What’s funding like in the femtech market right now?

All funding deals in the femtech 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 Femtech Market.

Is Femtech funding actually healthier now?

Femtech funding looks weaker underneath the surface today: more dollars were recorded, but fewer companies got funded and the market leaned much harder on a handful of large rounds.

We tracked 57 financings in the latest 12 months, down from 66 in the previous period. The number of funded companies fell almost in parallel, from 64 to 55. Meanwhile, recorded capital increased from $322.5 million to $363.3 million.

That combination already tells us something is unusual. The median financing slipped from $1.81 million to $1.70 million even as the average jumped from $5.04 million to $6.85 million. A market where the average rises while the median falls is usually being pulled upward by a few large transactions.

That is exactly what happened here. Midi Health raised $100 million, compared with a largest financing of $27 million in the previous period.

The picture changes again when we strip out rounds above $50 million. Capital then falls from $322.5 million to $263.3 million, an 18.4% decline.

Femtech today has a stronger top end and a weaker funding base. Large, proven companies can attract serious growth capital, while ordinary fundraising conditions have become tighter.

Metric	Latest 12 months	Previous 12 months	Change
Deals	57	66	-13.6%
Unique funded companies	55	64	-14.1%
Recorded usable capital	$363.3M	$322.5M	+12.7%
Capital excluding >$50M rounds	$263.3M	$322.5M	-18.4%
Median round	$1.70M	$1.81M	-5.8%
Average round	$6.85M	$5.04M	+36.0%
Largest round	$100M	$27M	+270%
First financings	14	16	-12.5%
Follow-on financings	42	48	-12.5%
Early-stage deal share	70.2%	71.2%	-1.0 pp

Is Femtech funding really up once you remove Midi Health?

Femtech funding stops looking like a growth story as soon as we take the biggest round out of the picture.

Midi Health's $100 million Series D accounts for 27.5% of all recorded capital in the latest period. Its influence is large enough to change the overall direction of the comparison.

With the round included, capital is up 12.7%. Excluding financings above $50 million, capital is down 18.4%.

The concentration goes deeper than one company. The three largest rounds captured 40.8% of total capital, compared with 21.8% previously. The top five moved from 32.1% to 49.7%, while the top ten reached 68.1%.

Midi itself is still an important development for the sector. The company said its Series D valued it above $1 billion and would help scale its clinical offering, technology and leadership team. It shows that a women's-health platform can now reach a financing scale that was rare in Femtech only a few years ago.

But the broader market did not move upward with Midi. Most companies were still raising relatively small rounds, and fewer of them managed to raise at all.

Can we trust the headline Femtech funding total?

The direction of the Femtech market is clear enough, but we would not treat the exact dollar-growth rate as audited accounting because several deal amounts needed closer scrutiny.

The largest discrepancy in the latest period is Emm. The database records the financing as above $2 million, while Emm says it secured more than $9 million, or £6.8 million.

There are similar issues in the previous period. Cofertility's Series A was $7.25 million according to the company's legal adviser Morrison Foerster, rather than $1.25 million. Voima Ventures says Hormona raised $6.7 million, while the database figure is $1.7 million. PinkDx says its second Series A close added $5 million rather than $1 million. SimpliFed announced $4 million of new funding where the recorded amount is $1 million.

FX treatment creates another layer of noise. Cyclana Bio announced a £5 million pre-seed. Womed says it combined €5 million of investor funding with €2.1 million raised from the public. Converting those figures into dollars depends on which exchange rate and transaction date we use.

We kept those uncertainties visible rather than silently forcing every financing into a cleaner-looking number.

Crucially, the known errors do not make the market look healthier. Several large understatements sit in the previous period, so correcting them would actually make the apparent rise in total funding less impressive.

That is why we put more weight on deal count, funded-company count, median round size and concentration when judging the market.

Are more Femtech companies actually getting funded?

Fewer Femtech companies are getting funded these days, and the decline is broad enough that it cannot be explained by a change in how rounds were split into tranches.

We found 55 funded companies in the latest period, nine fewer than a year earlier. Deal count also fell by nine.

That near-perfect match is useful. If transactions had fallen while company count stayed flat, the change could have come from fewer extensions, additional closes or repeat rounds. Here, fewer companies themselves made it into the funded population.

Only two companies completed multiple financings in each period. Midi Health and Womed repeated in the latest window, while ARCS and Conceivable did so previously.

Monthly activity never disappeared completely. Every rolling monthly bucket still contained financing activity. The median number of deals per month, however, slipped from five to four.

Femtech still has an active financing market. It simply has fewer companies passing through it.

Are investors backing new Femtech startups or mostly existing winners?

