Energy storage: what’s funding like now?

All funding deals in the energy storage 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 energy storage market.

Is the energy storage funding market actually healthier than a year ago?

The energy storage funding market looks stronger at the top, but fundraising has become harder for the average startup. Total reported capital jumped 44% to $6.24 billion over the last 12 months, even as fewer companies received funding and the median round became slightly smaller.

We counted 106 financing deals involving 102 companies, down from 112 deals across 109 companies in the previous period. The median disclosed round slipped from $11.7 million to $11.3 million, while the average jumped from $43.8 million to $69.4 million. That gap tells us where most of the additional money went: into unusually large transactions.

The clearest warning comes from funding below the $50 million threshold. That pool shrank 20.5%, from approximately $1.10 billion to $876 million. Although the industry attracted roughly $1.91 billion more capital overall, the financing environment weakened for companies outside the largest raises.

There are encouraging developments. Seed rounds increased, more companies secured $100 million-plus financings, and thermal storage attracted significantly larger commitments. Still, the benefits were uneven.

Funding indicator	Previous 12M	Latest 12M	Change
Total reported capital	$4.34B	$6.24B	+44.0%
Total deals	112	106	−5.4%
Unique funded companies	109	102	−6.4%
Median disclosed round	$11.7M	$11.3M	−3.4%
Average disclosed round	$43.8M	$69.4M	+58.4%
Capital excluding rounds above $50M	$1.10B	$876.3M	−20.5%
Capital excluding rounds above $100M	$1.38B	$1.34B	−3.0%
First financings	31	27	−12.9%
Deals above $100M	7	13	+85.7%

Would energy storage funding still be growing without the biggest rounds?

No. Without its biggest financing rounds, energy storage funding would actually be declining. The 44% headline increase largely disappears once we remove deals above $100 million, and turns into a much sharper contraction when we exclude rounds above $50 million.

Transactions exceeding $100 million now account for 78.5% of reported capital, compared with 68.1% a year earlier. Their number almost doubled, from seven to 13, despite the overall decline in deal activity.

The top three rounds alone represent 44% of the latest funding total, up from 40.1%. But the concentration extends further: deals above $50 million increased from 11 to 20, and their combined share of capital climbed from 74.6% to 86%.

Interestingly, the top ten transactions accounted for 73.3% of capital in both periods. Energy storage was already heavily concentrated. What changed was the growing importance of large rounds across a wider group of transactions.

Funding concentration	Previous 12M	Latest 12M
Largest round	$675M	$1.00B
Largest round's capital share	15.6%	16.0%
Top three rounds' share	40.1%	44.0%
Top five rounds' share	58.9%	58.4%
Top ten rounds' share	73.3%	73.3%
Number of rounds above $50M	11	20
Capital share from rounds above $50M	74.6%	86.0%
Number of rounds above $100M	7	13
Capital share from rounds above $100M	68.1%	78.5%

Is Base Power carrying the entire energy storage funding boom?

Base Power is responsible for an extraordinary share of the energy storage funding increase. The Texas company raised $1 billion in October 2025 and another $1 billion in August 2026, accounting for roughly 32% of all reported capital in the latest period.

The first transaction was a Series C led by Addition. At the time, Base Power reported that it had deployed more than 100 megawatt-hours of residential battery capacity in less than two years. It was also building a factory in Austin to manufacture energy storage systems and power electronics.

Its second $1 billion round, a Series D, valued the company at approximately $13 billion post-money. By then, its installed capacity had reached roughly 550 megawatt-hours, according to reporting by The Wall Street Journal, and the company was installing around 100 batteries per day.

That progress helps explain why investors were prepared to provide such large amounts within ten months. Base Power already had batteries operating in customers' homes, a growing installation network and a manufacturing operation. Its business model combines residential backup power with electricity services and grid support.

The concentration effect is striking. Removing those two $1 billion rounds from the latest funding total leaves approximately $4.24 billion, slightly below the previous period's $4.34 billion.

Base Power's success shows that distributed storage businesses can attract infrastructure-scale capital. It also demonstrates how one company's exceptional fundraising can change the apparent direction of an entire market. The rapid follow-on is impressive, though it doesn't establish that fundraising cycles have shortened for energy storage startups generally.

Are fewer energy storage startups getting funded?

Yes, the number of energy storage startups receiving financing has declined, and the weakness is particularly visible in smaller and medium-sized venture rounds. We tracked seven fewer funded companies and six fewer transactions than in the preceding 12 months.

The biggest deterioration occurred in the $5 million to $20 million range. The number of rounds in that band fell from 43 to 25, a drop of almost 42%. By contrast, financing below $5 million remained stable, with 29 rounds against 28 previously.

First financings also became less common. We identified 27 in the latest 12 months, compared with 31 previously, a decline of nearly 13%. They now account for 25.5% of all deals, down from 27.7%.

Very small rounds are still happening, and there are more transactions above $100 million. The weaker part is the middle, where companies seeking more substantial funding are finding fewer recorded financing opportunities.

Why are Seed rounds rising while Series A deals are falling?

