FemTech Funding Tracker (178 deals)

Our funding tracker covering the femtech 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 Femtech Market.

Is Femtech actually a well-funded market today?

Femtech funding is substantial today, but the typical company is still raising only a few million dollars.

Across the period we studied, we counted 178 financings across 157 companies and approximately $1.334 billion of audited stated capital. Yet the median usable round was only $2.25 million. The average was much higher at $8.13 million because a handful of very large financings pull it upward.

Only three deals exceeded $50 million, and together they generated 30% of all audited capital. Strip those rounds out and the market still raised roughly $934 million, so there is real depth underneath the biggest names. Still, a founder looking at the $1.33 billion headline would get the wrong idea about what an ordinary Femtech financing looks like.

These days, the market effectively operates on two very different scales. Most companies raise low-single-digit or low-double-digit millions. Flo Health, Midi Health and Amber Therapeutics have reached a completely different funding bracket.

How many Femtech companies are actually getting funded?

The funded Femtech market currently consists of 157 companies, and almost nine out of ten appear only once in our financing window.

There are 178 deals in total, but 137 companies have just one qualifying financing. Nineteen companies appear twice, while only one company appears three or more times. That leaves a repeat-fundraising rate of 12.7%.

The capital split is even more interesting. Companies appearing once account for roughly $989 million, compared with about $345 million for companies with multiple rounds. The market is therefore broader than a small club of repeat fundraisers, even if only a limited number of businesses manage to build a visible financing sequence.

Midi Health is the clearest exception. Its qualifying rounds include a $10 million Series B, a $10 million Series C and a $100 million Series D. That kind of progression is rare in Femtech today.

Is most Femtech money concentrated in just a few companies?

Femtech funding is fairly concentrated: ten companies hold roughly 46% of all the audited capital we tracked.

Flo Health alone accounts for about 15%. The top five companies reach 35.9%, while the top ten reach 46.3%. At the opposite end of the market, roughly two-thirds of companies never exceed $5 million of cumulative financing during the period.

Only three companies cross $50 million cumulatively. The gap between them and the rest is huge, especially since Flo and Amber each reach the top group through a single financing rather than a long sequence of rounds. A gap this wide between a few leaders and everyone else is why we map which companies lead each part of femtech in our report on femtech.

The table below shows where the upper end of the market currently sits.

Company	Capital in window	Qualifying rounds
Flo Health	≥$200M	1
Midi Health	$120M	3
Amber Therapeutics	$100M	1
Mammogen	Up to $30M	1
OncoRes Medical	≈$29.1M	1
Granata Bio	$29M	2
Conceivable	$28M	2
Pomelo Care	$28M	2
Gameto	$27M	2
Kaideweis Biotech	≈$27M	1

What does a normal Femtech startup raise today?

A normal Femtech financing today is much closer to $2 million than to $10 million.

The median usable round is $2.25 million, and 101 of the 164 financings with usable amounts are below $5 million. Those small rounds make up nearly 62% of deal activity while absorbing only 11% of the money.

The $5 million to $20 million range is where the financial weight of the market really sits. We counted 56 deals in that band, worth about $671 million combined. Hormona's $6.7 million Seed round, Dioseve's roughly $7 million financing and several corrected Series A or extension rounds sit much closer to this part of the market than to the giant checks at the top.

There are very few deals beyond it. Only four usable financings fall between $20 million and $50 million, followed by an empty $50 million to $100 million range and then three $100 million-plus transactions.

Round size	Deals	Share of usable deals	Capital	Share of capital
Under $5M	101	61.6%	$151.3M	11.3%
$5M–<$20M	56	34.1%	$670.8M	50.3%
$20M–<$50M	4	2.4%	$111.5M	8.4%
$50M–<$100M	0	0%	$0	0%
$100M+	3	1.8%	$400M	30.0%
Total usable amounts	164	100%	≈$1.334B	100%

Which parts of Femtech are really getting the money?

Fertility Care has the deepest funding base in Femtech right now, while several other categories look richer than they really are because one company dominates the total.