Femtech investors are still backing new startups, but established companies continue to absorb most of the money.

First financings declined from 16 to 14, while follow-ons fell from 48 to 42. Their respective shares of the market barely changed, which means the slowdown hit both groups.

The difference appears in capital allocation.

First-time financings received $64.6 million in the latest period, helped by several unusually well-capitalized entrants. iPremom raised about $17.4 million, Clair raised $11.6 million and ONTO Health raised $10 million.

Follow-ons still absorbed roughly $297.6 million, nearly the same amount as the year before despite six fewer transactions.

Existing companies therefore divided almost the same follow-on capital pool across fewer rounds.

The first-financing cohort also became younger. Median company age at a first financing fell from two years to one, suggesting investors have not stopped taking early company risk altogether.

What has become harder is the middle of the journey. Getting the first check is still possible. Turning that first financing into a larger institutional funding path looks more demanding.

Metric	Latest 12 months	Previous 12 months
First financings	14	16
First-financing share	24.6%	24.2%
Capital into first financings	$64.6M	$22.2M
Median first financing	$1.36M	$1.25M
Follow-on financings	42	48
Follow-on share	73.7%	72.7%
Follow-on capital	$297.6M	$297.4M
Median follow-on	$1.93M	$2.00M

Are Femtech rounds actually getting bigger?

The typical Femtech round is not getting bigger; the gap between ordinary financings and the biggest winners is widening.

Almost 65% of the latest deals were below $5 million. The median financing remained below $2 million.

The strongest part of the distribution was the $5 million to $20 million band, which accounted for about half of current-period capital. Companies such as BrightHeart, Rejoni, ScreenPoint Medical, Clair, SimpliFed and iPremom all landed in or around that range.

Then the distribution jumps straight to Midi's $100 million financing.

We did not see a broad layer of $40 million, $60 million or $80 million growth rounds forming underneath it. That missing middle is why the median stayed soft despite the jump in total dollars.

The market currently offers three quite different experiences: small early rounds for most companies, respectable eight-figure rounds for a smaller group with more proof, and exceptional growth capital for very few companies.

Is Series A getting harder for Femtech startups?

Series A looks tougher for Femtech startups now, and this is one of the clearest changes in the market.

Series A's share of deals fell from 25.8% to 21.1%. Its median financing dropped from $10 million to $6.35 million.

The amount of capital captured by Series A changed even more sharply. It represented 48.2% of funding in the previous period and 19.4% in the latest one.

Companies also appear to be reaching Series A later. Median company age at that stage increased from four years to 5.5 years.

Seed activity held up much better. Seed represented 49.1% of current deals, compared with 45.5% previously, so early-stage investing itself is still active.

The difficult point is progression. Startups can still get seeded, but today's Series A market is financing fewer companies, writing smaller typical checks and funding older businesses.

Stage	Current deals	Current deal share	Previous deal share	Current capital share	Current median round
Seed	28	49.1%	45.5%	16.5%	$1.04M
Series A	12	21.1%	25.8%	19.4%	$6.35M
Series B	4	7.0%	6.1%	12.0%	$11.85M
Series C	2	3.5%	3.0%	6.1%	$11.0M
Series D+	1	1.8%	0%	27.5%	$100M
Unknown	10	17.5%	19.7%	18.5%	$1.86M

Which Femtech category is genuinely gaining momentum?

Pregnancy Care has the strongest all-round momentum in Femtech right now because deal count, capital and typical round size all moved upward together.

Pregnancy Care went from nine financings to 11. Recorded capital rose from $41.4 million to $74.6 million, while the median round increased from $2.04 million to $2.98 million.

Several companies contributed rather than one transaction doing all the work. iPremom raised roughly $17.4 million, BrightHeart raised €11 million, Pomelo Care raised $12 million and SimpliFed raised $10.8 million.

SimpliFed is particularly interesting because its financing coincided with an expansion from a lactation-focused service toward broader virtual prenatal and postpartum care. The company says it is now building a more complete virtual OB model and expects to serve 5% of US births in 2026.

Women's Primary Care also gained substantial deal volume, but median rounds became smaller. Hormonal Health attracted far more money, although Midi explains most of that increase.

Pregnancy Care is the cleanest case where more companies, more dollars and larger typical financings all appeared together.

Category	Previous deals	Current deals	Previous capital	Current capital	Current pattern
Fertility Care	24	10	$149.4M	$61.2M	Sharp contraction
Women's Primary Care	9	15	$71.6M	$71.5M	More companies, smaller rounds
Pregnancy Care	9	11	$41.4M	$74.6M	Broad-based improvement
Hormonal Health	8	6	$40.8M	$125.5M	Heavily Midi-driven
Pelvic Care Devices	8	6	$9.5M	$21.9M	Fewer deals, more dollars
Menstrual Health	8	9	Understated	Understated	Amount errors distort totals

Is fertility funding losing its grip on Femtech?

