What are the funding trends in clinical decision support?

All funding deals in the clinical decision support market over the last years

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 clinical decision support funding actually growing in 2026?

Clinical decision support funding is holding up in dollar terms, but the number of startups raising money has dropped sharply. We've counted $961.9 million across 28 rounds so far in 2026, up just 1.2% from $950.3 million across 38 rounds during the same period in 2025.

The number of funded companies fell from 37 to 27, a 27% decline. Compared with 2024, the contrast is even more striking: funding has more than doubled from $423.2 million, while the number of transactions has fallen from 31 to 28.

The weaker side of the market becomes visible when we remove the biggest rounds. Funding excluding transactions above $50 million fell 22.9% year over year, from $333.3 million to $256.9 million. Removing rounds above $100 million produces a 39.8% decline.

Meanwhile, the median round increased from $7.89 million to $10 million. Investors are writing somewhat larger checks, but considerably fewer companies are getting funded.

Funding indicator	2024 YTD	2025 YTD	2026 YTD
Funding rounds	31	38	28
Funded companies	31	37	27
Total funding	$423.2M	$950.3M	$961.9M
Funding excluding rounds above $50M	$304.2M	$333.3M	$256.9M
Funding excluding rounds above $100M	$423.2M	$518.3M	$311.9M
Median round	$8.0M	$7.89M	$10.0M
Average disclosed round	$13.65M	$25.01M	$35.63M
Top-three funding share	38.3%	45.5%	67.6%

The average disclosed round excludes transactions with undisclosed amounts. In 2026, 27 rounds had usable reported funding amounts, while 28 transactions were counted overall.

Are OpenEvidence and Aidoc carrying the clinical decision support market?

Yes. OpenEvidence and Aidoc are responsible for most of the clinical decision support funding recorded in 2026. Together, just three transactions brought in $650 million, representing 67.6% of the market's total.

OpenEvidence raised $250 million in January at a reported $12 billion valuation, followed by another $250 million financing in September at a reported $15 billion valuation. The second round was reported as having closed before our September 24 cutoff, although the company's subsequent confirmation came later.

Aidoc contributed another $150 million with its April Series E, led by Goldman Sachs Alternatives. The company said the financing would help expand its clinical foundation model and enterprise AI platform across healthcare systems.

These three rounds explain why total funding remains close to $1 billion even as deal activity declines. The top three deals captured 45.5% of funding in 2025 and 38.3% in 2024, so concentration has increased substantially across the three comparable periods.

OpenEvidence alone accounts for roughly 52% of current funding. That is an extraordinary share for a single company in a market containing 27 funded businesses.

Why are investors putting so much money into OpenEvidence?

OpenEvidence is attracting unusually large investments because it has built a clinical AI product used regularly by physicians, giving investors a clearer adoption story than many early-stage healthcare software companies can offer.

The platform helps doctors find medical evidence, interpret research and answer clinical questions using information from peer-reviewed journals and medical guidelines. Its value proposition is broad: the product can support clinicians across many specialties rather than addressing only one disease or diagnostic procedure.

By September, OpenEvidence had reportedly reached widespread adoption among American physicians. The company also benefited from integrations into healthcare workflows, including electronic health record environments, which can make clinical software easier to use during everyday medical practice.

Investors have rewarded that growth with repeated financing rounds. OpenEvidence went from a reported $3.5 billion valuation in July 2025 to $12 billion in January 2026 and $15 billion in September.

The important uncertainty is how much of its adoption can translate into durable revenue and profitability. Physician usage is an impressive starting point, but it doesn't settle the question of long-term monetization, particularly at a $15 billion valuation.

Why is money moving from diagnostic AI toward clinical evidence platforms?

Evidence and Guideline Support has overtaken Diagnostic Decision Support in funding, largely thanks to OpenEvidence's two enormous rounds. The evidence category raised $522 million in 2026, compared with $307 million in 2025, even though its deal count stayed at four.

Diagnostic Decision Support moved in the opposite direction. Funding fell from $475.1 million to $271.8 million, while transactions dropped from 23 to 12.

