What’s funding like in the AgriTech market right now?

All funding deals in the AgriTech market over the last 24 months

Below is the table listing all the deals. You can find our methodology at the end of this page.

If you want a deeper understanding of the market and its current dynamics, get our report covering the AgriTech Market.

Is AgriTech funding actually weaker now than it was a year ago?

AgriTech funding is weaker today in breadth and underlying capital availability, even though the startups that still raise money are getting bigger rounds.

We counted 123 financings in the latest 12 months, down from 135, while the number of funded companies fell from 133 to 120. Total capital also slipped 11.5%, from $1.525 billion to $1.351 billion.

At the same time, the median round jumped 35.7%, from $4.28 million to $5.8 million. That combination captures the market better than the headline funding total does. Fewer companies are raising, yet the typical company that successfully closes a round is getting more money.

The current AgriTech market is tougher to enter but still capable of financing its strongest companies heavily. We see less breadth, less capital outside the biggest rounds and a much higher median check.

Metric	Current L12M	Previous 12M	Change
Total deals	123	135	-8.9%
Unique companies	120	133	-9.8%
Total capital	$1.351B	$1.525B	-11.5%
Capital excluding >$50M rounds	$802M	$1.111B	-27.9%
Capital excluding >$100M rounds	$921M	$1.381B	-33.4%
Median round	$5.8M	$4.28M	+35.7%
Average disclosed round	$11.64M	$11.38M	+2.3%
First-financing share	23.6%	23.7%	-0.1 pp
Follow-on share	76.4%	75.6%	+0.9 pp
Later-stage deal share	19.5%	22.2%	-2.7 pp

Is the AgriTech slowdown worse than the headline funding number suggests?

Yes. AgriTech funding looks considerably weaker once we remove the handful of very large rounds propping up the total.

Headline capital declined 11.5%. Once we exclude rounds above $50 million, the drop becomes 27.9%. Excluding rounds above $100 million pushes it to 33.4%.

Three transactions explain a large part of that gap: Halter raised $220 million, while Ecorobotix and Tropic each raised $105 million. Together, those three rounds contributed $430 million.

So a reader looking only at the move from $1.525 billion to $1.351 billion would see a fairly moderate slowdown. The experience across the rest of the market was much harsher. Roughly one-third less capital was available once the $100 million-plus deals are stripped out.

That is the more useful reading of the headline numbers.

Are fewer AgriTech companies getting funded today?

Yes. AgriTech funding is reaching fewer companies now, so the slowdown goes well beyond a few missing megadeals.

The number of funded companies fell from 133 to 120, while total deals went from 135 to 123. First financings also slipped from 32 to 29.

A market can sometimes lose funding dollars while becoming easier for startups to access. For example, several giant rounds might disappear while many smaller companies continue to raise. We found the opposite pattern here: both the money and the number of companies receiving it declined. A shrinking pool of funded companies, not just less money, is the kind of market signal we follow every quarter in our AgriTech market report.

Only two companies completed multiple financings within each 12-month period as well, so higher fundraising frequency among a large group of startups is not filling the gap.

AgriTech has simply become a narrower funding market over the past year.

Why are AgriTech rounds getting bigger while the market is shrinking?

AgriTech rounds are getting bigger mainly because small financings have disappeared much faster than mid-sized ones.

A year ago, rounds below $5 million made up 54.8% of all deals. Today they represent 40.7%. We counted 74 of these smaller transactions in the previous period and only 50 in the latest one.

Meanwhile, the $5 million to $20 million bracket moved in the other direction, rising from 39 to 54 deals. Its share of activity jumped from 28.9% to 43.9%.

That shift alone goes a long way toward explaining why the median financing increased from $4.28 million to $5.8 million. The typical round became larger partly because many of the smaller rounds that used to sit at the bottom of the distribution have vanished.

The $20 million to $50 million range also weakened, from 13 deals to seven. So the market has been reshaped in a fairly specific way: far fewer tiny rounds, much more activity around $5 million to $20 million, and a small group of huge financings at the top.

Round size	Current deals	Current share	Previous deals	Previous share
<$5M	50	40.7%	74	54.8%
$5M–<$20M	54	43.9%	39	28.9%
$20M–<$50M	7	5.7%	13	9.6%
$50M–<$100M	2	1.6%	5	3.7%
$100M+	3	2.4%	3	2.2%

Are a few AgriTech megadeals carrying the market right now?

Yes. A small group of AgriTech companies now accounts for a much bigger share of the money being invested.

