What’s funding like in the digital health market right now?

All funding deals in the digital health 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 Digital Health Market.

Is digital health funding actually healthier now?

Digital health funding looks stronger in dollars today, but the market underneath has become narrower and more selective.

More capital went into the market over the latest 12 months, even though fewer deals happened and fewer companies received funding. At the same time, the typical round became much larger. Investors are clearly willing to write bigger checks these days, but they are doing so for a smaller group of companies.

That makes the market better for companies that can get through the investment committee and harder for those that cannot. New startups are still entering, so this is not a frozen market. The pressure is showing up further along the funding path, especially around Series A and ordinary follow-on rounds.

Metric	Current L12M	Previous 12M	Change
Total deals	268	293	-8.5%
Unique companies	259	280	-7.5%
Total capital	$8.43B	$7.36B	+14.6%
Median round	$14.1M	$11.0M	+28.2%
Average round	$31.5M	$25.2M	+24.9%
Largest round	$700M	$320M	+118.8%
First-financing share	26.9%	22.9%	+4.0 pp
Early-stage deal share	60.8%	63.1%	-2.3 pp
Later-stage deal share	27.6%	25.9%	+1.7 pp

Does digital health funding still look stronger without the megadeals?

Once we remove the large rounds, most of digital health's apparent funding rebound disappears.

The headline increase in capital is 14.6%. Take out rounds above $50 million and funding actually slips 0.9%. That is a huge difference in interpretation: almost all of the extra dollars came from the upper end of the market.

The $100 million cutoff tells a slightly different story. Excluding rounds above that level, funding still grows 3.6%. So there is some improvement below the very biggest deals, particularly around the upper-middle part of the market. Still, $100 million-plus financings now represent nearly 40% of all capital.

The concentration is spread across several large rounds rather than one company carrying the entire market. Top-10 concentration barely moved, from 29.1% to 29.5%, while the number of $100 million-plus rounds increased from 13 to 17. The market simply has more very large checks near the top.

Outlier test	Current L12M	Previous 12M	Change
Headline capital	$8.43B	$7.36B	+14.6%
Capital excluding >$50M	$3.39B	$3.42B	-0.9%
Capital excluding >$100M	$5.08B	$4.90B	+3.6%
Rounds >$50M	37	35	+2
Rounds >$100M	17	13	+4
>$50M share of capital	59.8%	53.5%	+6.3 pp
>$100M share of capital	39.8%	33.4%	+6.4 pp
Largest deal / total capital	8.3%	4.3%	+4.0 pp

Are fewer digital health companies getting funded now?

Yes. Digital health funding reached 259 companies in the latest period, down from 280, so the market has clearly lost breadth.

Deal count moved almost in parallel, falling from 293 to 268. That tells us something useful. The slowdown cannot be explained mainly by the same companies doing fewer repeat rounds. There are genuinely fewer businesses receiving capital.

At the same time, the number of companies raising more than once during the period dropped from 13 to nine. The repeat-fundraising rate moved from 4.6% to 3.5%.

So the current market feels busy when we look at the dollar amounts, especially because the large financings get most of the attention. Underneath them, fewer founders are actually closing rounds.

Are investors still backing new digital health startups, or mainly doubling down on winners?

New digital health startups are still getting financed, although existing winners take nearly all the money.

First financings increased from 67 to 72, even as total deal activity contracted. Their share of all rounds rose from 22.9% to 26.9%, and they attracted $661 million compared with $466 million in the previous period.

These newcomers are young too. Among companies where we could establish a founding date, the median age at first financing fell from two years to one year. Investors are still prepared to back genuinely new teams.

The check sizes tell the other half of the story. The median first financing barely changed at $4.35 million, while the median follow-on reached $18.6 million. Follow-on rounds absorbed about $7.77 billion, close to 92% of all capital.

The front door remains open. The huge checks are waiting much further inside.

Are digital health rounds actually getting bigger across the market?

Yes. The typical digital health round is clearly larger today, even below the megadeal layer.

The median financing moved from $11 million to $14.1 million. Because the median is far less sensitive to Neko's $700 million round and the other nine-figure deals, that increase is a strong sign that larger checks extend well beyond a handful of outliers.

We see the same pattern month by month. Median monthly funding increased from about $516 million to $676 million, while average monthly deal count fell from 24.4 to 22.3. Both periods had activity every month, so one unusually strong month cannot explain the difference.

In practical terms, investors are doing fewer transactions and putting more money into each company they choose.

Is digital health funding moving toward later-stage companies?

Digital health funding has moved slightly later, with Series A doing most of the weakening in the middle.

Seed remains active. Its share of known-stage deals actually increased a little. Series D+ and Growth Equity also gained share.

Series A went the other way, falling from 92 deals to 75. Its share dropped from 31.4% to 28.0%. Series B also lost some ground.

Meanwhile, the later rounds became much larger. The Series D+ median climbed from $75 million to $120 million, and Growth Equity moved from about $31 million to $50 million.

The market now looks more polarized. There is still plenty happening at Seed, and there is plenty of money available once a company becomes a proven growth asset. The middle is where the funding path looks less comfortable.

