What are the fundraising trends in the biomarker testing market?
In our updated market reports, you will find everything you need
SUMMARY
We analyzed publicly disclosed equity rounds raised by pure-play biomarker testing companies across 2024, full-year 2025, and year-to-date 2026. The tracker only includes disclosed equity rounds of $300K or more, excludes non-core adjacent companies, and keeps only businesses where biomarker testing, biomarker analytics, or biomarker-driven interpretation is central to the business.
The biomarker testing market is attracting less capital than it did at the 2024 peak. Funding fell from about $899M in 2024 to about $711M in 2025, while deal count stayed flat at 19 deals in both years.
The freshest signal is also weaker. From January through early July 2026, the biomarker testing market raised about $167M across 13 deals, compared with about $217M across 12 deals over the same period in 2025.
The decline is not caused by a lack of startups. Deal activity is still alive, and first financings rose sharply in 2026, reaching 6 of 13 deals. The issue is that most new entrants are raising small checks.
The 2026 market is extremely barbelled. The median round is only about $3M, while the average round is about $13M, and the largest round is more than 20 times the median.
Liquid biopsy is the clear scale-capital category in 2026. It represents only 3 of 13 deals but captures about 71% of all capital, led by large rounds for Precede Biosciences and ClearNote Health.
Biomarker analytics platforms are the strongest formation category. They account for 5 of 13 deals so far in 2026, but only about 10% of capital, showing that investors are testing many software and AI-enabled approaches with relatively small rounds.
North America remains the scale-financing center of the biomarker testing market. So far in 2026, North America captured about 75% of capital with only 31% of deals, while Europe produced most of the deal count but at much smaller round sizes.
The market is becoming more winner-takes-most by capital. The top three 2026 year-to-date deals captured about 81% of capital, compared with about 62% in full-year 2025 and about 57% in full-year 2024.
The main interpretation is that the biomarker testing market is not abandoned, but it is much more selective. Investors are still funding new modalities, but large checks are reserved for companies that connect biomarkers to clinical decisions, reimbursement paths, pharma utility, or repeated consumer engagement.
Is more or less capital going into the biomarker testing market?
Less capital is going into the biomarker testing market, both on the clean full-year comparison and on the freshest year-to-date comparison. Full-year funding fell from about $899M in 2024 to about $711M in 2025, a decline of roughly 21%, while the number of deals stayed flat at 19 in both years.
The full-year comparison is the more reliable structural read because it compares two complete calendar years. The biomarker testing market did not simply have a weak early 2026; the capital pullback had already started in 2025.
The current-year signal points in the same direction. From January through early July 2026, the biomarker testing market raised about $167M, down from about $217M over the comparable period in 2025, even though deal count rose from 12 to 13.
That combination is important. The biomarker testing market is not seeing fewer companies get funded; it is seeing less money deployed per funded company, except for a few large clinical diagnostics rounds.
The strongest interpretation is that the biomarker testing market is cooling but not collapsing. Investors are still funding biomarker testing companies, especially seed-stage analytics and AI-diagnostics platforms, but larger checks now require clearer clinical relevance, commercialization evidence, and category credibility.
Is biomarker testing funding activity driven by more deals or larger rounds?
Biomarker testing funding activity is being driven by more deals at the formation layer and by a few large rounds at the capital layer, not by a broad rise in round sizes. Full-year 2025 had the same deal count as 2024, 19 deals, but total capital fell by about $188M.
The freshest comparison makes the round-size issue clearer. From January through early July 2026, deal count rose slightly to 13 from 12 over the comparable 2025 period, but total capital fell from about $217M to about $167M.
The median round size is the most revealing indicator. The median round dropped from about $16.9M over the comparable 2025 period to only about $3.1M in 2026 so far, which means the typical funded biomarker testing company is raising a much smaller check.
At the same time, the 2026 period already has two $50M-plus rounds, while the comparable 2025 period had none. That does not mean the whole market is healthier; it means the market is barbelled between many small seed rounds and a few large clinical diagnostics financings.
The practical takeaway is that deal activity is alive, but the funding landscape is uneven. The biomarker testing market is not experiencing a broad-based recovery in round sizes; it is seeing more early-stage experimentation plus concentrated scale capital around a small number of later-stage winners.
Is biomarker testing capital moving toward later-stage or earlier-stage companies?
