Which cell therapy startup is growing the fastest?
In our cell therapy market deck, you will find everything you need to understand the market
SUMMARY
Cellares is the fastest-growing cell-therapy startup overall, while Umoja Biopharma is the fastest-growing independent startup developing the therapies themselves.
The split matters because Cellares and Umoja are scaling different layers of the same market. Cellares can grow across customers, programs, factories and manufacturing volume at once; Umoja has to prove that its in-vivo CAR-T platform can keep producing viable drugs and eventually strong human data.
Cellares has the strongest collection of concrete operating milestones. Its Series D reached $327 million, total capital raised is about $682 million, GMP doses manufactured on its Cell Shuttle have already been infused into patients, and Cabaletta Bio has signed a 10-year commercial supply agreement.
The more interesting part is not the financing. Cellares is moving from process-development work into regulated clinical manufacturing and long-duration supply, which is the point where a manufacturing platform starts to look like infrastructure rather than a promising machine.
Its customer mix is also getting broader. Publicly disclosed programs now span CAR-T, TCR-T, engineered regulatory T cells, progenitor T cells and gene-edited stem cells, reducing the risk that its factories depend on one therapy architecture or one disease area.
The big unresolved question is utilization. Cellares is building far more capacity than it uses today, so the growth thesis still depends on customer programs surviving the clinic and eventually filling factories in the United States, Europe and Japan.
Umoja is the stronger pick if the ranking is restricted to therapeutic developers. VivoVec has already generated two U.S. clinical programs, another disclosed candidate sits behind them, and AbbVie has reserved exposure to several possible programs rather than licensing one isolated asset.
Umoja is not the clinical leader in in-vivo CAR-T yet. Competing platforms acquired by AstraZeneca, AbbVie, Gilead and Lilly have produced more mature human evidence, so Umoja's lead is about platform momentum and independence, not superior efficacy data.
The sector itself is changing direction fast. Big pharma has spent billions buying companies that can engineer immune cells inside the body, while ArsenalBio has just redirected its own strategy toward in-vivo CAR-T after years of concentrating on ex-vivo engineered T cells.
Conventional CAR-T is not being displaced in the meantime. CARVYKTI's roughly $1.9 billion of 2025 sales and continued 2026 growth show that personalized cell therapy can already be a major commercial business when the clinical benefit is strong enough.
The current race is therefore unusually clear: Cellares is trying to industrialize the manufacturing model that exists today, while Umoja is trying to make much of that external manufacturing unnecessary. Cellares has the better overall growth case right now because more of its expansion is already visible in customers, production, regulatory progress and physical capacity.
This market map, featured in our cell therapy market deck, highlights top companies and startups in the cell therapy market
Which cell-therapy startup is growing the fastest right now?
Cellares is currently growing faster than any other independent cell-therapy startup we reviewed, while Umoja Biopharma leads if we restrict the comparison to startups developing their own therapies.
The distinction changes the winner. Cellares makes automated manufacturing infrastructure for other cell-therapy companies, so it can grow by adding customers, therapies, factories and manufacturing volume at the same time. Umoja is developing in-vivo CAR-T therapies itself, which means growth depends much more heavily on clinical progress.
We therefore looked beyond funding rounds. For a therapeutic developer, we gave more weight to new clinical programs, human trials, pharmaceutical partnerships and evidence that one technology can produce several viable drugs. For a manufacturing company, actual patient manufacturing, long-term supply contracts, new customers and usable factory capacity matter more.
On those measures, Cellares has pulled ahead. Its Series D grew from $257 million to $327 million during 2026, bringing total capital raised to about $682 million. It has already manufactured GMP cell-therapy doses that were infused into patients, secured a 10-year commercial supply agreement with Cabaletta Bio and is building production capacity across the United States, Europe and Japan.