Fertility Care leads with 44 deals across 37 companies and about $319 million of capital. Pregnancy Care follows with 39 deals across 35 companies and roughly $234 million. Women's Primary Care has another 32 deals and about $204 million.

Those three categories have meaningful breadth. Pregnancy Care's largest individual financing represents less than 8% of category capital, while Fertility also spreads its money across many companies. Deals such as Future Fertility's $4.1 million Series A, SimpliFed's $4 million extension and Dioseve's $7 million financing sit inside a much wider pool.

Menstrual Health, Hormonal Health and Pelvic Care work differently. Flo accounts for roughly 85% of Menstrual Health capital, Midi for about 53% of Hormonal Health and Amber for around 66% of Pelvic Care. Their category totals therefore say as much about one standout company as they do about the wider segment.

Femtech category	Deals	Companies	Capital	Median round
Fertility Care Platforms	44	37	$319.0M	$7.0M
Pregnancy Care Solutions	39	35	$234.3M	$2.76M
Women's Primary Care	32	30	$203.7M	$2.21M
Hormonal Health Platforms	22	18	$189.2M	$1.86M
Menstrual Health Tools	21	19	$235.6M	$1.15M
Pelvic Care Devices	20	18	$152.0M	$2.0M

Is Menstrual Health really attracting huge Femtech rounds, or is it mostly Flo?

Menstrual Health looks like a heavily funded Femtech category today largely because Flo Health raised more than $200 million.

Flo represents roughly 85% of all Menstrual Health capital in our numbers. The category has 21 deals, but its median financing is only $1.15 million, the lowest of the six Femtech categories we tracked. That combination tells the story better than the $236 million headline.

There are other serious companies in the segment. Emm, for example, announced more than $9 million in Seed financing to develop and commercialize its smart menstrual product. Cyclana Bio is using its funding to build tissue models and drug-discovery tools around endometriosis. Those businesses show that capital is reaching very different types of menstrual-health companies.

Flo is still operating on another scale. Its more-than-$200 million Series C was designed to fund further product development, R&D and expansion across women's health rather than simply finance another cycle-tracking feature.

As seen above, the median round remains tiny beside that transaction. Investors can clearly write huge checks in Menstrual Health, but only once a company has escaped the economics of a normal early-stage Femtech startup.

Why are some Pelvic Care companies raising so much more money?

Pelvic Care can become extremely capital-intensive once a company moves from simple products into clinical medical devices.

Amber Therapeutics is the clearest case. Its $100 million Series A represents roughly two-thirds of all Pelvic Care capital in our dataset. Amber is developing an implantable adaptive neuromodulation therapy for mixed urinary incontinence, so the financing supports a very different development path from a consumer wellness product. An implantable therapy and a consumer wellness product sit at very different tech stages, which we sort into working, tested or on paper in our market report about femtech.

Other Pelvic Care financings point in the same direction on a smaller scale. Axena Health announced an additional $9.4 million Series A close to support the commercial rollout of its Leva pelvic-health system. Medical-device company Raydiant Oximetry raised a $7.5 million Series A extension to finance clinical studies of maternal and fetal monitoring technologies.

Clinical studies, regulatory work, engineering and manufacturing can push these companies into much larger capital requirements before they reach scale. Amber's $100 million financing is extreme, but the reason for larger checks across the medical-device end of Femtech is fairly straightforward.

Why can a Femtech Seed round already cost millions?

Some Femtech Seed rounds are already several million dollars because a Seed-stage biotech or medical-device company can be far more expensive to build than a software startup.

Cyclana Bio makes the difference easy to see. Its announced £5 million pre-seed financing, roughly $6.7 million at the time, supports tissue models, drug-target discovery and clinical research into endometriosis. The company sits inside Menstrual Health in our taxonomy, but economically it behaves much more like an early biotech company.

PinkDx shows another version of the same pattern. The company raised a large Series A to develop diagnostic tools for gynecological cancers, including clinical validation work. Raydiant Oximetry has similarly used venture financing to run clinical studies around new maternal and fetal technologies.