Biomarker testing capital is moving toward later-stage companies, even though deal count is moving toward earlier-stage companies. So far in 2026, seed rounds account for 8 of 13 deals, or about 62% of activity, but Series B and later rounds account for about 69% of capital.
This is the central split in the biomarker testing market. Early-stage companies are being formed actively, but the largest checks are still going to companies that have already reached stronger clinical, regulatory, or commercial validation points.
The year-to-date comparison shows a sharp shift toward later-stage capital. Over the comparable period in 2025, Series B and later rounds represented only about 28% of capital; so far in 2026, that share is about 69%.
The completed-year evidence points in the same direction. In 2025, Series B rounds alone captured about $469M, or roughly 66% of full-year capital, while in 2024 late-stage and growth rounds captured roughly 78% of capital.
So the biomarker testing market is earlier-stage by number of companies funded, but later-stage by dollars. That means investors are willing to explore new ideas, but they are reserving large capital allocations for companies with stronger evidence.
Is the biomarker testing market maturing or still experimental?
The biomarker testing market is maturing at the capital layer but still experimental at the company-formation layer. Large checks increasingly flow to companies with clearer clinical use cases, especially cancer liquid biopsy, precision diagnostics, blood-based early detection, and decision-grade biomarker analytics.
The clearest maturity signal is liquid biopsy. So far in 2026, liquid biopsy captured about 71% of capital with only 23% of deals, which shows that investors are paying for categories where clinical urgency, reimbursement logic, and buyer budgets are more visible.
At the same time, the market remains experimental because 8 of 13 deals so far in 2026 are seed rounds, and 6 of 13 are first financings. Much of the activity is still about proving new modalities, especially AI pathology, digital biomarkers, virtual staining, spatial biomarker validation, and blood or cytology-to-genomics platforms.
The full-year comparison reinforces the maturing side of the story. In 2025, Series B rounds captured nearly two-thirds of capital, and the largest round accounted for about 42% of all capital.
The right answer is mixed but clear. The biomarker testing market is no longer purely experimental, but the next layer of the market is still being tested through small early rounds.
Are new startups still entering the biomarker testing market?
Yes, new startups are still entering the biomarker testing market, and the freshest evidence is stronger than the full-year 2025 evidence. So far in 2026, first financings account for 6 of 13 deals, or about 46% of activity.
That is a meaningful increase from full-year 2025, when first financings accounted for only 3 of 19 deals, or about 16%, and from 2024, when first financings accounted for only 2 of 19 deals, or about 11%.
The caveat is that new startups are entering with small rounds. First financings account for 46% of 2026 year-to-date deal count but only about 11% of capital, which means new entrants are getting funded to validate ideas rather than to scale aggressively.
This same pattern appears in prior years. In 2025, first financings represented about 16% of deals but only about 2% of capital; in 2024, they represented about 11% of deals and about 3% of capital.
The biomarker testing market is therefore open at the seed layer and selective at the scale layer. New-company formation is healthy, but the big capital is still going to companies with prior validation.
Are more investors entering the biomarker testing market?
More investors appear to be participating in the biomarker testing market over the completed-year comparison, but the current-year evidence points to stability rather than clear acceleration. Full-year 2025 had approximately 100 unique disclosed investors, up from 83 in 2024.
That broader investor base did not translate into more capital. Total funding fell in 2025 even as more investors participated, which suggests that investor breadth increased but average conviction per investor did not.
The 2026 year-to-date picture is more cautious. So far in 2026, the biomarker testing market has approximately 42 disclosed investors across 13 deals, compared with approximately 44 disclosed investors across 12 deals over the comparable 2025 period.
The more important signal is repeat participation. In full-year 2025, Labcorp, S32, and Casdin Capital appeared in more than one qualifying deal; so far in 2026, no disclosed investor appears in more than one qualifying deal.
The best interpretation is that investor participation is broad but fragmented. The biomarker testing market has many investors touching the category, but it has not yet developed a dense group of repeat backers across multiple subcategories.
Are top investors getting more or less active in the biomarker testing market?
Top investors are getting less visibly repeat-active in the biomarker testing market, even though credible investors still appear in important rounds. In 2024, Khosla Ventures and Quest Diagnostics each appeared in more than one qualifying deal, and in 2025 Labcorp appeared in three deals while S32 and Casdin Capital appeared in two deals each.
So far in 2026, no disclosed investor appears in more than one qualifying biomarker testing deal. That makes the current year look less like a category-wide accumulation phase and more like a series of company-specific bets.