There is a plausible product-level explanation for the different investor interest. Evidence platforms can become tools that physicians consult repeatedly across a wide range of clinical decisions. Diagnostic AI companies often start by addressing a more specific medical task, such as interpreting an imaging examination or identifying a particular condition.

Diagnostic software can deliver measurable clinical benefits and build strong relationships with hospitals, but some products also face demanding validation, integration and regulatory requirements.

The FDA's updated January 2026 clinical decision support guidance illustrates how differently software functions can be treated. Depending on what a product does, certain decision-support functions may fall outside medical-device regulation, while software analyzing medical images or producing particular clinical outputs may remain subject to FDA oversight.

Still, the funding comparison needs perspective. Of the $522 million raised by Evidence and Guideline Support, $500 million came from OpenEvidence. There is much stronger evidence of one company's fundraising success than of a broad migration of investment toward evidence-platform startups.

Category	2025 deals	2026 deals	2025 funding	2026 funding
Diagnostic Decision Support	23	12	$475.1M	$271.8M
Evidence & Guideline Support	4	4	$307.0M	$522.0M
Precision Medicine	5	3	$60.9M	$80.3M
Risk Prediction & Alerts	3	6	$74.1M	$61.4M
Treatment Recommendation	2	1	$3.2M	$13.4M
Care Pathway Support	0	1	$0	$10.0M
Medication Decision Support	1	1	$30.0M	$3.0M
Total	38	28	$950.3M	$961.9M

Is diagnostic AI losing investors?

Diagnostic Decision Support is clearly having a tougher fundraising year, with deal count nearly halving from 23 to 12. Its share of clinical decision support transactions has fallen from 60.5% to 42.9%.

But diagnostics is still the busiest part of the market by number of rounds. It has three times as many transactions as Evidence and Guideline Support, despite attracting much less money.

Diagnostic funding is down approximately 43% year over year, accompanied by a 47.8% decline in transactions. This is a broader contraction than the disappearance of one or two exceptionally large financings.

The commercial environment also deserves attention. Medical imaging AI companies must often demonstrate clinical performance, work within hospital technology systems and navigate regulatory requirements. The American College of Radiology's January 2026 discussion of FDA guidance reinforced that image-analysis functions producing diagnostic recommendations generally remain under FDA oversight.

Harrison.ai offers an example of how much capital established diagnostic platforms can require. Its February 2025 $112 million Series C supported US expansion alongside its radiology and pathology products. That round also helps explain why the previous year's funding picture was stronger.

We can't establish from completed financings alone whether diagnostic startups are encountering more investor rejection, struggling with deployment economics or simply raising less frequently. What we can see is a substantial reduction in both capital and transactions.

Is risk prediction becoming the next big clinical AI category?

Risk Prediction and Alerts is attracting more funding rounds, making it one of the few clinical decision support categories with a clear increase in startup activity. We counted six deals in 2026, compared with three in 2025 and four in 2024.

The catch is that total funding fell from $74.1 million to $61.4 million. Investors are financing more transactions, but those rounds are generally smaller.

Risk prediction now represents 21.4% of market deals, up from 7.9% last year. Its share of funding, however, slipped to 6.4%.

These products can cover a broad range of medical needs, including predicting patient deterioration, identifying complications or helping clinicians prioritize interventions. Their commercial appeal comes from fitting predictive information into clinical decisions that hospitals already make.

Precision Medicine Decision Support shows almost the reverse funding pattern. It attracted $80.3 million from three rounds in 2026, compared with $60.9 million from five rounds last year. Its median round reached $33 million.

Risk prediction is seeing more businesses complete financings, while precision medicine is attracting larger investments among fewer recipients. With such small samples, neither change is enough to declare a new dominant category.

Are early-stage clinical decision support startups having a harder time raising money?

Early-stage clinical decision support startups are still getting funded, and Seed and Series A deal counts have held up better than overall market activity. We recorded 16 early-stage rounds in 2026, compared with 13 in 2025 and 16 in 2024.

Seed activity was especially stable, with nine transactions this year against eight last year and nine two years earlier. Series A transactions increased from five to seven.

What weakened was the amount of money being raised. Combined Seed and Series A funding fell from $188.3 million to $120.3 million, despite the higher number of rounds.