Umoja is moving quickly for a therapeutic startup. It now has two VivoVec in-vivo CAR-T programs cleared for U.S. clinical development, another disclosed candidate behind them and a broad AbbVie collaboration covering several possible programs.
| Company | What is growing fastest | Where it stands now | Our call |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cellares | Customers, manufacturing, factories | Moving from clinical production toward commercial scale | Fastest overall |
| Umoja Biopharma | In-vivo CAR-T pipeline | Two VivoVec programs cleared for U.S. trials | Fastest therapy developer |
| AvenCell | Allogeneic and switchable CAR-T | Two clinical platforms advancing | Strong challenger |
| Cellular Origins | Automated manufacturing | Early commercial deployment | Promising, smaller base |
| ArsenalBio | In-vivo CAR-T after strategic reset | Workforce reduced and pipeline redirected | No longer a growth leader |
If you want more recent data on this point, please see our latest cell therapy market report.
Why are cell-therapy startups suddenly changing direction so quickly?
Cell-therapy startups are racing toward two bottlenecks that the first generation of CAR-T never fully solved: making treatments easier to manufacture and, eventually, avoiding external cell manufacturing altogether.
The commercial success of CAR-T made those problems more obvious. CARVYKTI, developed by Legend Biotech with Johnson & Johnson, generated about $1.9 billion in net trade sales in 2025. During the second quarter of 2026 alone, sales reached roughly $657 million, about 50% higher than a year earlier.
Demand at that scale puts pressure on manufacturing networks built around collecting one patient's cells, modifying them, testing them and shipping them back. It also gives pharmaceutical companies a strong reason to explore treatments that can generate CAR-T cells directly inside the patient.
The acquisition pattern has been unusually concentrated. AbbVie bought Capstan Therapeutics for up to $2.1 billion, AstraZeneca acquired EsoBiotec for up to $1 billion, Gilead's Kite agreed to buy Interius BioTherapeutics for $350 million, and Lilly agreed to acquire Kelonia Therapeutics. All four were developing ways to engineer immune cells inside the body.
Several startups that would recently have appeared near the top of this comparison have therefore disappeared from the independent-company pool. Among the survivors, Cellares is scaling the manufacturing model that exists today while Umoja is trying to make much of that manufacturing unnecessary.
As this chart shows, and as featured in our cell therapy market deck, search interest in stem cell therapy has been rising steadily
Is Cellares really a cell-therapy startup if it does not develop a drug?
Yes. Cellares belongs in the broader cell-therapy startup market because its entire business is built around producing cell therapies, although readers looking specifically for drug developers should rank Umoja instead.
Cellares calls itself an integrated development and manufacturing organization, or IDMO. Its Cell Shuttle system automates much of the process used to manufacture individualized cell therapies, while Cell Q handles automated testing.
The business model lets Cellares spread one manufacturing platform across many drugs. Its active work now spans CAR-T, TCR-T, engineered regulatory T cells, progenitor T cells and gene-edited stem cells.
That range has widened noticeably this year. Cellares announced work with TScan Therapeutics on TSC-101, ProTGen on ProT-096, Sonoma Biotherapeutics on an engineered Treg therapy and Papillon Therapeutics on gene-corrected stem cells for Friedreich's ataxia. Those programs sit alongside much larger relationships with Bristol Myers Squibb and Cabaletta Bio.
So when we talk about Cellares growing, we are measuring the expansion of the infrastructure underneath the cell-therapy industry rather than the progress of one experimental medicine.
How fast is Cellares actually growing now?
Cellares has gone from a heavily funded manufacturing idea to a company producing clinical doses, signing commercial agreements and building an international factory network within roughly three years.
Its financing gives a useful starting point. Cellares raised a $255 million Series C in 2023. The company then announced a $257 million Series D in early 2026, which initially took total capital raised to $612 million. Two subsequent additions increased that Series D to $327 million, putting cumulative financing at roughly $682 million.