This distinction matters because repeated participation is a stronger signal than a one-off prestigious logo. The 2026 market includes credible names such as General Catalyst, Y Combinator, Mayo Clinic, and Debiopharm, but those investors are not yet repeating across multiple qualifying deals.
The full-year 2025 investor pattern was more mature because Labcorp appeared repeatedly. A strategic diagnostics participant backing multiple companies is more meaningful than a long list of one-time financial investors because it can signal channel access and commercialization credibility.
So top investors are still present, but they are not getting more broadly active so far in 2026. The biomarker testing market currently looks more indication-specific than investor-club-driven.
Which biomarker testing subcategories are gaining momentum?
Liquid biopsy, biomarker analytics platforms, and selective blood biomarker testing are the subcategories gaining momentum in the biomarker testing market, but each is gaining momentum in a different way. Liquid biopsy is gaining capital momentum, while biomarker analytics is gaining formation momentum.
Liquid biopsy is the clearest capital acceleration. So far in 2026, liquid biopsy captured about $118M, or 71% of total capital, compared with about $71M, or 33%, over the comparable period in 2025.
Biomarker analytics platforms are the clearest deal-count acceleration. So far in 2026, biomarker analytics platforms account for 5 of 13 deals, or about 39% of all activity, up from 2 of 12 deals, or about 17%, over the comparable 2025 period.
Blood biomarker testing gained major full-year momentum in 2025 because the category captured about $337M, or 47% of full-year capital, up from about $79M, or 9%, in 2024. But that 2025 figure was heavily influenced by Function Health's large Series B, and the 2026 year-to-date signal is smaller.
Inflammation biomarkers also became visible in 2026 through one qualifying $5M financing, but one deal is not enough to call it broad momentum. The stronger conclusion is that liquid biopsy is gaining scale capital, biomarker analytics is gaining startup formation, and blood biomarker testing remains important but more volatile.
Which biomarker testing subcategories are losing momentum?
Microbiome testing, standalone genomic biomarkers, and pure-play proteomic biomarkers are losing visible momentum in the biomarker testing market. The decline is clearest when comparing 2024 to 2025 and then checking whether the current-year evidence has recovered.
Microbiome testing is the most obvious loser. It had 4 deals and about $49.5M of capital in 2024, but no qualifying pure-play microbiome-testing deals appeared in full-year 2025 or so far in 2026.
Standalone genomic biomarkers also weakened. The category captured about $162M across 3 deals in 2024, then had no qualifying standalone deals in 2025 and only one small deal of about $3M so far in 2026.
Proteomic biomarkers are more nuanced. The category had 3 deals in both 2024 and 2025, but capital fell from about $176M to about $60M, and there are no qualifying pure-play proteomic biomarker deals so far in 2026.
The better interpretation is not that microbiome, genomic, or proteomic science is disappearing. The evidence suggests those biological signals are increasingly embedded inside liquid biopsy, multiomics, oncology, drug discovery, and broader diagnostic platforms rather than funded as standalone pure-play testing categories.
Which regions are gaining momentum in the biomarker testing market?
Europe is gaining momentum by deal count, while North America is gaining momentum by capital in the freshest biomarker testing comparison. So far in 2026, Europe accounts for 8 of 13 deals, or about 62% of activity, compared with only 3 of 12 deals, or 25%, over the comparable 2025 period.
That is a major increase in European company formation and early-stage activity. But European rounds are small: Europe captured about 24% of 2026 year-to-date capital despite producing most of the deals.
North America is the opposite. So far in 2026, North America captured about $125M, or 75% of total capital, compared with about $89M, or 41%, over the comparable 2025 period.
The full-year 2025 versus 2024 comparison showed modest geographic broadening, with North America's capital share falling from about 88% to 80% while Europe, Asia-Pacific, and the Middle East gained some share. But the 2026 year-to-date signal shows scale capital moving back toward North America.
The practical conclusion is that Europe is gaining as a formation market, while North America is gaining as a scale-financing market. Those are different kinds of momentum, and they should not be blended.
Which regions are losing momentum in the biomarker testing market?
Asia-Pacific and the Middle East are losing momentum in the freshest biomarker testing comparison, while North America's trend is mixed rather than clearly negative. Over the comparable period in 2025, Asia-Pacific captured about $35M, or 16% of capital, across 2 deals.