Fertility has lost a large part of its former dominance in Femtech funding.

The category dropped from 24 deals to 10, taking its share of all financings from 36.4% to 17.5%.

Recorded capital fell from $149.4 million to $61.2 million, while its share of market funding collapsed from 46.3% to 16.9%. The median round also edged down.

That decline is much broader than one missing blockbuster. The previous period contained a dense group of fertility financings across companies such as Conceivable, Sunfish, Overture Life, Cofertility and others.

There are still meaningful deals today. ONTO Health raised $10 million, while Bessemer Venture Partners led a $14 million Series A in India's Pluro to build a fertility-care network.

The difference is volume. Far fewer fertility companies were funded.

Fertility remains a major part of women's health, but investors are spreading attention across a wider set of problems than they were one year earlier.

Is menopause and hormonal health really booming?

Hormonal-health funding has exploded in dollars, but the boom is concentrated around Midi Health rather than spread across the whole category.

The category produced six financings, down from eight, while recorded capital jumped from $40.8 million to $125.5 million.

Midi accounts for roughly four-fifths of that current total.

The company has also moved beyond a narrow menopause positioning. Its latest announcement describes a broader platform covering women across multiple stages of life, supported by a nationwide insurance footprint reaching more than 45 million women.

There are other signs of genuine activity. Clair raised $11.6 million. Hormona previously raised $6.7 million to launch quantitative at-home hormone testing and expand partnerships.

The external backdrop is getting stronger too. The World Economic Forum's 2026 Women's Health Investment Outlook argues that women's-health investment has historically been concentrated in reproductive health, maternal health and women's cancers, while high-burden areas including menopause remain comparatively underfunded.

That helps explain why menopause and hormonal health are attracting more attention these days. The funding data itself, however, still shows a category dominated by one unusually large winner.

Is Women's Primary Care actually becoming a bigger Femtech category?

Women's Primary Care is becoming a much bigger part of Femtech deal activity, even though the category is not receiving more total capital.

Deal count increased from nine to 15, pushing its share of all financings from 13.6% to 26.3%.

Recorded capital remained almost flat at roughly $72 million, so that money is now being divided among more companies. The median financing fell from $2.71 million to $1.80 million.

The category also contains very different business models. ScreenPoint Medical raised $14 million of equity alongside $2 million of research grants for its breast-cancer AI platform. ProSeek Bio raised about $1 million. Ovum raised around A$4 million. Other companies focus on screening, diagnostics or broader care delivery.

ScreenPoint's case gives us a useful picture of what investors are rewarding. The company says its Transpara breast-AI products are already deployed in more than 30 countries and have processed over 12 million mammograms.

That kind of operating footprint is very different from a company still proving its first product.

Women's Primary Care is broadening quickly, but the financing intensity per company remains modest.

Is Asia-Pacific becoming a real Femtech funding hub?

Asia-Pacific has become the clearest geographic growth pocket in Femtech funding.

We counted 11 APAC deals in the latest period, up from seven. The region gained 8.7 percentage points of deal share and 9.7 points of capital share.

The median known financing also increased from about $1.61 million to $2.40 million.

Australia contributed some of the largest examples. OncoRes Medical closed an A$27 million private round to fund clinical development, manufacturing and regulatory work around its breast-cancer imaging system. The company has since begun an interventional clinical study in Australia.

India also became more visible. Pluro raised a $14 million Series A, while Pinky Promise added another women's-health financing. Japan contributed follow-on activity through companies including Dioseve.

Europe moved the other way, dropping from 23 financings to 16.

North America is still the largest region by a wide margin, with close to 60% of recorded capital. APAC is the geography where we currently see the clearest combination of more deals and larger typical financings.

Are corporate investors taking a bigger role in Femtech?

Corporate and strategic investors are showing up more often in Femtech, especially around companies with obvious clinical, diagnostic or healthcare-system relevance.

We identified 13 latest-period deals with named strategic backing, compared with 11 previously. Their participation rate rose from 16.7% to 22.8%, while the median strategic-backed financing increased from $2.87 million to $6.35 million.

The investor names make the pattern easier to understand.

Siemens Healthineers invested again in ScreenPoint Medical. Labcorp Venture Fund backed Emm. Ascension Ventures participated in Rejoni. Other current strategic investors include McKesson Ventures, Illumina Accelerator, M Ventures, The Cigna Group Ventures and Intermountain Ventures.