The operating business grew alongside the funding. Bristol Myers Squibb reserved cell-therapy manufacturing capacity in a worldwide agreement worth up to $380 million. Cabaletta Bio progressed from process-development work to clinical manufacturing and then signed a 10-year commercial supply agreement designed to support thousands of potential rese-cel batches annually.
Cellares has also kept adding programs. Between February and July 2026, its public announcements covered CRISPR-edited CAR-T, gene-edited stem cells, progenitor T cells, TCR-T and engineered Treg manufacturing. That breadth tells us more than another financing announcement would.
The pattern is unusually dense for a private cell-therapy company: capital, clinical manufacturing, commercial contracts and modality expansion are all moving at once.
| Cellares measure | 2023 position | Current position |
|---|---|---|
| Largest financing round | $255M Series C | $327M Series D |
| Total capital raised | About $355M after Series C | About $682M |
| Major commercial customer | Early strategic relationships | BMS capacity agreement worth up to $380M |
| Clinical production | Technology validation | GMP doses have reached patients |
| Cabaletta relationship | Process-development collaboration | 10-year commercial supply agreement |
| Manufacturing footprint | Primarily U.S. | U.S., Netherlands and Japan |
This chart, featured in our cell therapy market deck, shows annual VC investment in cell therapy startups
Has Cellares actually manufactured a cell therapy that reached patients?
Yes. Cellares crossed that line in 2026 when Cabaletta Bio patients received rese-cel manufactured on the automated Cell Shuttle.
The sequence is worth following because cell-therapy manufacturing partnerships often remain stuck at the evaluation stage. Cellares and Cabaletta spent more than three years adapting rese-cel to the Cell Shuttle. The FDA then cleared an IND amendment allowing Cellares-manufactured material to be used clinically.
Cellares produced the first two GMP doses in April 2026. Both met release specifications and were infused on schedule, according to the companies.
Cabaletta then committed to a 10-year supply agreement later that same month.
That progression gives us much stronger evidence than a normal automation demonstration. The process moved through technology transfer, regulatory clearance, GMP manufacturing, release testing, patient infusion and finally a long-term commercial commitment.
For now, the patient numbers are still tiny. The important part is that an automated platform entered a real clinical supply chain and cleared the regulatory requirements around it.
Is Cellares adding enough customers to support all that factory capacity?
Yes, although Cellares still has to show that today's growing customer list turns into high utilization once its new factories are ready for commercial production.
Bristol Myers Squibb is the anchor customer. Its agreement reserves Cellares capacity in the United States, Europe and Japan for selected CAR-T programs.
Cabaletta gives Cellares a very different type of demand. Rese-cel is being studied in autoimmune diseases, where the potential patient population could eventually be much larger than the populations treated with today's oncology CAR-T products.
The more recent partnerships make the customer mix broader again. TScan brings a TCR-T program, Sonoma adds engineered Tregs, ProTGen adds progenitor T cells and Papillon brings gene-corrected hematopoietic stem cells.
We counted at least five materially different cell-therapy categories across Cellares' publicly disclosed programs. That reduces the risk that its factories depend on one CAR-T architecture or one disease area.
The harder question is volume. Several programs remain early, and a partnership announcement does not guarantee thousands of future batches. Cellares has clearly solved a lot of the customer-acquisition problem; it still needs those customers' therapies to progress far enough to fill the capacity being built.
This chart, featured in our cell therapy market deck, shows how Legend Biotech is winning in cell therapy
How big could Cellares become if its Smart Factories fill up?
Cellares could become one of the largest dedicated cell-therapy manufacturers in the world if its projected throughput turns into real commercial production.
Its Bridgewater, New Jersey Smart Factory covers about 118,000 square feet and was designed for as many as 40,000 cell-therapy batches per year. Cellares says that represents roughly ten times the productivity of a conventional CDMO facility with a similar footprint.
