What are the latest funding trends in healthcare AI?

All funding deals in the healthcare AI market over the last years

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 Healthcare AI Market.

Is Healthcare AI funding actually growing right now?

Healthcare AI funding is higher in dollars today, but the market has become narrower: more money is going into fewer companies.

We tracked 163 qualifying financings in the current YTD period, representing $6.42 billion. Over the same months of 2025, we counted 194 deals and $5.84 billion. Capital therefore rose 10% while deal activity fell 16%.

The number of companies tells the same story. We found 158 funded companies this year, down from 189 in the comparable 2025 period. Meanwhile, the median round increased from $9.95 million to $13.25 million.

The 2024 comparison is useful here. Current deal activity remains above 2024 YTD, when we counted 141 financings across 140 companies, while today's capital is 42% higher. Healthcare AI has not fallen back to where it was two years ago. What has disappeared is much of the unusually broad financing activity seen in 2025.

Today, the easiest way to misunderstand Healthcare AI is to look only at the $6.42 billion headline. The money is real, but it is being distributed very differently.

Healthcare AI funding metric	2026 YTD	2025 YTD	2024 YTD	Change vs 2025
Deals	163	194	141	-16.0%
Unique companies	158	189	140	-16.4%
Total capital	$6.42B	$5.84B	$4.51B	+10.0%
Capital excluding >$50M rounds	$1.99B	$2.26B	$1.94B	-12.1%
Capital excluding >$100M rounds	$3.03B	$3.01B	$2.61B	+0.5%
Median round	$13.25M	$9.95M	$13.50M	+33.2%
Average round	$39.6M	$30.1M	$32.2M	+31.7%
Largest round	$2.10B	$600M	≥$1.0B	+250%
First-financing share	22.1%	29.4%	29.1%	-7.3 pp
Follow-on share	77.9%	69.6%	70.9%	+8.3 pp

Is one giant Healthcare AI deal making the market look stronger than it is?

Yes. Isomorphic Labs' $2.1 billion Series B is large enough to change the story of Healthcare AI funding on its own.

The financing represents 32.7% of all the capital we tracked this year. The largest deal accounted for only 10.3% of funding in the comparable 2025 period.

Concentration extends beyond one company. The three largest rounds represent 42.9% of current capital, compared with 21.7% last year. The top five account for 47.1%.

Removing larger rounds gives us a better sense of what is happening underneath. Once financings above $50 million are excluded, current capital falls to $1.99 billion, versus $2.26 billion over the same period last year. A headline increase of 10% becomes a 12% decline.

The result changes again at a $100 million cutoff: funding excluding rounds above that level is almost flat year over year, at roughly $3.03 billion versus $3.01 billion.

The distortion is concentrated at the very top of the market rather than across every large Series B or Series C. A handful of exceptional rounds now have enough weight to make aggregate Healthcare AI funding look much healthier than ordinary financing activity.

Are fewer Healthcare AI companies actually getting funded?

Yes. Healthcare AI is funding materially fewer companies than last year, even though total capital has increased.

We counted 158 unique funded companies, compared with 189 during the same part of 2025. The decline in company count is almost identical to the drop in deals.

That detail is useful. If transactions had fallen while the number of funded companies stayed roughly flat, the explanation could simply have been fewer repeat financings. Instead, the pool of companies receiving money has itself become smaller.

Current activity is still above the comparable 2024 level, when 140 companies raised capital. The market looks more like a retrenchment from the unusually busy 2025 cohort than a return to the funding conditions of two years ago.

For founders, that distinction is more useful than the headline capital figure. There is plenty of money in Healthcare AI right now, but a smaller group of companies is getting access to it.

Are Healthcare AI investors becoming pickier?

Healthcare AI investors do look pickier today, especially when we compare who is getting funded with how large the successful rounds have become.

Several parts of the market moved together. The number of funded companies fell, Seed activity weakened, first financings became less common and the typical successful round got larger.

The deal-size distribution makes the change easy to see. Financings below $5 million represented almost 30% of deals last year and now account for 22.2%. The $5 million-to-$20 million bracket moved the other way, rising from 33% to 42%.

That points to a higher bar for companies reaching institutional scale. Investors have not responded to uncertainty by shrinking every check; the companies that make it through the filter are often raising quite meaningful rounds.

The current funding pattern looks very different from a broad startup boom, where rising capital usually comes with more new companies, more Seed rounds and a wider group of investors taking first bets. This year, we are seeing almost the reverse combination.

Is it getting harder for new Healthcare AI startups to raise money?

Yes. New Healthcare AI companies are having a noticeably tougher fundraising year than startups that already have investors behind them.

We identified 36 first financings, down from 57 during the comparable 2025 period. Their share of all deals has fallen from 29.4% to 22.1%.

The dollar decline is much steeper. First financings account for $204 million this year, compared with $936 million last year. Their median financing also slipped from $4.90 million to $3.47 million.

Follow-on rounds have held up much better. They account for 127 transactions and $6.21 billion in current funding.