Stage	Current deal share	Previous deal share	Current median	Previous median
Seed	32.8%	31.7%	$4.05M	$3.74M
Series A	28.0%	31.4%	$16.0M	$13.15M
Series B	11.9%	13.0%	$36.5M	$33.5M
Series C	6.7%	7.2%	$81M	$60M
Series D+	4.9%	3.8%	$120M	$75M
Growth Equity	4.1%	2.0%	$50M	$31.35M
Unknown	11.6%	10.9%	$6M	$7.15M

Which digital health categories are really gaining momentum?

Virtual care has the cleanest broad momentum in digital health right now, while care navigation is attracting much larger scale-up rounds.

Virtual care managed to grow capital while keeping deal activity stable. That is a stronger foundation than a category whose funding jumps because one company closes an enormous round.

Care navigation is moving differently. Deal count fell, yet funding more than doubled. Garner Health captures that pattern well: it raised $118 million and then another $100 million during the latest period. Investors appear happy to put very large amounts behind care-navigation platforms that have already reached meaningful scale.

Clinical workflow remains the busiest category by deal count, although its grip on funding dollars weakened sharply. Even a $120 million Series D+ for Candid Health was not enough to stop total category capital from falling compared with the previous period.

Health data infrastructure also became more selective. It had fewer deals and less total capital, while its median financing rose substantially. Function Health's $298 million Series B shows how large individual checks can coexist with shrinking category breadth.

Category	Deals current / previous	Capital current / previous	Median current / previous	Read on the shift
Clinical Workflow	101 / 115	$2.81B / $3.52B	$14.0M / $12.74M	Losing dollar share
Virtual Care	67 / 66	$1.87B / $1.16B	$14.5M / $10M	Broad improvement
Remote Monitoring	32 / 34	$1.53B / $839M	$16.35M / $11M	Dominated by one huge round
Patient Engagement	28 / 28	$513M / $531M	$6.5M / $5.95M	Fairly stable
Care Navigation	24 / 28	$1.11B / $538M	$19.5M / $15.75M	Larger scale-up bets
Health Data Infrastructure	16 / 22	$607M / $771M	$17M / $10.75M	Fewer companies, bigger typical checks

Is remote monitoring actually booming, or is Neko Health skewing the market?

Neko Health explains almost all of remote monitoring's apparent funding surge.

Remote-monitoring companies raised about $1.53 billion during the latest period, compared with $839 million before. Neko's $700 million Series C accounts for essentially the entire increase. Remove that financing and current category capital falls to roughly $830 million, almost exactly where it was one year earlier.

Deal activity gives us the same answer: remote monitoring went from 34 rounds to 32. There was no wave of new transactions underneath the dollar increase.

Neko itself is a useful example of what attracts huge funding today. The company said more than 100,000 people had already completed scans in the UK and Sweden, while more than 350,000 people had joined its waitlist or registered. The new capital is helping fund its U.S. expansion.

For now, remote monitoring looks like a stable category carrying one exceptional company, rather than a category-wide funding boom.

Is virtual care really back?

Virtual care looks genuinely stronger today because the category held its deal count while both capital and the typical round grew.

Virtual-care funding increased from $1.16 billion to $1.87 billion across almost exactly the same number of deals: 66 previously and 67 now. The median round moved from $10 million to $14.5 million.

That is a much healthier type of category acceleration than one driven by a single giant deal.

Talkiatry is one example of what investors are backing. Its $210 million Series D went into a telepsychiatry business that had already passed two million patient visits and built a large psychiatrist network. The money was tied to further technology investment and expansion.

The category has moved far beyond the old question of whether patients will accept virtual care at all. Investors are now financing companies that have proved demand and want to make the delivery model bigger, broader and more efficient.

Are digital health investors getting more selective now?

Digital health investors look more selective today: the active lead-investor pool shrank, and corporate investors joined fewer rounds.

We identified 232 unique disclosed lead investors in the latest period, compared with 274 previously. Yet the number of lead investors appearing multiple times barely changed, from 36 to 35.

That suggests the recurring core of the market stayed active while many occasional participants disappeared. Andreessen Horowitz led or co-led seven rounds in our data, General Catalyst four, and several firms including Bessemer, Define Ventures, Lightspeed, Santé Ventures and Spark Capital appeared three times.

Corporate and strategic participation fell even faster. Strategic investors were involved in 53 rounds, down from 77. The pullback was especially visible at Seed and Series A, while activity held up better at later stages.

Strategic money still shows up when companies get large. Function Health's Series B included Samsung Next, Garner Health brought in healthcare strategics including Kaiser Permanente Ventures and Mercy, and several remote-monitoring financings also included industry investors. These days, though, founders should not assume a corporate investor will be part of an ordinary early-stage round.

Investor metric	Current L12M	Previous 12M
Unique disclosed lead investors	232	274
Lead investors appearing >1×	35	36
Strategic-backed deals	53	77
Strategic participation rate	19.8%	26.3%
Strategic-backed Seed rounds	5	13
Strategic-backed Series A rounds	15	24
Strategic-backed Series C rounds	5	10
Strategic-backed Series D+ rounds	6	6

Are digital health companies raising again faster, and are round step-ups getting bigger?