So far in 2026, Asia-Pacific has only one qualifying deal, Biopeak, at about $2.7M, or roughly 2% of capital. That is a sharp decline in both scale and visibility.
The Middle East also weakened in the current-year comparison. Over the comparable 2025 period, the region had SpotitEarly's $20.3M financing, but so far in 2026 there are no qualifying Middle East biomarker testing deals.
North America lost some relative share in the completed-year comparison, falling from about 88% of capital in 2024 to about 80% in 2025. But North America recovered strongly in the 2026 year-to-date period, capturing about 75% of capital.
The cleaner losing-momentum conclusion is that Asia-Pacific and the Middle East have weakened in 2026 so far. Latin America and Africa remain absent across the observed periods, which is not a decline but a persistent lack of visible qualifying public financings.
Is the biomarker testing market becoming more global or more regionally concentrated?
The biomarker testing market is becoming more global by company formation but more regionally concentrated by capital. That is the central geographic tension in the market.
In 2025, the full-year geography looked somewhat more global than in 2024. North America's capital share fell from about 88% to 80%, Europe rose from about 8% to 11%, Asia-Pacific rose from about 3% to 5%, and the Middle East appeared with one qualifying deal.
But the freshest 2026 comparison points back toward capital concentration. North America accounts for about 75% of 2026 year-to-date capital despite only 31% of deals, while Europe accounts for 62% of deals but only 24% of capital.
The deal-count signal and capital signal should be read separately. Biomarker testing startups are being formed across more geographies, especially in Europe, but scale capital remains concentrated in North America.
The best summary is that the biomarker testing market is globally distributed at the seed and innovation layer, but regionally concentrated at the commercialization capital layer. Large rounds still cluster where reimbursement pathways, clinical trial infrastructure, specialist investors, and diagnostics channels are deepest.
Is biomarker testing capital moving toward proven winners or new opportunities?
Biomarker testing capital is moving toward proven winners, while deal count is moving toward new opportunities. So far in 2026, first financings account for 46% of deals but only about 11% of capital.
The same pattern appears in the completed years. In 2025, first financings represented about 16% of deals but only about 2% of capital, and in 2024 they represented about 11% of deals and about 3% of capital.
The category split makes the pattern even clearer. Biomarker analytics platforms account for the most 2026 year-to-date deals, and all five are first financings, but the category captures only about 10% of capital.
Liquid biopsy has only three 2026 year-to-date deals, all follow-ons, but captures about 71% of capital. That is the clearest contrast between new opportunity formation and proven-winner financing.
The practical reading is that investors are willing to fund new modalities cheaply, but large checks are reserved for companies with stronger evidence, clearer clinical applications, and more credible routes to reimbursement or adoption.
Is the biomarker testing market becoming winner-takes-most?
Yes, the biomarker testing market is becoming more winner-takes-most by capital, even though deal count remains distributed. In 2024, the top three deals captured about 57% of capital; in 2025, the top three captured about 62%; so far in 2026, the top three captured about 81%.
The current-year concentration is especially stark. The bottom half of 2026 year-to-date deals accounts for only about 8.5% of capital, while the top 10 deals account for about 96.5%.
The median 2026 year-to-date round is only about $3M, but total capital is about $167M because a few large rounds dominate the funding picture. That means the average does not describe the experience of a typical funded company.
The nuance is that the biomarker testing market is not winner-takes-most by company creation. The market is producing many seed-stage experiments across multiple categories and geographies.
So the answer is yes for capital and no for formation. The biomarker testing market is becoming winner-takes-most in dollars raised, but not in the number of companies being funded.
Is the next wave of biomarker testing winners becoming visible?
The next wave of biomarker testing winners is becoming partially visible, but only in specific parts of the market. The clearest current winners are liquid biopsy and decision-grade analytics companies that connect biological measurement to high-value clinical decisions.
Precede Biosciences and ClearNote Health dominate 2026 year-to-date capital because they sit in precision diagnostics, molecular profiling, and early cancer detection. Those are use cases where clinical urgency, pharma interest, and buyer budgets are more visible.
Another potential winner group is emerging in biomarker analytics platforms. Cancilico, Spotlight Pathology, Acurion, ViewsML, and Haga Bioscience show a cluster of early-stage companies using AI, pathology, spatial biology, and computational interpretation to turn biological signals into diagnostic or translational workflows.
The analytics wave is still less proven than the liquid biopsy wave. The number of deals is meaningful, but the small round sizes show that investors are still testing whether these platforms can become reimbursable, enterprise-grade, or clinically trusted products.