One of the more surprising developments is the increase in Seed financing alongside a contraction in Series A activity. Seed rounds rose from 33 to 41, and reported Seed capital increased from $111 million to $160 million. Series A deals, meanwhile, fell from 30 to 22, a 27% decline.

What's particularly revealing is that total Series A capital actually increased from $334 million to $461 million. Fewer companies received Series A financing, but the average check was substantially larger.

There is no contradiction between more Seed rounds and fewer first financings. A Seed round is not always a company's first fundraising event. Some startups have already raised pre-seed capital, while first-financing records depend on the funding history available.

At the other end of venture financing, Series C rounds increased from two to five and attracted almost $1.8 billion, against just $60.5 million previously. Series D+ funding also more than doubled to approximately $1.99 billion.

Early experimentation continues, but Series A deals have become scarcer and a few more established companies are raising amounts large enough to reshape the entire funding picture. We cannot prove that startups are taking longer to move from Seed to Series A without tracking individual companies across multiple rounds.

Funding stage	Previous deals	Latest deals	Previous capital	Latest capital
Seed	33	41	$111.3M	$160.1M
Series A	30	22	$333.8M	$461.2M
Series B	13	12	$468.8M	$725.0M
Series C	2	5	$60.5M	$1,798.5M
Series D+	4	5	$972.0M	$1,993.0M
Growth Equity	9	5	$1,168.7M	$608.3M
Unknown	21	16	$1,223.1M	$498.6M

Do energy storage investors increasingly favor companies ready to scale?

The largest financings increasingly favor companies with visible commercial progress. Series C and Series D+ rounds together attracted about $3.79 billion, compared with approximately $1.03 billion previously.

Base Power is a strong example. Its successive financings came alongside rapid growth in installed battery capacity, residential deployments and manufacturing operations. The company stated that its August 2026 Series D would support additional household installations, national expansion and hiring. It also launched Base Core, a home battery designed for deployment at scale.

The commercial environment helps explain the opportunity. In February 2026, the U.S. Energy Information Administration reported that developers planned to add 24 gigawatts of utility-scale battery storage during 2026, compared with 15 gigawatts installed in 2025. Texas alone accounted for more than half of the planned additions.

That expansion creates opportunities for battery manufacturers, developers, grid software providers and businesses that can bring storage capacity into operation. Investors can see a route from manufacturing and installation capacity to revenue.

Still, the growth in seed rounds shows that technical experimentation hasn't lost its appeal. Some investors continue financing early technologies, while the biggest commitments increasingly go toward commercial expansion.

We cannot establish a universal increase in fundraising requirements from round sizes alone. Nor can we calculate how much of the entire market's capital went to R&D, manufacturing or sales, because financing announcements don't consistently break down planned spending. What we can establish is that selected scaling businesses are attracting substantially larger commitments.

Which energy storage technologies are attracting the most money?

Lithium-ion batteries still receive most energy storage funding, while thermal storage and long-duration batteries have seen some of the biggest increases in capital. But the fastest-growing funding categories are not necessarily attracting more companies.

Lithium-ion received approximately $3.98 billion across 63 deals, compared with $3.38 billion across 65 previously. That represents roughly 64% of reported capital and 59% of all transactions.

Thermal storage tells a different story. Its financing total jumped from $145 million to $755 million, while the number of transactions stayed at 12.

Metal-air and long-duration batteries raised approximately $1.09 billion, more than twice the previous $449 million, even though deals fell from seven to five.

Sodium-ion moved in the opposite direction: more financings but less total capital. Flow batteries recorded modest growth in deal count alongside a considerably larger capital pool.

A ranking by dollars therefore gives a very different picture from a ranking by deal activity. Thermal and long-duration technologies attracted larger commitments, while sodium-ion gained breadth.

Energy storage category	Previous deals	Latest deals	Previous capital	Latest capital
Lithium-Ion Batteries	65	63	$3,380.5M	$3,984.5M
Sodium-Ion Batteries	9	13	$74.0M	$60.0M
Thermal energy storage	12	12	$145.1M	$754.9M
Flow Batteries	9	10	$47.4M	$154.7M
Metal-Air & Long-Duration Batteries	7	5	$449.0M	$1,093.8M
Compressed Air & Mechanical	4	1	$210.4M	$171.6M
Hydrogen energy storage	6	1	$31.8M	$17.4M
Pumped Hydro	0	1	-	$8.0M

Is thermal energy storage finally becoming a serious investment market?

Thermal energy storage is attracting much larger investments, although its deal count has yet to show the same momentum. Reported capital increased more than fivefold in one year without any increase in the number of financing transactions.

Thermal storage covers technologies that store energy as heat and later use it for heating, industrial processes or electricity generation. Depending on the system, that can involve molten salts, solid materials, phase-change materials or heat-pump-based storage.

These applications have become particularly interesting as electricity grids need more flexibility and industries look for ways to reduce fossil-fuel use in heat-intensive processes.