Our first-financing classification is based on the public financing history we could establish for each company, so it should be read directionally rather than as a perfect reconstruction of every historical capital event. The gap is large enough, though, that the broader pattern is hard to miss.

Investors are currently much more willing to put serious money behind Healthcare AI companies that have already cleared an earlier financing round.

New versus previously funded companies	2026 YTD	2025 YTD	2024 YTD
First financings	36	57	41
First-financing share	22.1%	29.4%	29.1%
Follow-on financings	127	135	100
Follow-on share	77.9%	69.6%	70.9%
Capital in first financings	$204M	$936M	$1.33B
Capital in follow-ons	$6.21B	$4.89B	$3.18B
Median first financing	$3.47M	$4.90M	$4.62M
Median follow-on	$16.8M	$20.0M	$20.0M

Are Healthcare AI funding rounds getting bigger?

Yes. The typical Healthcare AI financing is bigger this year, and that remains true even after we stop looking at the spectacular rounds at the top.

The median round reached $13.25 million, a third above last year's $9.95 million. Since the median is much less sensitive to giant transactions, Isomorphic Labs cannot explain that increase by itself.

The underlying distribution moved as well. We counted 36 deals below $5 million, versus 58 last year. By contrast, the $5 million-to-$20 million range produced 68 deals, slightly more than last year's 64 despite a much lower overall transaction count.

That is probably the clearest shift in the middle of the market. Healthcare AI has fewer tiny financings and a greater concentration of rounds in the low tens of millions.

The average round has increased too, although we put less weight on it because the largest deals pull it around so easily. For understanding what a normal funded company is experiencing, the median and deal-size mix tell us more.

Is early-stage Healthcare AI funding getting harder?

Seed-stage Healthcare AI has clearly cooled in 2026, while Series A has held up much better.

We counted 54 Seed rounds, compared with 80 during the same period last year. Series A produced 57 deals and remains the single largest named stage in the current dataset.

Together, Seed and Series A still make up 68.1% of transactions, so early-stage companies continue to dominate Healthcare AI by deal count. The balance inside early stage has shifted away from the smallest companies.

Series B moved in the other direction, rising from 15 deals last year to 21 now.

We do not see the same strength across every mature stage. Series D+ capital has fallen sharply from last year, which makes a simple "Healthcare AI has gone late stage" explanation too broad.

Company age also adds useful context. Among companies where we could establish a founding year, the median funded company is around four years old, very close to 2024 and only modestly above 2025. The bigger change is where companies sit in their financing journey, rather than startups suddenly needing to survive for many more years before investors will back them.

Stage	2026 deals	Deal share	2026 capital	Capital share	Median round
Seed	54	33.1%	$385M	6.0%	$4.4M
Series A	57	35.0%	$1.21B	18.9%	$15.0M
Series B	21	12.9%	$3.04B	47.4%	$38.0M
Series C	10	6.1%	$825M	12.8%	$45.0M
Series D+	7	4.3%	$664M	10.3%	$70.0M
Growth Equity	4	2.5%	$143M	2.2%	$18.3M
Unknown	10	6.1%	$149M	2.3%	$5.35M

Is Life Science AI taking over Healthcare AI funding?

Life Science AI dominates Healthcare AI funding in dollars right now, although the category has not suddenly produced a flood of newly funded startups.

Life Science AI represents 23.9% of current deals and 53.8% of capital. Its dollar share has gained almost 20 percentage points from last year while its deal share barely moved.

Isomorphic Labs explains most of the gap. As seen above, its Series B is enormous even by late-stage biotech standards. Remove that financing and Life Science AI falls to roughly $1.35 billion, below the $1.98 billion we recorded during the comparable 2025 period.

Still, dismissing the entire category move as a statistical accident would go too far. The business environment around AI drug development has continued to mature.

Isomorphic itself has moved beyond the story of building better models. Its current strategy includes progressing its own therapeutic programs toward the clinic, expanding its drug-design engine and working directly with major pharmaceutical companies. The company expanded its Novartis collaboration in 2025 and announced a multi-target, cross-modality collaboration with Johnson & Johnson in 2026.

Regulators are also dealing with AI as an increasingly real part of drug development. The FDA and European Medicines Agency published joint principles for good AI practice in drug development in 2026, covering model risk, validation, data governance and lifecycle management. The FDA says it has already seen a significant rise in drug submissions containing AI components.

Life Science AI has genuine momentum today, but its funding numbers make that momentum look broader than it currently is.

Why are Revenue Cycle AI companies raising bigger rounds?

Revenue Cycle AI is one of the more convincing funding shifts in Healthcare AI because bigger checks are arriving even as the number of deals falls.

We tracked 14 Revenue Cycle AI financings, down from 21 last year. Capital nevertheless increased from $249 million to $390 million, while the median round climbed from $7 million to $16.5 million.