The next wave is therefore visible at the archetype level, not fully at the company-winner level. The likely winners are companies that turn biomarker signals into trusted, repeated, clinically or commercially valuable decisions.
Is the biomarker testing funding landscape fragmenting or consolidating?
The biomarker testing funding landscape is fragmenting by company type and consolidating by capital allocation. Fragmentation is visible in 2026 deal count across liquid biopsy, blood biomarker testing, aging biomarker testing, inflammation biomarkers, genomic biomarkers, and biomarker analytics platforms.
The market is no longer one simple diagnostics category. It is a collection of sampling methods, biological signals, clinical use cases, consumer health models, and software interpretation layers.
But capital is consolidating sharply. So far in 2026, liquid biopsy captures about 71% of capital with only 23% of deals, while the top three deals capture about 81% of all dollars.
The round-size distribution confirms the split. Nine of 13 deals so far in 2026 are below $5M, while two late-stage rounds above $50M dominate the capital picture.
The best description is bifurcation. Many small companies are exploring narrow modalities and workflow niches, while large rounds go to a small number of platforms with stronger proof of adoption, clinical value, or scale.
Where is investor attention shifting in the biomarker testing market?
Investor attention in the biomarker testing market is shifting toward liquid biopsy, clinical-grade biomarker analytics, and decision-linked preventive health. It is moving away from standalone microbiome testing, standalone genomic biomarker companies, and pure proteomic biomarker narratives.
The strongest current signal is liquid biopsy. So far in 2026, liquid biopsy accounts for about 71% of capital, up from about 33% over the comparable 2025 period, even though the number of liquid biopsy deals fell from 5 to 3.
Investor attention is also shifting toward analytics platforms that make biomarkers usable, not just measurable. Biomarker analytics platforms account for 5 of 13 deals so far in 2026, the highest deal count of any category.
Consumer preventive-health attention is more selective. Function Health's 2025 round showed that scaled consumer biomarker platforms can attract enormous capital, but 2026 has not repeated that scale so far.
The clear direction is away from biomarker measurement as a standalone claim and toward biomarker-enabled decisions. Capital is following companies that connect biological signals to cancer detection, precision medicine, clinical workflow, neurodiagnostics, preventive health decisions, or longitudinal risk management.
INSIGHTS
The insights below come from reviewing disclosed equity rounds in the biomarker testing market across 2024, full-year 2025, and year-to-date 2026, with attention to deal count, capital concentration, subcategory mix, stage mix, geography, investor repetition, and the difference between formation activity and scale financing.
- The biomarker testing market is not shrinking because companies stopped raising; it is shrinking because capital per funded opportunity has fallen outside the largest outliers. Deal count stayed flat from 2024 to 2025 and rose slightly in the 2026 year-to-date comparison, but capital declined in both comparisons.
- The most important structural split is between formation and financing weight. Seed-stage and first-financing activity shows that new biomarker testing companies are entering the market, but most dollars still go to follow-on companies with stronger clinical or commercial proof.
- Average round size is increasingly misleading in the biomarker testing market. So far in 2026, the average round is about $13M, but the median is only about $3M, which means the average is being pulled upward by a small number of large liquid biopsy rounds.
- The biomarker testing market is becoming more winner-takes-most by capital while remaining broad by company count. The top three 2026 year-to-date deals captured about 81% of capital, even though 13 qualifying deals appeared across six active categories.
- Liquid biopsy is the clearest scale-capital category because it connects biomarkers to high-stakes clinical decisions, especially oncology. Its 2026 year-to-date capital share of about 71% is too large to read as accidental.
- Biomarker analytics platforms are the clearest experimentation category. They have the highest 2026 year-to-date deal count but low capital share, which means investors are testing many software and AI-enabled approaches before deciding which ones deserve scale capital.
- The market increasingly rewards decision linkage over measurement depth. Companies that connect biomarkers to early cancer detection, precision medicine, neurology, pathology workflow, or preventive-care action are more financeable than companies that simply measure more analytes.
- First financings are much more common in 2026 than in 2025 or 2024, but first-financing capital remains modest. The entrepreneurial pipeline is reopening, but investors are keeping early validation budgets tight.
- Europe is acting like the biomarker testing market's formation engine in 2026, while North America remains the scale-capital engine. Europe produced most 2026 year-to-date deals, but North America captured most 2026 year-to-date capital.