The observable digital health follow-ons are slower and their median step-up is smaller, although the historical coverage is too uneven for a market-wide verdict.

For companies where we could reliably reconstruct an earlier round, the median gap between financings increased from 8.7 months to 13.9 months. Only 44.8% returned within 12 months, compared with 63.6% in the previous cohort.

Round-size step-ups softened as well. The median new-round-to-previous-round ratio moved from 2.38× to 2.06×, while the share of rounds exceeding a 2× step-up fell from 60.6% to 50%.

We would give these numbers less weight than the stage or deal-size comparisons. Previous-round history could be reconstructed for 29.6% of current follow-ons but only 14.7% of the earlier cohort, which is too large a coverage gap for a strong market-wide claim.

The exceptions are revealing anyway. OpenEvidence raised $210 million, then $200 million, then $250 million across three rounds in roughly six months. That sort of fundraising speed is available to a small group of breakout companies, even while the observable market as a whole shows no broad acceleration.

Is Europe really taking a bigger share of digital health funding?

Europe's higher share of digital health funding mostly comes from Neko Health, while Asia-Pacific is broadening through smaller rounds.

European companies captured 19.8% of capital in the latest period, up from 15.3%, with virtually no change in their share of deals. At first glance, that looks like a meaningful shift of capital toward Europe.

Neko changes the picture. European funding increased by roughly $550 million, less than Neko's $700 million Series C alone. Excluding that one round, European capital actually falls by about 13%.

North America still accounts for more than two-thirds of deals and more than three-quarters of capital.

Asia-Pacific moved in another direction. Deal count increased from 14 to 19, while the median round fell from $6.4 million to $2.6 million. More companies are getting financed there, but they are doing so with considerably smaller checks.

Do digital health companies need more proof to raise big rounds now?

For the biggest digital health rounds today, investors increasingly seem to want evidence that the business already works at scale.

Look at several of the companies receiving the largest checks. Neko had already completed more than 100,000 scans before raising $700 million for further expansion. Talkiatry had passed two million patient visits before its $210 million Series D. OpenEvidence managed three enormous follow-on rounds in quick succession after gaining strong adoption among physicians.

Garner Health also returned for two nine-figure rounds during the latest period. Function Health raised $298 million as it expanded a preventive-health platform built around longitudinal health data. These companies are raising capital to push businesses that already have customers, usage and operating infrastructure much further.

We cannot turn this into a clean market-wide milestone percentage. Milestones and use of funds are described inconsistently in public announcements, and we would rather leave that gap visible than invent a standardized measure from incomplete descriptions.

Still, the shape of the market is hard to miss. Small first rounds remain available to young startups, while the really large pools of capital are clustering around companies that can show investors something concrete beyond a product idea.

Does being an AI health company still make you special to investors?

AI still helps digital health companies attract capital, but AI alone is becoming too common to define a separate funding lane.

Rock Health found that AI-enabled companies captured 62% of U.S. digital-health venture dollars in the first half of 2025. Their average round was also substantially larger, and the premium showed up at Series A and Series B as well as in the giant growth rounds.

By early 2026, Rock Health stopped tracking AI-enabled digital health companies as a separate funding group because AI had become embedded across so many products. That fits what we see in the deal mix.

OpenEvidence sits inside clinical workflow. Candid Health uses automation and AI inside revenue-cycle infrastructure. Function Health combines longitudinal health data with AI-supported interpretation. Care navigation, virtual care and health-data platforms are all adding AI without becoming an entirely separate market.

So saying a company “uses AI” tells us less than it did a couple of years ago. Investors increasingly want to know whether the AI helps the company win customers, embed itself into clinical or administrative workflows, improve economics, or scale faster. Those outcomes are much harder to fake with a pitch deck.

What really changed over the last 12 months?

Digital health funding became a better market for selected winners and a tougher market for everyone trying to get through the middle.

Most importantly, funding breadth weakened. Fewer deals closed, fewer companies received money, and the pool of active lead investors became smaller. The rise in total dollars can easily hide that contraction.

Capital also became more concentrated. Megadeals explain most of the headline improvement, and nine-figure rounds now absorb an unusually large part of the market. The typical round still grew, so the stronger financing environment extends beyond a couple of giant transactions, but it clearly favors companies that already stand out.

The stage mix became more polarized. Seed remains alive, and first financings actually increased. Series A is where the weakness is easiest to see. At the other end, Series D+ and Growth Equity companies are raising much larger rounds.

Among categories, virtual care has the strongest broad momentum because both the underlying activity and financing sizes improved. Care navigation is attracting bigger bets on fewer companies. Remote monitoring looks far less exciting once Neko Health is removed.

Investor behavior also became more selective. The recurring venture firms remain active, while occasional lead investors and strategic participants are less visible than they were a year earlier.

Finally, the biggest checks are increasingly going to businesses that already look scalable. The market still funds young companies, but the path to a $100 million-plus round now runs through adoption, customers, usage or a similarly concrete form of proof. That is the biggest structural change behind the funding numbers.