Clinical decision support: what’s funding like now?

All funding deals in the clinical decision support 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 clinical decision support market.

Is the clinical decision support market actually healthier than a year ago?

Clinical decision support funding has become weaker for the typical startup, even though total investment increased slightly. We recorded $1.30 billion across 48 deals in the latest 12 months, compared with $1.27 billion across 56 deals previously.

The 2.4% increase in capital looks encouraging until we examine how that money was distributed. The number of funded companies fell 14.8%, from 54 to 46, while the median financing dropped 32.8% to $5.30 million.

OpenEvidence accounted for a substantial part of the market's funding, with three transactions totaling $700 million. Without these exceptional rounds, the overall picture would be considerably weaker.

There is still some encouraging activity among younger startups. First financings increased from nine to sixteen, and Seed rounds rose from fifteen to twenty-two. Investors are still backing new companies, although most of the money is going to a small group of established businesses.

Market indicator	Latest 12 months	Previous 12 months	Change
Total funding	$1,300.8M	$1,270.9M	+2.4%
Funding deals	48	56	-14.3%
Funded companies	46	54	-14.8%
Median round	$5.30M	$7.89M	-32.8%
Average disclosed round	$28.28M	$22.69M	+24.6%
First financings	16	9	+77.8%
Seed rounds	22	15	+46.7%
Capital excluding rounds above $100M	$450.8M	$732.9M	-38.5%

Would clinical decision support funding still be growing without the biggest rounds?

No. Once we remove the biggest clinical decision support financings, the market is clearly shrinking.

Funding from rounds of $50 million or less declined 18.0%, from $482.9 million to $395.8 million. Removing rounds above $100 million produces an even steeper decline of 38.5%, leaving $450.8 million compared with $732.9 million previously.

The market gained only about $30 million in headline funding while losing approximately $282 million in transactions of $100 million or less.

The number of rounds above $100 million remained unchanged at four. Their contribution to total funding nevertheless jumped from 42.3% to 65.3%.

Is OpenEvidence carrying the clinical decision support funding market?

OpenEvidence is the biggest reason clinical decision support funding appears stable. The company accounted for approximately 53.8% of all capital in our latest 12-month analysis.

Its three recorded financings totaled $700 million, including a $200 million round in October 2025 and a $250 million Series D in January 2026. A further $250 million financing was reported in September 2026.

The January transaction valued OpenEvidence at $12 billion, according to its company announcement. The company reported that its platform supported approximately 18 million clinical consultations in December 2025, compared with around three million per month one year earlier. It also said more than 40% of American physicians were using its medical AI platform daily on average.

Those adoption figures help explain the company's fundraising power. Its rapid growth in physician usage, advertising revenue and access to medical research content give investors a more developed business to evaluate than most clinical AI startups can offer.

Excluding its three current-period financings would leave approximately $600.8 million in funding across the rest of the market. That is less than half the previous period's headline total, although it is a one-sided comparison that does not remove exceptional companies from the earlier period.

Are fewer clinical AI companies getting funded now?

Yes. Clinical decision support financing reached eight fewer companies than a year earlier, and the slowdown extends beyond the largest transactions.

We counted 46 funded companies and 48 rounds, compared with 54 companies and 56 rounds in the previous period. The decline is particularly visible in Diagnostic Decision Support, where deals fell from 36 to nineteen.

The middle of the financing market also weakened. Rounds above $50 million and up to $100 million fell from five to one, leaving fewer substantial growth transactions between early funding and the very largest rounds.

Meanwhile, Risk Prediction & Alerts attracted twelve deals, up from four, and Treatment Recommendation increased from three to four. The contraction was clearly not uniform across clinical AI categories.

Are investors still funding new clinical decision support startups?

New clinical decision support startups are attracting more initial financings than a year ago, but the typical first round has become much smaller.

First financings increased 77.8%, from nine to sixteen. These transactions represented 33.3% of all deals, compared with 16.1% previously. Total capital invested in first financings also climbed from $29.7 million to $68.8 million.

However, the median initial financing declined 47.0%, from $3 million to $1.59 million.

Investors seem willing to back more emerging businesses with relatively modest initial commitments. Whether those startups can subsequently raise larger rounds is less clear, especially given the sharp fall in Series B activity.

Are established clinical AI companies getting most of the funding?

Established clinical AI companies are taking almost all the capital, even though fewer follow-on rounds are being completed.

Follow-on transactions declined from 47 to 32, while the amount invested remained close to $1.23 billion. The median follow-on round increased from $10 million to $11.8 million.

Previously funded companies are therefore receiving larger typical cheques, while new entrants are starting with less money.

