Digital Twin Funding Tracker (102 deals)

Our funding tracker covering the digital twin market

Below is the table listing all the deals. You may find our methodology at the end of this page.

And, if you want to gain a deeper understanding of the market and its current dynamics, get our report covering the Digital Twin Market.

Is digital twin funding actually getting stronger right now?

Digital twin funding looks stronger in headline dollars today, but the underlying deal flow has cooled sharply.

From January through August 2026, we tracked 15 financings worth about $309 million. Over the same eight months of 2025, there were 25 deals worth roughly $326 million. Capital held up surprisingly well while the number of companies raising fell 40%.

The latest financings make the market look hotter again. NavVis raised $85 million, followed shortly afterward by Antioch's $32 million Series A and Buildots' $130 million round. Those three deals alone add $247 million.

Follow the dollars alone and digital twin funding currently looks very healthy. The company count is tougher: money is still available, but increasingly for a smaller group of businesses that investors already believe can scale.

How big is the digital twin funding market?

We tracked 102 digital twin financings across 93 companies from the beginning of 2024 through the end of our research window, representing at least $1.438 billion of disclosed equity funding.

That capital figure is deliberately conservative. Two rounds had clearly occurred but were disclosed only as "tens of millions of RMB" and "several million dollars," so we counted the deals without inventing dollar amounts for them.

The typical round is far smaller than the $1.44 billion headline suggests. The median financing is $5 million, compared with an average of $14.38 million. Large rounds pull the market average upward quite aggressively.

There is clearly enough capital here to support serious scale-ups. For most companies, though, digital twin financing still means raising a few million dollars rather than tens of millions.

Is most digital twin funding going to just a few companies?

Digital twin funding is concentrated enough that a small group of companies shapes the market, although several different scale-ups contribute to that concentration.

The seven rounds above $50 million account for 40% of all quantified capital while representing less than 7% of financings. At company level, the ten largest recipients hold 52.9% of the money we tracked.

Buildots is the biggest individual case, with $190 million across three rounds inside the research window. Dexory reaches $100 million, Neara $94 million across two financings and NavVis $85 million.

At the other end, 45 of the 91 companies with quantifiable cumulative funding raised no more than $5 million. Only seven companies crossed $50 million.

Even the latest $130 million Buildots round accounts for roughly 9% of total capital, so one financing cannot explain the whole market. The concentration comes from a relatively small upper tier of companies rather than a single freak deal.

Company	Financings in the period	Capital raised
Buildots	3	$190M
Dexory	1	$100M
Neara	2	$94M
NavVis	1	$85M
PassiveLogic	1	$74M
Makersite	1	$70.2M
Twin Health	1	$53M
ThinkLabs	2	$33M
Antioch	1	$32M
Gradyent	1	$30.25M

What can a normal digital twin startup actually expect to raise?

A normal digital twin startup is still raising single-digit millions today.

Forty-nine of the 102 financings we tracked came in below $5 million. That is 48% of all deals, yet those rounds contributed less than 8% of total capital.

Another 27 deals landed between $5 million and $20 million. Put those two groups together and roughly three quarters of digital twin financings remained below $20 million.

The starting point is lower again. A first external financing has a median size of about $1.57 million, while the median Seed round is $2.5 million. Series A moves the typical check to roughly $10 million.

A founder reading about Buildots, NavVis or Dexory could easily get the wrong benchmark. Those rounds come after a company has already built meaningful commercial traction. For a younger digital twin business, a financing somewhere between a few million dollars and the low tens of millions is much closer to what we usually see.

Which types of digital twin companies are getting the most money?

Serious digital twin money is flowing into asset, process, building and infrastructure software, while factory-only and implementation businesses remain tiny by comparison.

Asset Twin Platforms lead with about $406 million across 30 deals. Process Twin Applications are close behind at $394 million across 26. Together, those two categories absorb more than half the market's capital.

Building Twin Software stands out for a different reason. Sixteen financings attracted $327 million, giving the category far more capital per deal than its share of transaction activity would normally suggest.

Infrastructure Twin Systems are almost the reverse. We found 25 deals but only about $295 million in capital, partly because 14 of those financings were Seeds.

Factory Twin Software and Twin Implementation Services barely move the overall totals. Together they account for five deals and around $17 million.

Digital twin category	Deals	Companies	Capital	Median round
Asset Twin Platforms	30	29	$405.6M	$4.8M
Process Twin Applications	26	25	$393.9M	$10.5M
Building Twin Software	16	14	$327.1M	$4.84M
Infrastructure Twin Systems	25	21	$294.5M	$4.5M
Factory Twin Software	3	3	$13.0M	$4.0M
Twin Implementation Services	2	2	$4.0M	$2.0M
Whole market	102	93	$1.438B	$5.0M

Why can some digital twin companies raise $70M, $100M or even $130M?