- North America's capital dominance is not just a geography effect. It reflects where late-stage diagnostics, reimbursement strategy, clinical validation infrastructure, and specialist capital are most concentrated.
- Europe's deal-count strength should not be mistaken for equal capital strength. A European median deal around $3M in 2026 year-to-date points to early technical formation, not broad commercialization financing.
- Asia-Pacific's 2025 momentum has not carried into 2026 so far. The region moved from meaningful 2025 year-to-date capital contribution to only one small 2026 year-to-date deal, suggesting the public funding signal is currently thin and episodic.
- Standalone microbiome testing has lost clear venture momentum under a pure-play definition. The category had visible 2024 activity, then disappeared from qualifying 2025 and 2026 year-to-date financings.
- Genomic biomarkers have not disappeared scientifically, but they have weakened as a standalone financing label. Genomic signal is increasingly embedded inside liquid biopsy, multiomics, oncology, and AI diagnostics rather than funded as a separate category.
- Proteomic biomarker funding moved from strong 2024 capital to weaker 2025 capital and no qualifying 2026 year-to-date pure-play rounds. This suggests proteomics may be shifting from standalone test-company financing into broader translational, multiomics, or platform contexts.
- Blood biomarker testing is highly sensitive to consumer-platform outliers. Function Health made the category look dominant in full-year 2025, but the 2026 year-to-date signal is much smaller, so the category should be evaluated with and without scaled consumer platforms.
- Repeat investor activity is weaker than broad investor participation. The number of disclosed investors remains meaningful, but the lack of repeat disclosed investors in 2026 year-to-date suggests conviction is fragmented.
- Strategic investors matter more than general investor count. Labcorp's repeated 2025 activity was more meaningful than dozens of one-off investors because diagnostics-channel participation reduces commercialization uncertainty.
- The 2026 market has a missing-middle problem. There are many seed rounds and a few large later-stage rounds, but no Series C deals and no $20M to $50M rounds, suggesting companies are either early experiments or already validated enough for large financings.
- The strongest large-round candidates are companies that can prove clinical actionability, not just analytical validity. Liquid biopsy companies attract large checks because test results can plausibly influence oncology decisions, drug development, or early detection workflows.
- AI is financeable in biomarker testing only when attached to a narrow clinical workflow. AI pathology, virtual staining, hematology diagnostics, and spatial-biomarker validation are more credible than generic AI health-score narratives.
- The market's current investment logic is not that more biomarkers are always better. The investment logic is that more decision-grade biomarkers are better, especially when they create clinical action, reimbursement potential, pharma utility, or repeated consumer engagement.
OUR METHODOLOGY TO BUILD THIS TRACKER
We built this biomarker testing funding tracker by reviewing publicly disclosed equity rounds raised by pure-play biomarker testing companies across 2024, full-year 2025, and year-to-date 2026. A company counts as pure-play when more than 80% of its activity is dedicated to tests or analytics that measure biological signals linked to disease, aging, performance, health risk, or biomarker-driven diagnostic interpretation.
We applied four filters to build the dataset. First, we only included equity rounds, so grants, debt, credit facilities, structured financings, acquisitions, and business combinations are excluded. Second, we only counted rounds of $300K or more. Third, we only kept pure-play biomarker testing companies, which means we excluded broader healthcare, therapeutics, research-tools, drug-discovery, diagnostics-adjacent, and wellness businesses where biomarker testing was not central. Fourth, every entry had to be confirmed by a direct company announcement, press release, tier-1 media report, specialized industry source, or relevant regional publication.
We excluded undisclosed-amount rounds because including them would distort dollar-based metrics such as total funding, average round size, median round size, concentration, and category capital share. We kept disclosed-amount deals even when the financing stage was Unknown, because those rounds still contribute valid information to market size, geography, category, investor, and concentration analysis.
The categories used in the tracker are Blood Biomarker Tests, Genomic Biomarkers, Proteomic Biomarkers, Microbiome Testing, Liquid Biopsy Tests, Inflammation Biomarkers, Aging Biomarker Tests, and Biomarker Analytics Platforms. The tracker excludes broader adjacent markets unless the product is built specifically around biomarker testing, biomarker analytics, or biomarker-driven interpretation.
Related blog posts
- The startups that have raised the most funding in the biomarker testing market
- The most highly valued startups in the biomarker testing market
- How healthy is startup funding in the biomarker testing market right now?
