always get what you want

Overall, the exit numbers aren’t too surprising given the current market climate. Venture investment is down sharply from 2021 and 2022 levels, and startup valuations are broadly lower as well.

Of course, there will always be hot companies and hot sectors, like generative AI and obesity therapeutics, where large and lucrative exits still happen.

Related Crunchbase Pro queries:

Illustration:

Three unicorns in the crypto space faced bankruptcy in December 2022; , and . And door-to-door delivery service , based in Norway, left the board with a valuation below its prior billion-dollar value.

We estimate that many more companies�� will drop off the board, if given a new valuation in 2023. Half of the 1,400-plus companies currently on the board are valued at $1.5 billion and under.

So which companies are garnering fundings at high valuations?

The new unicorns

The three companies that joined in December 2022 include:

• Shenzhen-based hydrogen fuel cell vehicle company raised $647.5 million in a Series B funding valued at $1.9 billion. Founded in 2016, the company was incubated by (State Power Investment Corp.), one of the largest energy groups in China. It aims to support the ecosystem of�� developing hydrogen fuel cells, vehicles and refueling stations.
• Salt Lake City-based lifesciences quality and manufacturing solution raised a Series A funding of $150 million led by . The funding valued the company at $1.3 billion. The company has grown to $100 million ARR without raising prior funding and is over three decades old.
• London-based talent engagement platform raised $50 million in a Series D funding valued at $1 billion. led the round. This is part of the , which led the Series C funding in June 2021 that valued the company at $800 million. Beamery counts and amongst its customers, “with net retention for ” according to its latest funding announcement.

Four exits

Four companies left the current unicorn board and joined the . These include Berlin-based delivery startup , which was acquired by Turkey-based for $1.2 billion. Gorillas was last valued in 2021 at $3.1 billion in a Series C funding.

And on the public markets side, San Francisco-based peer-to-peer car sharing company was valued at $1.2 billion in its listing.

Two companies from China exited. Hangzhou-based , an automation computing technology integrated into cars, went public on via a SPAC merger which valued the company at $3.8 billion. And Henan-based snack food brand went public on the valued close to $3 billion.

Crunchbase Pro queries listed for this article

All Crunchbase Pro queries are dynamic, with results updating over time. They can be adapted by location and/or timeframe for analysis.

Unicorn queries

• (1,432)
• (713)
• (449)
• (193)
• (366)
• (415)
• ($129B)

Methodology

The Crunchbase Unicorn Board is a curated list that includes private unicorn companies with post-money valuations of $1 billion or more and is based on Crunchbase data. New companies are as they reach the $1 billion valuation mark as part of a funding round.

The unicorn board does not reflect internal company valuations — such as those set via a 409a process for employee stock options — as these differ from, and are more likely to be lower than, a priced funding round. We also do not adjust valuations based on investor writedowns, which change quarterly, as different investors will not value the same company consistently within the same quarter.

Funding to unicorn companies includes all private financings to companies that are tagged as unicorns, as well as those that have since graduated to the .

Please note that all funding values are given in U.S. dollars unless otherwise noted. Crunchbase 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 Crunchbase long after the event was announced, foreign currency transactions are converted at the historic spot price.

Illustration: Dom Guzman