The biggest digital twin checks are going to companies that have turned the twin into an operating layer for large, expensive physical systems.

Buildots shows this clearly. Its latest $130 million round followed years of expansion from individual construction projects toward portfolio-wide enterprise deployments. Buildots says more customers are now using the platform across multiple projects, while data centers, industrial facilities and other huge construction programs are putting much more pressure on schedule visibility.

NavVis is solving a different problem at similar scale. The company said it scanned, processed and distributed more than one billion square meters during 2025 before raising $85 million. Its capital is going into the spatial-data infrastructure and AI layer behind factories, buildings and other physical environments.

Dexory raised $100 million of Series C equity inside a broader $165 million financing package after expanding its warehouse intelligence platform across Europe, North America and Asia-Pacific. Its system combines autonomous scanning robots with a continuously updated operational view of warehouses.

PassiveLogic's $74 million Series C pushes digital twins into autonomous building control, while Makersite's €60 million Series B supports a product and supply-chain intelligence platform used by large manufacturers.

Across those companies, investors are paying for deployment depth, proprietary operational data, enterprise integrations and the ability to become embedded in a customer's workflow. These are much more expensive businesses to scale than a standalone visualization tool.

How old are digital twin companies before investors write serious checks?

Digital twin companies usually spend years building before they reach serious funding: the median company is five years old when it raises, and companies receiving rounds above $50 million have a median age of roughly nine years.

The smaller financings come much earlier. Companies raising below $5 million have a median age of around three years, which lines up closely with the Seed market.

Age then rises through most of the funding ladder. The typical Series A company is about five years old and Series B reaches 6.5 years. Series C companies have a median age of nine years.

So the giant rounds we see now generally sit on top of years of product development, customer deployments and operating history.

Is digital twin funding mostly early stage?

Digital twin funding is early-stage by deal count and late-stage by dollars.

Among the 91 rounds where we could classify the stage reliably, Seed and Series A account for 76.9% of financings. They receive only 33.5% of classified capital.

The smaller later-stage group absorbs the majority of the money. Series B through Growth represent 23.1% of classified deals and 66.5% of the capital.

Series D+ is particularly striking. Six financings account for $391 million, more than the 44 Seed rounds combined.

The market looks young when we count startups and much more mature when we count dollars. Both views are true at the same time.

Stage	Deals	Capital	Median round
Seed	44	$140.0M	$2.5M
Series A	26	$316.2M	$10.2M
Series B	8	$241.1M	$30.0M
Series C	5	$231.2M	$31.0M
Series D+	6	$391.0M	$58.0M
Growth Equity	2	$41.0M	$20.5M
Unknown	11	$77.6M	$4.91M

Where does digital twin funding get really difficult?

Series B is where digital twin funding gets brutally selective: we found 26 Series A rounds and only eight Series B rounds.

The jump in check size helps explain the narrowing. The median Series A is about $10.2 million, while Series B reaches $30 million.

A startup asking for $30 million needs a very different story from one raising $3 million or $10 million. Investors are looking for something they can scale across customers, sites or regions, and the business often needs a stronger sales machine, deeper integrations and evidence that deployments can repeat.

These counts are cross-sectional, so they do not imply that 18 of every 26 Series A companies fail. Some younger companies simply have not had enough time to reach B yet. Still, the drop is hard to ignore when we look at where funding currently thins out.

Are investors funding new digital twin startups or backing companies they already know?

Most digital twin capital today goes to companies that already have venture backing.

We identified 24 first financings, representing 23.5% of all transactions but only about $77 million of capital. The median first check is roughly $1.57 million.

The 77 known follow-on financings account for around $1.34 billion. Their median size is $8.4 million, more than five times the typical first financing.

New companies are clearly still entering the market. The money gets much heavier once a company has already crossed its first financing milestone and comes back with evidence that the product is working.

This also explains how headline funding can stay high during periods when fewer startups are raising. A handful of mature follow-ons can replace a surprisingly large number of Seed rounds in dollar terms.

Do corporate investors really matter in digital twin funding?

Corporate investors matter a lot in digital twin funding, especially when the product touches infrastructure that the corporate already owns, builds or operates.

We found a strategic investor in 33 of 102 financings. Those deals have a median size of about $8.66 million, compared with $3.68 million when no strategic investor is identified.

The current examples are unusually concrete. ThinkLabs' $28 million Series A brought in NVentures, Edison International and existing investor GE Vernova around AI-based electricity-grid simulation. SPREAD AI's $30 million Series B included Salesforce as it expands the connection between engineering product data and downstream enterprise workflows.