The concentration has increased significantly. The five largest rounds represented 69.6% of current funding, compared with 48.2% one year earlier. The ten largest accounted for 83.6%.

Are clinical AI funding rounds getting smaller?

The typical clinical AI funding round is getting smaller, despite an increase in average financing size.

Median round size fell from $7.89 million to $5.30 million, while the average climbed from $22.69 million to $28.28 million. Exceptional transactions are pulling the average upward.

Among the 46 current rounds with quantifiable amounts, 22 were below $5 million. Almost half of the transactions with disclosed amounts therefore sit in the smallest financing category.

The $50 million–$100 million segment, excluding $50 million itself, also fell from five rounds to just one. The distribution is increasingly uneven: plenty of small cheques, very few mid-sized growth transactions, and a handful of enormous rounds.

Are clinical AI investors moving back toward Seed funding?

Seed funding has become much more common in clinical decision support, but early-stage companies are receiving less capital overall.

Seed transactions increased from fifteen to twenty-two, while Series A remained at eight. Together, those stages accounted for 62.5% of current deals, compared with 41.1% previously.

Yet combined Seed and Series A funding fell from approximately $266.4 million to $160.9 million. Series A was responsible for most of that decrease, with capital dropping from $208.5 million to $98.1 million.

Later-stage deals represented just 27.1% of transactions but attracted 82.5% of funding.

The increase in recorded Seed rounds also comes alongside a decrease in transactions with unknown stages, from sixteen to five. Better stage reporting affects the comparison, though it does not erase the increase in Seed activity.

Funding stage	Current deals	Previous deals	Current capital	Previous capital
Seed	22	15	$62.8M	$57.9M
Series A	8	8	$98.1M	$208.5M
Series B	2	8	$59.2M	$327.8M
Series C	4	6	$243.5M	$376.0M
Series D+	4	2	$468.4M	$175.0M
Growth Equity	3	1	$301.6M	$22.7M
Unknown	5	16	$67.2M	$102.9M

Which clinical decision support category is attracting the most investors?

Risk Prediction & Alerts has the strongest improvement in deal activity, while Evidence & Guideline Support now attracts the most capital.

Risk Prediction & Alerts went from four to twelve deals, with funding rising 62.0% to $139.5 million. The expansion came through smaller transactions: its median round fell from $11.55 million to $5 million.

Evidence & Guideline Support moved in a very different direction. Capital increased from $307 million to $722 million, despite deal count rising only from four to five. OpenEvidence accounted for most of that increase.

Treatment Recommendation also improved, moving from three deals and $7.7 million to four deals and $32.1 million. The sample is still small, but the increase is substantial.

Risk prediction is attracting more financing transactions, while evidence-support platforms are attracting exceptionally large amounts of money at the top end.

Is diagnostic decision support losing investor interest?

Diagnostic Decision Support is losing funding momentum faster than any other major clinical decision support category in our analysis.

Deals dropped 47.2%, from 36 to nineteen, while funding declined 59.1%, from $726.6 million to $297.5 million. Its share of all transactions fell from 64.3% to 39.6%.

Precision Medicine Decision Support also recorded fewer deals, declining from eight to five, with capital falling from $113.4 million to $96.1 million. Its median round actually increased from $7.95 million to $14.67 million, so the companies that did raise were not necessarily receiving smaller cheques.

The diagnostics slowdown is striking given that medical imaging remains one of the most established applications of clinical AI. Aidoc's $150 million Series E in April 2026, for example, shows that leading diagnostic platforms can still attract substantial financing.

Aidoc said its CARE foundation model and aiOS enterprise platform were supporting clinical AI deployments across nearly 2,000 hospitals. That puts the company in a very different position from an emerging diagnostic startup still trying to establish clinical and commercial adoption.

Clinical decision support category	Current deals	Previous deals	Current funding
Diagnostic Decision Support	19	36	$297.5M
Risk Prediction & Alerts	12	4	$139.5M
Precision Medicine Decision Support	5	8	$96.1M
Evidence & Guideline Support	5	4	$722.0M
Treatment Recommendation	4	3	$32.1M
Medication Decision Support	2	1	$3.6M
Care Pathway Support	1	0	$10.0M

Is the United States dominating clinical AI funding now?

The United States has become overwhelmingly dominant in clinical decision support funding, capturing approximately 81.9% of the money despite accounting for fewer than half of the transactions.

American companies raised roughly $1.07 billion across nineteen deals. North America as a whole increased from seventeen to twenty transactions, with funding rising from $756.7 million to approximately $1.07 billion.

Europe still generated the most deals, at 24, but attracted just $164.6 million. Its median financing fell from $5.3 million to $2.7 million, showing how different European round sizes have become from those of the largest American companies.