Stage labels therefore need some context in Femtech. A $1 million consumer-health Seed and a $7 million clinical-development Seed can both be perfectly normal for the kind of company involved.

How old are Femtech startups when investors fund them?

A funded Femtech company is typically around four years old, so investors are usually backing businesses that have already spent years developing products, technology or care models.

The median age at financing is four years among companies where we could establish the founding date, while the average is 4.7 years. Around 64% of those financings involve companies founded from 2019 through 2023.

The age gradually rises through the funding ladder. Seed companies have a median age of about three years, Series A companies four years and Series B companies 5.5 years.

Round size tells a similar story. Companies receiving less than $5 million have a median age of roughly 3.5 years. Those raising more than $50 million are typically around five years old.

Pelvic Care is slower still, with a category median around 6.5 years. That fits the longer technical and clinical development cycles visible in companies such as Amber and Axena.

Why does Femtech funding fall off so hard after Series A?

Series A is currently the point where the Femtech funding ladder starts getting much narrower.

We counted 79 Seed financings and 43 Series A deals. After that, the number falls to 15 Series Bs, five Series Cs and only two Series D-plus rounds.

The sharpest drop comes between Series A and Series B: there are 2.9 Series A financings for every Series B. Series B to Series C narrows at almost the same rate. The drop between Series A and Series B is where many stalled startups end up, and we look at what they had in common in our femtech market report.

Check sizes rise at the same time. The median Seed is only $1.49 million, compared with $10 million at Series A and $14 million at Series B. A small group of later-stage companies can therefore absorb a lot of money even while the number of funded companies collapses.

There is also a striking gap in round sizes. We saw four deals between $20 million and $50 million, zero between $50 million and $100 million, then three transactions at $100 million or more. Femtech currently has plenty of small financings and a few enormous ones, while the middle-to-late growth layer remains unusually thin.

Stage is known for 81.5% of deals, so the ladder is not a perfect census. Still, the 33 unknown-stage financings have a median round of only $1.83 million, which makes it unlikely that a large hidden late-stage market is sitting inside the unclassified group.

Stage	Deals	Share of all deals	Capital	Median round
Seed	79	44.4%	$159.1M	$1.49M
Series A	43	24.2%	$471.5M	$10M
Series B	15	8.4%	$181.2M	$14M
Series C	5	2.8%	$251.0M	$14M
Series D+	2	1.1%	$118.0M	$59M
Growth Equity	1	0.6%	$10.0M	$10M
Unknown	33	18.5%	$142.8M	$1.83M

Is Femtech funding mostly going to companies that already raised before?

Most Femtech money currently goes to companies that were already inside the funding system.

Follow-on financings represent 138 of the 178 deals we tracked, or 77.5%. First financings account for 37 deals, with three cases where we could not establish the status reliably.

The difference becomes much larger in dollars. Follow-ons absorb roughly $1.214 billion, close to 91% of audited capital. First financings account for around $116 million.

The median first financing is $1.5 million, versus $2.77 million for follow-ons. At company level, only 37 of the 157 businesses are represented by a first financing during the period.

Large checks push the balance even further toward established companies. Flo's growth financing, Midi's Series D and Amber's clinical-development round all went into businesses that already had products, technology or earlier investors behind them.

Do strategic investors actually change the size of Femtech rounds?

Femtech rounds involving strategic investors are much larger today, with a $10 million median versus $1.8 million when no strategic is present.

We identified strategic participation in 36 of 178 deals, or about 20%. Sixteen of those deals came at Series A, compared with ten at Seed, so strategic capital tends to appear once a company has moved beyond the very earliest stage.

The identities also make sense. Intuitive Ventures joined Amber's financing around an implantable neuromodulation device. McKesson Ventures backed Midi as it scaled healthcare delivery. Mayo Clinic participated in PinkDx's financing as the diagnostics company worked toward clinical validation.

Fertility Care and Women's Primary Care each have ten strategic-backed deals. Menstrual Health has only one across 21 financings.