The largest deal represents 16.3% of all current funding, versus 9.4% for the largest financing in the previous period. The top three deals now absorb 31.8% of capital, up from 22.6%. The top five account for 40.7%. A market that leans on a few megadeals carries risks we rate by likelihood, less obvious ones included, in our report on AgriTech.

Halter is the clearest example. Its $220 million Series E represents roughly one dollar in every six invested across our current period. By the time it raised that round, Halter said it was already serving more than 2,000 farmers and ranchers across New Zealand, Australia and the United States, with one million collars sold.

Ecorobotix's financing follows a similar pattern. Its latest $105 million round came after a $45 million Series C, with the company already deploying its AI-powered plant-by-plant spraying technology across multiple markets.

Tropic raised another $105 million after commercially launching its first new banana varieties. The company said demand for those products was already exceeding supply, giving the financing a very different risk profile from an early research round.

These are established scale-up stories inside AgriTech. Their size makes aggregate funding look considerably healthier than the broader pool of companies experienced.

Are investors still backing new AgriTech startups, or mostly funding existing winners?

AgriTech investors still back new startups, but much less money is reaching those first-time fundraisers.

The share of first financings barely changed, from 23.7% to 23.6%. That figure makes the market look remarkably stable until we look at the dollars.

Capital going into first financings dropped from $143.7 million to $79.3 million, a fall of about 45%. Their median financing also declined from $2.14 million to $1.8 million.

Follow-on rounds show a much stronger picture. Their median increased from $6.1 million to $7.25 million, and already-funded companies captured $1.271 billion of the $1.351 billion raised during the period.

New companies can still get through the door, but that door currently opens onto smaller checks. Most of the market's financial weight sits with startups that have already raised before.

Metric	Current L12M	Previous 12M
First financings	29	32
First-financing share	23.6%	23.7%
First-financing capital	$79.3M	$143.7M
Median first financing	$1.8M	$2.14M
Follow-on financings	94	102
Follow-on share	76.4%	75.6%
Follow-on capital	$1.271B	$1.381B
Median follow-on	$7.25M	$6.1M

Has the bar for getting AgriTech funding moved higher?

Yes. AgriTech investors currently look more demanding about which companies deserve meaningful amounts of capital.

We can see it in several places at once. Sub-$5 million financings dropped from 74 to 50. Capital going into first financings fell sharply. The median successful round rose by more than one-third. And once we remove the biggest transactions, total capital is down roughly one-third.

Recent companies receiving strong investor support also tend to arrive with fairly concrete proof.

AgZen raised its $10 million Series B after saying deployment of its RealCoverage spraying system had grown 15-fold in one season to nearly one million US acres. The company already had commitments covering more than two million acres across three continents for 2026, and the round came alongside a Syngenta commercial partnership and strategic investment.

Halter had more than 2,000 farmers and ranchers using its system when it raised $220 million. Tropic had already launched commercial banana varieties before its $105 million Series C. Ecorobotix described rapid growth and proven field results around its latest financing.

Company age itself does not explain the shift. Median age remained five years across both periods, while the average actually fell from 6.16 to 5.61 years. Among first financings, median age moved from 2.5 years to two years.

The stronger dividing line today appears to be proof rather than age. Young AgriTech companies are still getting financed, but bigger checks increasingly sit behind evidence that the technology works with customers, on farms or at commercial scale.

Are AgriTech companies taking longer to raise again, and are the step-ups getting smaller?

Yes, in the repeat raisers we can actually track, AgriTech companies are coming back later and their next rounds are less likely to be dramatically larger.

Among follow-ons where we could identify a previous round, the median gap between financings increased from 11.3 months to 13.4 months. Only 35% of the current sample returned within 12 months, compared with 53.8% previously. Within 18 months, the comparison is 70% versus 92.3%.

Round progression weakened at the same time. The median step-up fell from 1.85 times the previous round to 1.21 times. Half of the previous observable cohort raised more than twice its earlier financing; that figure is now 25%.

The variation between companies is large. Halter's latest recorded financing was about 2.2 times its prior round, while some repeat raisers came back for much smaller amounts. Nbryo, for example, completed multiple closes around a broader capital raise while continuing to fund the commercialization of its bovine reproduction platform.

We would put less weight on this section than on the deal-count or concentration findings. Previous-round coverage is limited: only 20 current follow-ons and 12 to 13 previous ones can be measured properly. Still, both indicators point in the same direction. Among the companies we can follow, the old rhythm of quickly returning for a much larger check has become less common. Longer gaps between rounds hold growth back; we look at what must happen for the market to speed up in our market report about AgriTech.

Which part of AgriTech is getting the most investor attention now?