The company now operates facilities in South San Francisco and Bridgewater, while additional Smart Factories are being developed in Leiden in the Netherlands and Kashiwa in Japan. Cellares has said the network could eventually support hundreds of thousands of patients annually.
That last figure is capacity ambition, not current output. Cellares is nowhere near treating hundreds of thousands of patients today, and future volume depends on its customers securing approvals and generating demand.
Even after stripping away the projection, the physical expansion is unusually aggressive. Few private companies in cell therapy are simultaneously preparing commercial manufacturing infrastructure in North America, Europe and Asia.
Cellares has moved from proving a machine to building a manufacturing network. The next real test is whether demand grows into that footprint.
If you want more recent data on this point, please see our latest cell therapy market report.
Is Cellares getting regulatory validation as quickly as it is building factories?
Yes. Cellares has accumulated unusually relevant FDA milestones around its manufacturing technology while the physical network expands.
The Cell Shuttle received the FDA's Advanced Manufacturing Technology designation, which is intended for manufacturing technologies that could improve drug quality or production reliability.
In June 2026, Cellares was also selected for the FDA's inaugural Manufacturing PreCheck pilot. It was the only cell-therapy platform among the seven companies announced in that first cohort. The program gives manufacturers earlier interaction with the agency while facilities and future applications are being prepared.
The clearest validation remains the rese-cel program because it connected the platform to an actual investigational drug. The FDA cleared Cabaletta's IND amendment for Cell Shuttle manufacturing before the first automated GMP doses were administered to patients.
Those events answer different questions. The AMT designation recognizes the technology, PreCheck brings the manufacturing network into closer regulatory interaction, and rese-cel shows the platform can already support a real clinical program.
None guarantees approval of a future commercial product. Together, though, they make Cellares' rapid factory build-out much easier to take seriously.
This chart, featured in our cell therapy market deck, shows annual funding in cell therapy startups
Could Cellares just look fast-growing because it raised so much money?
No. Cellares' funding is enormous, but we rank it first because operating milestones have kept pace with the capital.
A useful comparison is ArsenalBio. ArsenalBio raised a $325 million Series C in 2024, one of the largest private cell-therapy rounds of that period. At the time, it was funding programmable autologous T-cell therapies aimed largely at solid tumors.
The subsequent trajectory went in a very different direction. In late August 2026, ArsenalBio announced that it would focus the company on in-vivo CAR-T, broaden its disease ambitions beyond solid tumors and substantially reduce its workforce.
That reset makes ArsenalBio a good comparison. Cellares and ArsenalBio each raised rounds above $300 million, yet one has since added production contracts, patients and factories while the other is shrinking its team and redirecting its technology.
Large biotechnology financings tell us how much runway a company has. They say far less about whether the company is actually expanding.
That is why Cellares' $327 million Series D only becomes persuasive when we connect it to what happened around the same period.
Why isn't ArsenalBio the fastest-growing cell-therapy startup anymore?
ArsenalBio has effectively removed itself from the fastest-growth conversation for now by cutting its workforce and rebuilding its strategy around in-vivo CAR-T.
The company spent years creating sophisticated programmable T cells for solid tumors and pushed several internally developed programs into clinical studies. It also built a substantial technology base in synthetic biology, computation and T-cell engineering.
Its late-August strategy change is meaningful. ArsenalBio said it now sees a stronger opportunity applying those capabilities to in-vivo CAR-T across cancers and autoimmune diseases. A core team will continue the work, but the company is making a substantial workforce reduction while it evaluates opportunities for existing technologies and assets.
The new direction could eventually work very well. In-vivo CAR-T has become one of the hottest parts of cell therapy, and ArsenalBio has considerable engineering expertise to reuse.
But growth has to mean something concrete. A company reducing staff, narrowing near-term operations and changing the center of its pipeline is in reset mode, not leading the growth ranking.
The timing reinforces a broader shift in the sector: even well-funded companies that spent years improving ex-vivo engineered cells increasingly want a route into in-vivo programming.