RIIICO's factory-twin Seed included Volvo Cars Tech Fund. Tibo Energy brought in Hitachi Ventures and WEPA Ventures for industrial energy management. VEERUM's Series B was backed by Emerson Ventures, whose parent company sells industrial automation technology to the same asset-heavy customers.

The logic is fairly straightforward. A corporate can bring operating data, customer access, engineering expertise, physical assets and credibility with buyers. In digital twins, those things can be just as useful as the check itself.

Which VCs actually keep showing up in digital twin deals?

Almost none: among 83 digital twin deals with a disclosed lead, only Plural and Mercia Ventures lead more than one financing in our research.

Plural appears as lead on two deals worth about $46 million combined. Mercia Ventures leads two worth roughly $8.8 million.

Every other disclosed lead appears once.

That is a striking amount of fragmentation for a market with more than $1 billion of observed capital. We see construction investors, climate funds, generalist VCs, industrial specialists, deep-tech firms, energy investors and corporate venture arms, but very little repetition.

Digital twin funding still behaves more like several overlapping investment themes than a mature venture category with a recognizable group of specialist funds controlling the ladder.

Is Europe actually leading digital twin funding?

Europe is clearly leading digital twin deal formation, while North America is producing much larger typical rounds.

European companies account for 53 of the 102 financings we tracked, or 52% of the market. They raised about $607 million, with a median round of $4 million.

North America generated only 23 financings but reached roughly $376 million, and its median deal is $10 million. A North American round is therefore typically much larger even though the region produces far fewer transactions.

Asia-Pacific contributes 21 deals and about $235 million. The Middle East reaches $220 million from only four rounds, but three of those financings belong to Buildots, so the regional total is extremely concentrated.

The United States is the largest individual country by capital at roughly $347 million, followed by Germany at $239 million, Israel at $220 million, the United Kingdom at $192 million and Australia at $136 million.

Region	Deals	Capital	Median round
Europe	53	$606.6M	$4.0M
North America	23	$376.1M	$10.0M
Asia-Pacific	21	$234.8M	$3.0M
Middle East	4	$220.0M	$37.5M
Latin America	1	$0.54M	$0.54M

Which parts of the digital twin market are barely getting funded?

Factory-only digital twin software, implementation services and Latin America barely register in the funding market we tracked.

Factory Twin Software has just three financings and $13 million of capital. All three are Seed rounds. Interestingly, each one has a corporate investor, including Volvo Cars Tech Fund in RIIICO, which suggests real industrial interest even though the venture market remains tiny.

Twin Implementation Services is smaller again, with two companies and about $4 million. Service-heavy businesses can struggle to produce the recurring software economics that venture funds usually want, which may partly explain the lack of larger rounds.

Latin America contributes a single qualifying deal. With a sample that small, there is very little we can say about the region beyond the obvious point that it is barely represented in the financings we found.

Growth Equity is also sparse, with only two transactions. Later-stage money exists, but it tends to show up as Series C or D financings for software businesses rather than as a broad pool of traditional growth-equity deals.

Is "digital twin" actually one market?

Digital twin funding currently looks more like a family of adjacent markets sharing the same technical idea than one clean venture category.

Buildots creates continuously updated representations of construction projects. NavVis builds a spatial-data layer for physical environments. Dexory maps live warehouse operations. ThinkLabs simulates electricity grids. Makersite models products and supply chains. Antaris virtualizes satellite missions. Teton.ai builds patient and care-environment representations.

Those companies share a basic architecture: they connect a model to a real system, update it with data and use that model to monitor, simulate, predict or optimize what happens next.

Commercially, though, the similarities quickly fade. They sell to different customers, face different procurement cycles, use different data and require very different levels of hardware, integration and regulatory approval.

That is why the $1.44 billion headline needs context. It describes a real technology pattern across many industries. Investors still appear to underwrite the underlying industries first, construction, energy, manufacturing, logistics, healthcare, space, with "digital twin" sitting across them as a common technology layer.

What should we actually take away from the funding data?

Digital twin funding is a substantial market now, but its strongest current numbers come from a fairly small scale-up layer. Deal flow has slowed while large rounds continue to keep capital totals high.

For most startups, the market is still much smaller than the headlines suggest. Single-digit-million-dollar rounds are common, and the first institutional financing usually sits around the low millions.

The difficult jump comes when a company needs real expansion capital. Series B is the clearest pressure point, with far fewer rounds and a typical check of roughly $30 million.

The companies attracting the biggest money have usually spent years getting embedded into real operations. Construction portfolios, warehouses, factories, grids and large industrial product systems are where we currently see investors writing the heaviest checks.

Corporate investors also have an unusually visible role because access to customers, infrastructure and operating data can materially improve a digital twin business.

The category itself remains messy, and that is useful to remember. Digital twin technology is spreading across several large industries, while the funding market around it is still fragmented by sector, stage and investor type.