Series A explains much of that decline. Funding at the stage dropped from $168.5 million to $95.3 million. More companies completed Series A financings, but the total amount invested at that stage was much lower.

There's also a data-quality issue. Early-stage deals represent 57.1% of all 2026 transactions, compared with 34.2% in 2025. But the proportion of deals with a known stage improved considerably between the two periods.

Among deals with identified stages, the early-stage share is 64% today, versus 50% last year and 66.7% in 2024. The longer comparison looks more like a return toward the earlier funding mix than an unprecedented surge in young startups raising money.

Has Series B funding disappeared from clinical decision support?

Series B funding has disappeared from our identified 2026 clinical decision support transactions. We found no Series B rounds through September 24, compared with six in 2025 and eight in 2024.

That's a striking gap, especially since Series B brought in $310.9 million during the comparable 2025 period and $249.4 million in 2024.

At the other end of the market, Series D+ rounds increased from one to four, while Growth Equity transactions increased from one to three. Together, those two stages accounted for approximately $770 million in current funding.

The apparent missing middle is worth watching. Startups can still raise Seed and Series A capital, while established companies can secure exceptionally large later rounds. But intermediate-stage financings have become conspicuously scarce.

There are limits to that conclusion. Three 2026 financings have unknown stages, and our figures cover completed deals rather than companies attempting to raise money.

Even allowing for those limitations, moving from six and eight Series B rounds in the previous comparable periods to zero identified rounds is one of the year's more unusual developments.

Stage	2024 deals	2025 deals	2026 deals	2026 funding
Seed	9	8	9	$25.0M
Series A	7	5	7	$95.3M
Series B	8	6	0	$0
Series C	0	5	2	$19.6M
Series D+	0	1	4	$468.4M
Growth Equity	0	1	3	$301.6M
Unknown	7	12	3	$52.0M
Total	31	38	28	$961.9M

Are clinical AI investors only backing established companies now?

Established clinical AI companies are receiving most of the money, even though younger businesses still account for most funding rounds. Series C and later-stage financings, together with Growth Equity, attracted $789.6 million in 2026, around 82% of the market's capital.

Only nine identified transactions at those stages generated that amount, compared with 13 deals raising $713.6 million last year.

Aidoc shows what investors are willing to finance at this level. Its April $150 million Series E was intended to expand its CARE clinical foundation model and enterprise AI platform. The company named Goldman Sachs Alternatives as the lead investor, alongside participation from General Catalyst, SoftBank Vision Fund 2 and NVentures.

The round illustrates the capital available to companies building software for use across healthcare systems, particularly when they have existing customers, established products and a clear expansion plan.

Company age also offers some context. The median funded business was approximately seven years old in 2026, compared with six years in the two earlier periods. Seed recipients were also older, with a median age of five years against three in 2025.

However, first-financing activity has remained relatively stable. We identified six first financings this year, five last year and six in 2024.

New companies continue to enter the funding market. The bigger change is how much capital previously funded businesses can attract.

Follow-on rounds captured $920.9 million in 2026, approximately 95.7% of the total. Their count fell from 33 to 22, even as the amount invested remained close to last year's $932.8 million.

Is North America pulling ahead of Europe in clinical decision support funding?

North America is pulling further ahead in clinical decision support funding, helped by giant US rounds and a sharp decline in European transactions. North American businesses raised $808.8 million across 14 deals in 2026, compared with $593.7 million across 12 deals in 2025.

Europe went from 22 deals to 12, with funding falling from $233.3 million to $126.6 million.

North America's share of global transactions increased from 31.6% to 50%, while its share of funding rose from 62.5% to 84.1%.

The largest US financings account for much of the capital gap, but the transaction counts show that the geographical change goes further than those companies alone. North America recorded slightly more deals, whereas Europe's activity fell 45.5%.

Asia-Pacific also experienced a major funding decline, from $120.3 million to $26.5 million. Here, the comparison is heavily influenced by Harrison.ai's February 2025 $112 million financing, which supported its expansion into the United States and further product development.

Europe's decline deserves the most attention because it involves fewer transactions as well as less money. The figures identify where funded companies are located; they don't establish that European venture funds have redirected their capital toward American startups.

Are venture capital firms losing interest in clinical decision support?