If you want more recent data on this point, please see our latest cell therapy market report.
This chart, featured in our cell therapy market deck, compares the main business model options for cell therapy biotech companies
If we only count companies developing cell therapies, is Umoja Biopharma growing fastest?
Yes. Umoja Biopharma is the strongest independent therapeutic startup in our comparison because its VivoVec platform has produced two U.S. clinical programs while the company keeps adding new candidates and pharmaceutical partnerships.
VivoVec uses engineered lentiviral particles to generate CAR-T cells directly inside a patient's body. The approach could eventually remove cell collection, external genetic engineering, expansion and reinfusion from the normal CAR-T workflow.
Umoja's UB-VV111 program targeting CD19 was the first VivoVec candidate to enter U.S. clinical development. The FDA then cleared UB-VV400, its CD22-directed candidate, in July 2026. Umoja described it as the first known CD22 in-vivo CAR-T to reach this stage.
The second clearance is especially useful because platform companies need repeatability. One clinical candidate can still be a lucky combination of target and technology. Two candidates generated from the same delivery architecture begin to show that the platform may be reusable.
Umoja has already disclosed UB-VV500 behind them, giving VivoVec a third internally visible program.
The company also raised a $100 million Series C in 2025 specifically to push its in-vivo CAR-T pipeline through clinical milestones. We put much more weight on what followed that financing: a second IND, another candidate and continued expansion around the same core technology.
Why is Umoja's AbbVie partnership such a big deal?
Umoja's AbbVie partnership gives VivoVec something most young in-vivo CAR-T platforms still lack: a large pharmaceutical company has committed to exploring several programs rather than betting on just one drug.
The agreements cover Umoja's CD19 program plus as many as four additional targets selected by AbbVie. The package includes upfront payments, an equity investment and potentially about $1.44 billion in option, development and regulatory payments before later sales milestones and royalties.
We would never count $1.44 billion as current revenue. Biotechnology deals advertise maximum milestone values that depend on years of successful development, and many programs never trigger all of them.
What catches our attention is the number of shots AbbVie reserved. A single-asset licensing deal mainly validates that asset. A multi-target agreement suggests AbbVie sees something reusable in VivoVec itself.
That stands out because major pharmaceutical groups have been buying competing in-vivo technologies outright. AbbVie acquired Capstan, AstraZeneca bought EsoBiotec, Gilead moved for Interius and Lilly agreed to acquire Kelonia.
Umoja has remained independent while obtaining big-pharma backing for several possible programs. That makes it one of the few remaining private companies with both an internally growing in-vivo pipeline and an external pharmaceutical development engine.
This chart, featured in our cell therapy market deck, shows how market revenue is split across customer segments in the cell therapy market
Is Umoja actually ahead of other in-vivo CAR-T companies in the clinic?
No. Umoja is growing fastest among the independent therapeutic startups we reviewed, but several competing in-vivo CAR-T technologies have produced more advanced human evidence.
EsoBiotec generated early clinical activity before AstraZeneca bought the company. Kelonia's KLN-1010 reached Phase 1 in multiple myeloma and produced clinical data before Lilly agreed to acquire Kelonia. Capstan's CPTX2309 entered Phase 1 in autoimmune disease before AbbVie completed its acquisition.
Public company Legend Biotech raises the bar further. Its in-vivo candidate LB2501 produced an early 100% overall response rate and an 83.3% complete-response rate at the higher tested dose in a very small cohort of patients with relapsed or refractory B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
Those percentages need to stay in context: the cohorts are tiny, and early Phase 1 response data can change sharply with more patients and longer follow-up.
Umoja's lead VivoVec programs have not yet produced an equally mature public clinical dataset. UB-VV400 had only recently received IND clearance when we reviewed the field.