Precision Agriculture Tools have the clearest momentum in AgriTech today because more companies are raising and the rounds themselves have become much larger.

Deal count rose from nine to 16. The category gained 6.3 percentage points of deal share and 12.3 percentage points of capital share. Its median financing climbed from $2.9 million to $8.38 million.

That is a much stronger form of category growth than a single giant deal pushing up the total. We see greater breadth and larger checks at the same time.

AgZen helps explain what investors are finding attractive in this part of the market. Its RealCoverage system measures crop-protection spray coverage in real time, and the company tied its latest financing to rapidly growing commercial acreage. DCVC Bio, which led the round, specifically highlighted quantifiable farmer ROI.

Ecorobotix offers the larger-scale version of the same idea. Its ARA platform uses crop-specific AI algorithms for plant-level spraying, and the company says its technology can reduce some crop-protection product use by as much as 95%. During 2025 it was also expanding the number of crops its software could identify and treat.

Precision agriculture is increasingly easy to discuss in practical terms: acres covered, chemicals saved, labor reduced and farm economics improved. Investors can attach hard numbers to those benefits, which makes this category stand out in a much more selective funding environment.

Where is AgriTech funding drying up the fastest?

Agricultural Biologicals suffered the biggest clear reversal in our AgriTech data, losing both deal volume and financial weight.

Deals fell from 40 to 30, while capital dropped from roughly $662 million to $373 million. The category's share of total funding went from 43.4% to 27.6%.

That is around $288 million of lost capital in one category. Biologicals therefore account for a meaningful part of the overall market decline.

The funded companies also became younger: median company age fell from seven years to four. So the drop cannot be explained by investors simply retreating from old incumbents while preserving newer biological startups. The whole category attracted less money.

Other parts of AgriTech moved differently. Farm Automation Systems lost seven deals but held up much better in capital terms because the surviving financings were larger, especially Halter's $220 million round. Animal Health Technologies stayed at 22 deals but saw its median round rise from $2.95 million to $5.8 million.

As of now, the market is rotating rather than shrinking evenly across every AgriTech niche.

Is AgriTech getting stuck between Seed rounds and big scale-up rounds?

Increasingly, yes. AgriTech funding now has a barbell shape, with plenty of Seed activity, weaker Series A and B deal flow, and a small group of companies absorbing large later-stage checks.

Seed's share of deals increased from 38.5% to 45.5%. Series A fell from 24.4% to 17.1%, the biggest stage-level decline, while Series B moved from 12.6% to 9.8%.

Higher up the ladder, Series C rounds make up only 4.1% of transactions but capture 14.2% of capital. Series D and later account for just 3.3% of deals and 26.5% of funding.

The middle is where the tension shows up most clearly. Seed activity remains alive, and proven scale-ups can still raise very large sums. Getting from one group to the other currently looks harder. Getting from Seed to scale-up is the hard step, and we study what the leaders consistently do differently in our report on AgriTech.

Stage	Current deal share	Previous deal share	Change	Current capital share
Seed	45.5%	38.5%	+7.0 pp	14.3%
Series A	17.1%	24.4%	-7.4 pp	19.6%
Series B	9.8%	12.6%	-2.8 pp	12.9%
Series C	4.1%	2.2%	+1.8 pp	14.2%
Series D+	3.3%	4.4%	-1.2 pp	26.5%
Growth Equity	2.4%	3.0%	-0.5 pp	5.1%
Unknown	17.9%	14.8%	+3.1 pp	7.4%

Has Europe really overtaken North America in AgriTech funding?

Yes. Europe has moved well ahead of North America in our latest AgriTech period, and the difference shows up in deal count as well as dollars.

Europe went from 50 to 58 financings, lifting its share of deals from 37% to 47.2%. Its capital share surged from 23.2% to 52%.

North America went the other way. Deals fell from 51 to 29, and its share of capital dropped from 54.6% to 19.8%.

The United States accounts for much of the change. US deals fell from 45 to 24, while capital went from roughly $703 million to $236 million.

Several European markets expanded at the same time. France moved from five to 11 deals, Germany from two to eight and the UK from 13 to 16. UK funding also rose from around $50 million to $240 million.

Ecorobotix and Tropic obviously boost Europe's dollar total with two $105 million rounds, but the increase from 50 to 58 European deals exists independently of those transactions. That makes the geographic shift much harder to dismiss as an outlier effect.

New Zealand shows the opposite problem: its funding share is heavily influenced by Halter's $220 million financing, so we would be much more cautious about reading that as a broad national funding boom.

Are corporate investors becoming more important in AgriTech?