These companies and funds bring more than capital. They sit close to diagnostics, hospitals, insurance, pharmaceuticals and medical devices, which can be useful once a startup needs clinical access, distribution, reimbursement knowledge or commercial partnerships.

Investor-disclosure coverage fell in the latest period, so we would not use raw investor counts to claim that the entire investor base expanded.

The cleaner conclusion is that strategic capital is appearing in a larger share of the financings where investor information is visible, and those rounds are getting larger.

Are Femtech investors getting more selective?

Femtech investors do look more selective today, especially once companies move beyond seed, although we cannot pinpoint one universal milestone that suddenly became mandatory.

Several independent changes point in the same direction.

Fewer companies were funded. Series A rounds became smaller. The median funded company became older, moving from four years to five. Median age at Series A reached 5.5 years, and Series B companies were older again.

The limited follow-on history also points toward slower fundraising cycles. Among the companies where we could reconstruct a previous round, median time between financings increased from 10.5 to 18.1 months.

We would keep that last figure in perspective because the sample is small and coverage differs sharply between periods. It supports the broader picture without being strong enough to carry the conclusion on its own.

The database also lacks a structured milestone field, so we cannot honestly say that investors now require a specific revenue level, regulatory approval or customer count.

What we can see is the outcome of greater selectivity: fewer companies progress, the companies reaching institutional rounds are older, and bigger checks increasingly cluster around businesses with clearer evidence of adoption, clinical progress or scalability.

Are Femtech startups raising to build products or scale businesses?

Femtech startups are currently raising for very different stages of company development, from basic research all the way to large-scale healthcare expansion.

Midi is at the scale end. Its $100 million Series D is being used to expand clinical services, technology and leadership across a much broader women's-health platform.

SimpliFed is also moving deeper into scaling. Its $10.8 million Series A is funding growth of its maternal-health platform and expansion into virtual OB services after building relationships with health plans and health systems.

Emm sits earlier in the journey. The company says its more than $9 million financing is supporting a consumer launch while it continues developing the underlying technology.

Cyclana Bio is earlier still. Its £5 million pre-seed was aimed at disease models, target discovery and an observational study in endometriosis. Since then, Cyclana has received UK Health Research Authority and Research Ethics Committee approval for a 500-patient study and started recruiting participants.

BrightHeart provides another useful progression example. The company raised €11 million to scale its AI platform for prenatal ultrasound and has since received a CE Mark and launched the platform in Europe.

There is no single market-wide switch from "R&D" to "commercialization." Femtech now contains companies operating at several maturity levels at once, including a small group that can raise serious capital specifically to scale.

Is Femtech becoming a more mature market?

Femtech is becoming more mature at the top of the market, even while fundraising has become harder for a wider group of startups.

We now have a $100 million growth round, more visible strategic investors, older companies reaching Series A and several businesses raising eight-figure rounds around clinical deployment, distribution or expansion.

At the same time, early-stage deal share remains close to 70%, so the sector has not suddenly turned into a late-stage market. Seed remains its biggest stage by deal count.

The broader women's-health investment landscape is also still young relative to the opportunity. The World Economic Forum's 2026 investment work estimates that women's health receives only 6% of private healthcare investment and that roughly 90% of that money remains concentrated in reproductive health, maternal health and women's cancers.

Our Femtech data shows some early movement beyond that old concentration. Pregnancy Care strengthened, Women's Primary Care expanded, APAC gained ground, and a menopause-led company reached unicorn-scale financing.

Those developments make the market more mature than it was one year ago. They have not made fundraising broadly easier.

What really changed over the last 12 months?

The biggest change is concentration. As seen above, the headline funding increase disappears once the very largest financing is removed. Femtech now has a much stronger upper tier, but that strength has not spread evenly through the market.

Breadth weakened at the same time. Fewer deals were completed, fewer companies received funding and fewer first-time financings entered the dataset. The slowdown is therefore visible in the number of businesses getting capital, not just in the way individual rounds were structured.

The middle of the funding journey looks harder. Seed activity remains active, while Series A has become smaller and companies are reaching it later. That is probably the most important change for founders trying to understand what the market feels like on the ground.

Capital also moved between categories. Fertility lost a large part of its former dominance. Pregnancy Care produced the most balanced expansion, Women's Primary Care gained breadth, and Hormonal Health became much larger in dollars because Midi reached a new financing scale.

Investors are putting more money behind proof. Strategic healthcare investors are more visible, and many of the stronger financings now sit around companies with clinical deployment, regulatory progress, commercial partnerships or clear evidence that the model can scale.

The market is more mature, but it is also more unforgiving. Femtech can now produce companies capable of attracting mainstream growth capital. For the average startup, access to funding has become narrower rather than easier.