So Umoja's lead comes from the pace at which the company is building a repeatable in-vivo platform, not from having the best human efficacy data today. That ranking can move quickly once more VivoVec clinical results arrive.
If you want more recent data on this point, please see our latest cell therapy market report.
Could AvenCell catch Umoja?
AvenCell could become the strongest alternative to Umoja, especially if its allogeneic programs keep producing useful clinical data, but its growth today is less explosive.
AvenCell is pursuing switchable CAR-T therapies whose activity can be controlled using separately administered targeting molecules. It is also developing allogeneic, donor-derived cells that could potentially be manufactured ahead of time and supplied to many patients.
The company has moved two important programs into the clinic. AVC-201 has generated Phase 1a data in CD123-positive acute myeloid leukemia, while AVC-203 became the first CRISPR-engineered allogeneic dual-targeting CD19/CD20 switchable CAR-T to enter clinical testing when AvenCell dosed its first patient in April 2026.
AvenCell also has deep financial backing. Blackstone Life Sciences committed $250 million when the company was formed, Novo Holdings led a later $112 million Series B, and Japan's AMED awarded up to $40 million to support an allogeneic CAR-T program.
That is enough progress to put AvenCell firmly in the leading group.
Umoja gets our vote because in-vivo CAR-T attacks an even larger operational constraint. If CAR-T cells can reliably be generated inside patients, manufacturing begins to look dramatically simpler than either autologous or donor-derived external production.
AvenCell probably needs unusually strong clinical data to overcome that structural advantage in the growth race.
This chart, featured in our cell therapy market deck, shows how CAR-T cell therapy technology has evolved over time
Is in-vivo CAR-T becoming the main startup race in cell therapy?
Yes. In-vivo CAR-T has become the most aggressive strategic race in cell therapy because it could turn a complicated personalized manufacturing process into something much closer to an off-the-shelf medicine.
Traditional autologous CAR-T requires hospitals to collect cells from each patient. Those cells travel through a manufacturing process where they are genetically modified, expanded, tested and eventually returned for infusion.
Generating CAR-T cells directly inside the body removes several of those steps. In the best-case version, hospitals could administer an engineered vector or nanoparticle from inventory rather than starting a bespoke manufacturing order for every patient.
Big pharma has spent heavily to secure that possibility. Capstan, EsoBiotec, Interius and Kelonia used different delivery systems, but every acquisition was aimed at programming immune cells in vivo.
ArsenalBio's newest strategic pivot adds another piece to the pattern. After years of focusing heavily on sophisticated ex-vivo T cells for solid tumors, the company is now redirecting its core organization toward in-vivo CAR-T.
The market is converging from several directions. New startups were founded around in-vivo delivery, established cell-therapy companies are building or buying it, and pharmaceutical groups have already spent billions of dollars acquiring access.
We still do not know which technology will win. We do know where the industry's competitive pressure is strongest.
Does the in-vivo CAR-T boom mean conventional CAR-T is already losing?
No. Conventional CAR-T is growing commercially at the same time that companies are trying to invent an easier successor.
CARVYKTI shows why. Its roughly $1.9 billion of 2025 net trade sales made it one of the clearest commercial successes in the entire cell-therapy industry. Sales then continued rising sharply in 2026.
Successful products like CARVYKTI prove that physicians and health systems will use personalized cell therapies despite difficult manufacturing when the clinical benefit is strong enough.
The problem shows up when companies try to expand that model to much larger populations. Autoimmune diseases could involve far more eligible patients than many hematologic cancers. Manufacturing every dose through an individualized external process becomes much harder once the target population rises from thousands toward tens or hundreds of thousands.
That is where the two companies at the top of our ranking meet.
Cellares wants to automate personalized manufacturing until it works at industrial scale. Umoja wants VivoVec to generate the therapeutic cells inside the patient and remove much of the external manufacturing chain.
Both businesses are benefiting from the same underlying problem, but they are attacking opposite ends of it.