France was more resilient. It recorded five transactions in both periods, with funding rising from $62.1 million to $93.2 million.

Asia-Pacific had a tougher year, with deals falling from six to four and capital dropping from $200.9 million to $66.6 million.

The American lead is heavily influenced by OpenEvidence and other large financings, but the difference in capital distribution remains substantial.

Are fewer investors backing clinical decision support startups?

Our research shows fewer named lead investors participating in clinical decision support funding, although the reduction broadly matches the fall in deal activity.

We identified 54 unique named lead investors in the latest period, compared with 66 previously. Only two named leads appeared more than once in either period.

Strategic-backed transactions also declined, from fifteen to eight, reducing their share of deals from 26.8% to 16.7%.

Important corporate investors remain involved. Aidoc's April 2026 financing included NVentures, NVIDIA's venture capital arm, alongside Goldman Sachs Alternatives, General Catalyst and SoftBank Investment Advisors. Other recorded transactions involved healthcare-provider investors, Merck-affiliated investment vehicles and diagnostics-related businesses.

The decline is clearest in transaction volume and named lead participation. The investor records do not establish a retreat by every corporate or strategic investor, since individual syndicates are not always completely captured.

Do clinical AI startups need more traction to raise money now?

Clinical AI startups seeking exceptionally large rounds appear to benefit from substantial adoption and established products. OpenEvidence and Aidoc are particularly revealing examples.

OpenEvidence's January 2026 announcement reported widespread physician usage, approximately 18 million monthly clinical consultations and more than $100 million in annualized revenue.

Aidoc pointed to extensive hospital deployment, FDA clearances and plans to expand its foundation model across more clinical applications when it announced its Series E in April 2026.

Company maturity offers another clue. The median age of Seed-funded companies increased from two to three years, Series A from five to six, and Series C from 7.5 to 9.5 years. Businesses securing capital at several comparable stages were older than their counterparts one year earlier, although age does not directly measure clinical validation or revenue.

Regulation also shapes the market. The FDA's January 2026 Clinical Decision Support Software guidance clarified the distinction between certain non-device decision-support functions and software regulated as medical devices. Separately, ONC's HTI-1 framework addresses transparency requirements for predictive decision-support tools in certified health IT.

These developments make clinical validation, transparency and deployment capabilities important parts of assessing a vendor. They do not, on their own, prove that fundraising standards have tightened across the entire market.

Are clinical AI companies raising new rounds faster than before?

OpenEvidence has demonstrated exceptionally fast repeat fundraising, but there is insufficient evidence that clinical AI startups generally raise subsequent rounds more quickly.

Its reported $200 million financing in October 2025 was followed by another $250 million in January 2026, less than four months later.

That pace is unusual for financings of this size and fits with the company's reported growth in physician adoption and revenue.

Across the wider market, however, we recorded fewer follow-on transactions and fewer companies with multiple financings during the comparison period. The financing histories are not complete enough to calculate a reliable market-wide change in the time between rounds.

Are clinical AI companies raising money to develop products or scale them?

The largest clinical AI rounds increasingly involve companies expanding products that are already deployed, while early-stage funding continues to support new entrants.

Aidoc's April 2026 Series E is particularly informative. The company said the financing would support further development of its CARE clinical foundation model, additional clinical indications, automated imaging-report capabilities and wider international deployment of its aiOS platform.

OpenEvidence described a different use of capital in January 2026, emphasizing research, development and computing costs for its medical AI architecture. Its investment plans followed rapid growth in physician usage, so the company was funding continued technology development at considerable commercial scale.

Even established clinical AI companies are still investing heavily in research and engineering. Product development and commercial expansion often happen together, making the distinction difficult to quantify from fundraising announcements alone.

The increase in seed rounds also shows that earlier-stage experimentation remains active. The available use-of-funds records, however, are not standardized enough to calculate a market-wide split between R&D and commercial expansion.

Is clinical decision support becoming a more mature startup market?

Clinical decision support funding is becoming more concentrated around mature winners, while early-stage startup activity is also increasing.

The clearest weakness sits between these two groups. Series B transactions dropped from eight to two, with funding declining from $327.8 million to $59.2 million. Meanwhile, Series D+ capital climbed from $175 million to $468.4 million, and Growth Equity rose from $22.7 million to $301.6 million.

The overall population of funded companies actually became slightly younger. Median company age fell from six years to five, partly reflecting the larger proportion of early-stage transactions.

The market has a curious structure: more young companies are receiving initial financing, while a few established businesses secure enormous commitments. Between those extremes, substantial growth rounds have become much less frequent.

The next important test will be whether the newer companies funded during this period can progress into larger Series A and Series B rounds. For now, their entry into the market is much stronger than the evidence of successful progression through it.