Fewer venture investors are appearing as disclosed leads in clinical decision support deals, although the decline closely follows the reduction in fundraising activity. We identified 33 unique lead investors or co-leads in 2026, compared with 47 in 2025.

Lead disclosure coverage remained similar at 82.1%, against 84.2% last year, so the comparison is reasonably consistent.

One interesting detail is that no disclosed lead appeared in multiple 2026 deals. LUMO Labs was the only repeated lead in the 2025 comparison, appearing in two financings.

That makes it difficult to argue that a tiny group of VC firms is taking over funding leadership. There are simply fewer completed transactions and fewer identified investors leading them.

Strategic investors have also become less common in the recorded rounds. We found named strategic participation in five 2026 transactions, compared with 11 in 2025 and seven in 2024.

The current group includes NVIDIA and NVentures, M Ventures, UCI Health Ventures, Labcorp Venture Fund, Carle Health and 4DMedical. These participants span AI infrastructure, pharmaceutical technology, diagnostics and healthcare delivery.

Corporate participation remains diverse, but its frequency has dropped from 28.9% of deals in 2025 to 17.9% this year, despite prominent names appearing in major financings.

Why are healthcare AI platforms still raising such large rounds?

Healthcare AI platforms can still raise hundreds of millions of dollars when investors see a credible path toward widespread clinical use. Physician adoption and enterprise healthcare deployments offer stronger evidence of commercial progress than a promising model demonstrated in isolation.

Clinical AI platforms are also expanding beyond individual diagnostic tasks. A company that can serve several medical specialties or hospital departments has more opportunities to deepen its relationship with existing customers.

That expansion is demanding, though. Software needs to fit into electronic health records, clinical processes and hospital technology infrastructure. Product validation, implementation and continued development can require substantial financing long after a company has launched its first commercial product.

Healthcare technology policy also provides useful context. The US government's HTI-1 rule introduced transparency requirements for predictive decision support within certified health IT, while subsequent interoperability standards have addressed ways to integrate clinical decision support tasks into electronic health record workflows.

These developments are making clinical AI part of the established healthcare technology environment, although they don't establish a direct connection between regulation and larger financing rounds.

The stronger explanation comes from the companies' own activities: physician usage, hospital distribution, product development and the cost of expansion. Investors appear prepared to support businesses that have already made measurable progress on those fronts.

Could 2026 become the biggest year ever for clinical decision support funding?

Clinical decision support funding could still finish 2026 strongly, although current figures don't justify calling it a record year. Through September 24, the market had raised $961.9 million, equivalent to 74.5% of the $1.29 billion recorded throughout 2025.

The current total has already exceeded full-year 2024 funding of $743.7 million by approximately 29%.

But the number of rounds tells a less impressive story. We have counted 28 deals so far this year, compared with 58 throughout 2025 and 49 throughout 2024.

A single additional $200 million or $300 million transaction could change the annual funding total substantially. That's realistic given the size of recent financings, but it wouldn't necessarily change the experience of the average clinical decision support founder.

The more interesting question for the remainder of the year is whether fundraising picks up among businesses outside the handful of largest platforms, particularly at Series B and other intermediate stages.

What is actually changing in clinical decision support funding?

Clinical decision support funding is becoming much more concentrated around established AI platforms, while fewer startups are securing investment across the broader market.

Total funding is slightly higher than last year, but deal count and funded-company count have declined considerably. Once financings above $50 million are removed, the market is contracting.

Diagnostic Decision Support has experienced the largest decline in category-level transaction volume. Evidence and Guideline Support has attracted more capital through a handful of large rounds, while Risk Prediction and Alerts is one of the few categories completing more financings.

Early-stage founders are still raising money, although in smaller aggregate amounts. The lack of identified Series B financings is harder to dismiss, especially alongside the growth in late-stage capital concentration.

North America is capturing a larger share of investment, while Europe has recorded substantially fewer deals. Fewer lead investors and strategic participants also appear in completed transactions.

The market still produces companies capable of raising hundreds of millions of dollars. What's missing is comparable momentum across the wider startup population. Until that improves, a billion-dollar funding year says more about the success of a few established platforms than the health of clinical decision support fundraising overall.