In our cell therapy market deck, we identify pain points entrepreneurs should prioritize
Which cell-therapy startup is growing the fastest today?
Cellares is the fastest-growing cell-therapy startup overall, while Umoja Biopharma is our choice among independent startups developing the actual therapy.
Cellares wins because its growth has become unusually concrete. The company has raised about $682 million, expanded its latest financing to $327 million, manufactured automated GMP doses that reached patients, accumulated programs across several cell types and started building an international commercial manufacturing network.
There is also a useful progression in its customer relationships. Early process-development work has led to regulated clinical manufacturing, while some clinical relationships are already moving toward long-duration commercial supply.
Cellares still has one huge thing left to prove: factory utilization. Its planned capacity is far larger than the patient volume it produces today. If customers fail clinically or the automated system proves difficult to transfer across many processes, the infrastructure could grow faster than demand.
Umoja faces a different test. We already know VivoVec can produce multiple candidates capable of reaching U.S. clinical development. We still need convincing human evidence that those in-vivo-generated CAR-T cells can deliver strong, durable responses with acceptable safety.
That is why the ranking can still change.
As of now, though, Cellares has the strongest combination of funding, customers, production, regulatory progress and physical expansion that we found anywhere in the independent cell-therapy market. Umoja has the strongest momentum among the companies trying to build the next generation of cell therapies themselves.
If you want more recent data on this point, please see our latest cell therapy market report.
OUR METHODOLOGY
This analysis does not treat “fastest-growing” as a conventional one-metric ranking. Private cell-therapy companies rarely disclose standardized revenue or volume data, and companies developing therapies grow differently from companies building the manufacturing infrastructure underneath them. We therefore compared the kinds of progress that can actually be observed across the sector.
We looked across financing momentum, clinical and operational execution, commercial adoption, regulatory progress, platform expansion and physical scaling. For therapy developers, we put more weight on clinical advancement, repeatability across programs, human evidence and pharmaceutical partnerships. For manufacturing companies, we focused more on real production, customer progression, contracted demand, regulatory use of the platform and deployable manufacturing capacity.
Funding counted only when it was followed by execution. Maximum biotech milestone values were not treated as present revenue, announced factory capacity was not counted as current production, and projected patient throughput was not treated as patients actually served. Companies that had been acquired were removed from the independent-startup ranking, while recent strategic resets and workforce reductions were treated as evidence about present momentum.
No single development decided the ranking. We looked for several recent indicators pointing in the same direction: programs entering the clinic, GMP doses reaching patients, customers moving from process development into regulated manufacturing, long-term supply agreements, additional candidates emerging from the same platform, meaningful FDA milestones and manufacturing capacity moving from plan to deployment.
Key Cellares sources include Cellares on the final $327 million Series D, Cellares on the Bridgewater Smart Factory and its stated 40,000-batch capacity, Cabaletta Bio on patient dosing and the 10-year supply agreement, Cellares and Bristol Myers Squibb on the worldwide capacity agreement, and the FDA on the inaugural Manufacturing PreCheck pilot.
Key Umoja and in-vivo CAR-T sources include Umoja on its $100 million Series C, Umoja on FDA clearance of UB-VV400, AbbVie on its multi-program collaboration with Umoja, AbbVie on Capstan Therapeutics, AstraZeneca on EsoBiotec, Gilead/Kite on Interius, and Lilly on Kelonia Therapeutics.
We also used ArsenalBio's first-hand strategy-reset announcement, AvenCell on first dosing of AVC-203, Legend Biotech on CARVYKTI's 2025 commercial performance, Johnson & Johnson on CARVYKTI's second-quarter 2026 sales, and Legend Biotech on early LB2501 human data.
This chart, featured in our cell therapy market deck, shows the regional revenue split across Europe, Asia, North America, Africa, and South America in the cell therapy market
Related blog posts
- Which companies have raised the most funding in the cell therapy market?