Yes. Corporate and strategic investors currently show up in a larger share of AgriTech deals, even though the overall market is completing fewer financings.

We counted 33 strategic-backed deals in the latest period, up from 29. Their share of activity rose from 21.5% to 26.8%.

Names appearing around recent rounds include Corteva and Corteva Catalyst, Syngenta Group Ventures, PINC, Kubota and Grey Silo Ventures.

Their appeal goes beyond extra financing. Syngenta Group Ventures describes a model that can give portfolio companies access to agronomic expertise, product validation, commercial teams, distribution channels and new geographies. AgZen is a clean recent example because Syngenta paired its investment with a commercial partnership.

Corteva Catalyst has also kept expanding its investment and collaboration activity around technologies that fit Corteva's R&D and commercialization priorities. Tropic's $105 million Series C was co-led by Corteva after the crop company had already begun commercial launches.

We also see corporate money further along the maturity curve. Four current strategic-backed Series C rounds account for roughly 38% of all strategic-backed capital.

These days, strategic AgriTech investing increasingly connects startups with the infrastructure required to commercialize technology, especially once products have moved beyond the proof-of-concept stage.

Is AgriTech funding becoming more unpredictable month to month?

Yes. AgriTech still produces deals every month, but the typical month has weakened while occasional strong windows keep the annual total from falling further.

Median monthly deal count declined from 10.5 to 8.5. Median monthly capital fell from $110.9 million to $86.9 million.

Yet the strongest current month reached 19 deals, above the previous peak of 16. Peak monthly capital was also slightly higher, at $264.2 million versus $257.7 million.

There were no zero-deal months in either period, so AgriTech has not entered the kind of freeze where financings simply stop for long stretches.

What changed is the baseline. An ordinary month now brings fewer deals and less money, while bursts of activity and large rounds keep the yearly figures looking more stable.

Are AgriTech startups raising money to build products or to scale businesses now?

Several of the biggest AgriTech winners are currently raising to expand products that have already reached farms and customers.

Halter's $220 million round came with more than 2,000 farmers and ranchers using the platform and one million collars sold. The company said the capital would support existing users and expand Halter into more operations globally. A product used by over 2,000 farmers is past pilot stage, and we sort what works from what is untested in our AgriTech market report.

Tropic's $105 million Series C followed the commercial launch of its first new banana varieties. The company said demand was already running ahead of supply, with funding going toward larger-scale plant production, supply chains and additional crops.

AgZen raised after its system reached nearly one million commercial acres in one season and secured commitments covering more than two million acres. Ecorobotix was similarly expanding a product already deployed internationally rather than financing an initial prototype.

We should be precise about how far this conclusion goes. We cannot calculate a clean market-wide shift in use of funds because that information is not publicly available for every financing. Still, among the large rounds that now carry so much weight in AgriTech, commercialization and deployment come up repeatedly.

That gives the current market a more mature feel at the top: investors are writing some of their largest checks after technical risk has been partly replaced by the challenge of selling, manufacturing, distributing and expanding.

What really changed in AgriTech funding over the last 12 months?

AgriTech funding became narrower, more concentrated and tougher for smaller fundraisers, while proven companies retained access to substantial capital.

The biggest deterioration is breadth. Deals fell 8.9%, funded companies fell 9.8%, and the amount of money reaching first-time fundraisers dropped by roughly 45%. A smaller group of businesses is now getting through the funding process.

The underlying capital decline is also much steeper than the headline suggests. As seen above, removing rounds above $100 million turns an 11.5% overall decline into a 33.4% drop.

At the same time, the companies that do raise are increasingly landing meaningful rounds. The median financing rose 35.7%, helped by a sharp decline in sub-$5 million deals and a larger $5 million to $20 million segment.

Capital has also become more concentrated around established winners. Halter, Ecorobotix and Tropic alone account for almost one-third of current funding, while follow-on rounds capture the overwhelming majority of invested dollars.

Precision Agriculture Tools stand out as the clearest category with genuine momentum because deal count, capital share and median round size all increased. Agricultural Biologicals experienced the sharpest reversal.

We also see a tougher middle of the funding ladder. Seed remains active and the strongest later-stage companies can raise very large rounds, while Series A and Series B have both lost deal share.

Finally, the companies attracting some of today's largest checks increasingly arrive with commercial proof: acreage deployed, customers using the product, products already launched or clear expansion plans. That makes AgriTech look more mature at the top while becoming less forgiving across the rest of the market.

If someone looked only at total funding, the easy headline would be that AgriTech investment fell by a fairly manageable 11.5%. That headline misses most of what actually changed.