The 5.6-fold gap between the two medians is too large to ignore, although it does not prove that strategic investors cause bigger rounds. More mature and clinically relevant companies are also the ones most likely to attract them.

Which investors keep coming back to Femtech?

Very few investors repeatedly lead Femtech rounds, and the market currently has no small group of firms dominating the financing pipeline.

Among 127 deals where a lead investor is publicly identified, we counted 167 different lead or co-lead names. Only eight appear more than once. Which lead investors keep returning to femtech, and what they now steer clear of, is covered in our report on femtech.

Overwater Ventures and Eka Ventures each show up three times. Advance Venture Partners, Emerson Collective, Morningside, Brightspark Ventures, Archetype Ventures and InnovaHealth Partners each appear twice.

Together, deals involving those repeat names represent only about 14% of financings with an identified lead. Most visible lead investors enter the market once.

That fragmentation helps explain why Femtech can produce plenty of early-stage activity without an equally deep later-stage ladder. There are many investors willing to make individual bets, while relatively few institutions repeatedly finance companies through successive stages.

The dollar figures below refer to the size of the rounds these investors led or co-led, rather than the amount each investor personally invested.

Lead or co-lead	Deals	Combined size of relevant rounds	Main exposure
Overwater Ventures	3	≈$26.4M	Fertility / Women's Primary Care
Eka Ventures	3	≈$6.2M	Menstrual / Pregnancy
Advance Venture Partners	2	≈$20M	Fertility / Hormonal
Emerson Collective	2	≈$20M	Hormonal / Women's Primary Care
Morningside	2	≈$11.8M	Pregnancy
Brightspark Ventures	2	≈$4.7M	Hormonal
Archetype Ventures	2	≈$3M in stored rows	Fertility
InnovaHealth Partners	2	≈$2.6M	Pelvic

Is Femtech funding still dominated by North America and Europe?

North America and Europe still control almost 90% of the Femtech capital we tracked.

North America leads with 95 deals across 80 companies and roughly $688 million. Europe has 53 deals across 49 companies and about $505 million.

Europe looks unusually strong in dollar terms because Flo alone contributes more than $200 million. The typical financing is actually almost identical on both sides of the Atlantic: $2.32 million in North America and $2.34 million in Europe.

Asia-Pacific has 22 deals across 20 companies and approximately $132 million, with a median round of $2.79 million. It has credible startup breadth but no financing above $50 million in our window.

The United States is easily the largest individual country with 83 deals. The United Kingdom follows with 22, then Canada with 12, France with 11 and India with nine.

For now, the international company base is growing faster than the pool of international scale capital. The really large financings remain concentrated in the United States and Europe.

What should we actually take away from the Femtech funding data?

Femtech is already a meaningful venture market, but $1.33 billion makes the average company look richer than it is. The median financing is $2.25 million, and almost two-thirds of usable rounds stay below $5 million.

The market contains 157 funded companies, yet serious capital sits with a much smaller group. Ten companies absorb roughly 46% of audited funding, while only three companies cross $50 million cumulatively during the period.

Fertility Care and Pregnancy Care currently have the strongest underlying breadth. Their capital is spread across dozens of companies. Menstrual Health, Hormonal Health and Pelvic Care have sizeable totals too, although Flo, Midi and Amber respectively account for an unusually large part of them.

The hardest transition comes after Series A. Early-stage financing is common; Series B becomes scarce, Series C is rarer still, and the complete absence of $50 million to $100 million rounds leaves a visible hole between ordinary venture rounds and the handful of giant financings.

Most of the money is also going back into companies that investors already know. Follow-ons represent more than three quarters of deals and roughly nine tenths of audited capital. These days, the biggest checks are mainly paying for clinical progress, commercialization, healthcare delivery at scale and product expansion rather than initial company formation.

Finally, Femtech still has a very fragmented investor base. Strategic investors can make a big difference when they appear, but they participate in only about one fifth of deals. Repeat lead investors are even rarer. The market has plenty of investors willing to enter Femtech; what it still lacks is a deep group repeatedly financing companies from early venture rounds through large-scale growth.