The United Kingdom's Longer Duration Energy Storage Demonstration Programme provides several concrete examples. Sunamp's EXTEND project received approximately £9.25 million to develop and test thermal storage in homes. SynchroStor received approximately £9.44 million for a pumped thermal energy storage demonstrator targeting ten hours of storage. Other projects explored industrial heat and alternative thermal storage systems.

Those grants are separate from our private financing figures, but they show the range of technologies being tested and the emphasis on demonstrating performance under real operating conditions.

The increase in private funding is substantial. The unanswered question is whether larger commitments will translate into successful deployments and eventually attract a wider group of investors and companies. For now, the number of funded businesses hasn't grown.

Are sodium-ion batteries becoming the next big energy storage opportunity?

Sodium-ion battery startups are attracting more funding deals, but their rounds are getting smaller. The number of transactions increased from nine to 13, while total reported capital decreased from $74 million to $60 million.

The median sodium-ion financing fell from $13.7 million to $6.9 million, suggesting investors are backing a wider set of companies without yet committing substantially larger amounts.

There are good technical reasons to watch this category. Sodium-ion batteries can reduce dependence on lithium and potentially diversify battery supply chains. They are particularly relevant for applications where cost, raw-material availability and operating conditions matter more than maximizing energy density.

But sodium-ion still faces tough competition from lithium iron phosphate batteries, which benefit from an enormous manufacturing base and years of cost reductions.

The International Energy Agency highlighted this tension in its February 2026 assessment, describing growing sodium-ion momentum while warning that manufacturing scale, chemistry choices and competition from lithium-ion remain important obstacles.

For now, sodium-ion looks more active in terms of financing opportunities than capital committed per company. Larger commercial rounds supported by manufacturing progress and competitive installed costs would provide stronger evidence that the technology is moving beyond early-stage interest.

Are long-duration batteries finally getting the funding they need?

Long-duration energy storage companies are attracting much bigger rounds, but financing remains concentrated in a small number of transactions. The metal-air and long-duration battery category raised about $1.09 billion across five deals, compared with $449 million across seven previously.

The case for long-duration storage is relatively straightforward. As grids add more variable renewable generation, they need ways to deliver electricity over longer periods, including when solar or wind output is low.

The U.S. Department of Energy defines long-duration energy storage as systems capable of supplying electricity for at least ten hours. Its Long Duration Storage Shot set a target of reducing costs by 90% for systems delivering ten hours or more, illustrating how important cost reduction remains for commercialization.

Different companies approach that problem through metal-air batteries, flow batteries, thermal systems, compressed air and other technologies. Their economics vary considerably depending on how long they can store energy, how often they cycle and where they operate.

Flow batteries also attracted more capital in the latest period, rising from $47.4 million to $154.7 million across ten transactions, compared with nine previously. That adds another dimension to the growing interest in storage technologies beyond conventional lithium-ion.

Investors are prepared to finance selected long-duration companies at meaningful scale. But five transactions in the metal-air and long-duration battery category remain a narrow base for a market containing several competing technical approaches. Dependable commercial deployments and repeat customers will be more convincing than another exceptional round.

Is lithium-ion still winning the energy storage market?

Lithium-ion remains the clear leader in energy storage funding, and alternative technologies are still far from displacing it. The category attracted nearly $4 billion in the latest period and accounted for close to three-fifths of all recorded deals.

Its position is supported by an industrial advantage that newer chemistries are still trying to match. Lithium-ion batteries already benefit from established factories, global suppliers, operational experience and substantial production volumes.

The International Renewable Energy Agency reported that the installed cost of utility-scale battery energy storage systems fell 93% between 2010 and 2024, reaching approximately $192 per kilowatt-hour. Lithium-ion, especially lithium iron phosphate technology, has been central to that decline.

However, lithium-ion's own funding pattern is becoming more selective. Its median disclosed round fell from $13.6 million to $12.2 million, even though the category attracted more capital overall.

For competing technologies, this creates a demanding benchmark. A technical advantage alone won't be enough. New systems increasingly have to demonstrate why they would be competitive against today's mass-produced lithium-ion storage.

Is North America taking over energy storage investment?

North America now dominates the value of reported energy storage funding, although Europe still records more financing deals. North American companies attracted approximately $4.43 billion in the latest period, compared with $1.82 billion previously, an increase of around 143%.

Remarkably, the number of transactions remained unchanged at 31. That pushed North America's share of reported funding from about 42% to 71%. Base Power's two billion-dollar rounds explain a substantial part of the jump.

Europe experienced the opposite pattern. Its deal count declined from 47 to 41, while total reported capital dropped from $2.23 billion to $1.43 billion, a fall of roughly 36%.

Asia-Pacific held steady at 34 transactions, with capital increasing from $291 million to $383 million.

Europe remains active across a greater number of financing transactions than North America, while North American companies are securing much larger amounts per deal.

That doesn't establish a wholesale migration of energy storage innovation. North America has become the center of the largest reported funding commitments, helped by a small number of unusually successful companies. For the wider industry, the strongest conclusion remains less encouraging: headline capital has grown considerably faster than the number of businesses getting funded.