Candid Health captures the change particularly well. The company raised $120 million in a Series D led by Sixth Street Growth, after raising a $52.5 million Series C in 2025. Sixth Street said Candid combines a mission-critical healthcare workflow with measurable customer outcomes, while Candid reported annual recurring revenue growth of 190% year over year around the financing.

There is also a practical reason why revenue-cycle products are easier to underwrite than many experimental AI applications. Their value can often be tied directly to getting claims paid, reducing denials, automating manual billing work or cutting administrative cost.

Regulation is pushing the infrastructure in the same direction. CMS is moving payers toward standardized electronic prior authorization APIs, with major technical requirements coming into force in 2027. In 2026, CMS also announced a group of early adopters working on electronic prior authorization ahead of those requirements.

That does not prove regulation caused the funding increase. It does put Revenue Cycle AI in a useful position: customers face a financial incentive to automate just as the administrative infrastructure becomes more digital.

Healthcare AI category	2026 deal share	2026 capital share	Median round	Capital-share change vs 2025
Life Science AI	23.9%	53.8%	$15.0M	+19.8 pp
Care Workflow AI	27.6%	16.0%	$11.1M	-14.5 pp
Diagnostic AI Software	19.6%	11.2%	$12.2M	-0.6 pp
Clinical AI Tools	14.7%	10.0%	$11.6M	-7.1 pp
Revenue Cycle AI	8.6%	6.1%	$16.5M	+1.8 pp
Payer AI Platforms	5.5%	2.9%	$16.3M	+0.6 pp

Has the Healthcare AI ambient-scribe boom already cooled?

Funding for clinical workflow and ambient AI has cooled from its 2025 peak, even though adoption currently looks very healthy.

Care Workflow AI still accounts for 27.6% of current deals, almost unchanged from last year. Its share of capital, however, fell from 30.5% to 16%.

Last year's comparison was unusually tough. Abridge raised $300 million in its Series E, while Ambience Healthcare raised a $243 million Series C. Those rounds gave workflow AI an exceptionally capital-heavy year.

Current customer activity looks very different from a category losing relevance. The American Medical Association's 2026 survey of 1,692 physicians found that 81% were already using AI professionally, up from 38% in its 2023 survey.

Recent deployments are getting large as well. UCHealth expanded Abridge to more than 2,300 providers after a pilot, Geisinger scaled the platform to more than 1,000 clinicians, and Abridge said in August that more than 300 enterprise health systems had adopted its context-aware clinical decision support.

The cooling in venture dollars therefore looks much more like a comedown from an extraordinary financing year than a collapse in demand for clinical workflow AI.

Are Healthcare AI investors mostly backing proven companies now?

Yes. Current Healthcare AI funding heavily favors companies that can show more than a promising product demo.

The first-financing numbers already point in that direction, but individual rounds make it more concrete.

Candid Health's latest financing followed rapid revenue growth and a previous institutional round. Forus' latest $150 million Series C brought every existing institutional investor back into the financing, according to the company. Isomorphic Labs entered its latest funding round with pharmaceutical collaborations already in place and an internal therapeutic pipeline moving toward clinical development.

Investors appear increasingly comfortable writing very large checks when a company can point to commercial adoption, strategic relationships, regulatory relevance or a credible route toward clinical value.

That helps explain why aggregate capital can remain so high during a year when fewer startups are being funded. Several Healthcare AI companies can now absorb hundreds of millions of dollars, while the entry point for the next cohort has become tougher.

Are corporate and strategic investors piling into Healthcare AI?

Strategic investors remain important in Healthcare AI, but there is no new corporate funding wave in 2026.

We identified strategic participation in 36 current deals, equal to 22.1% of the market. The comparable figure last year was 22.7%, and 2024 was somewhat higher at 26.2%.

The median round involving a strategic investor has increased modestly, from $20.5 million to $23.8 million.

Life Science AI and Diagnostic AI Software currently have the most visible strategic participation in our category breakdown, with ten deals each. That fits the economics of both markets, where pharmaceutical groups, diagnostics companies, health systems or technology infrastructure providers can contribute far more than capital alone.

The composition of some large financings makes this easy to see. Alphabet and GV participated in Isomorphic Labs' latest raise alongside financial investors, while the company also maintains commercial research relationships with pharmaceutical groups.

Corporate involvement is part of the market's structure these days, but it does not explain this year's jump in total funding. The frequency has barely changed.

Is Europe suddenly catching up with North America in Healthcare AI funding?

Europe looks much stronger in the headline Healthcare AI numbers this year, but one British company creates most of the apparent shift.

North America still represents 62% of current deals, compared with 26.4% for Europe. The gap in company activity remains large.

Capital tells another story. Europe captured 40.3% of funding, up by about 20 percentage points from last year, while North America's share dropped to 54.6%.

Once Isomorphic Labs is taken out, European funding falls to roughly $483 million. That compares with around $1.18 billion during the same part of 2025.

There is clearly a meaningful European Healthcare AI ecosystem, but the current capital figures do not show a broad investor migration away from North America. One very large UK financing is doing a lot of work in the regional market-share chart.

Has Healthcare AI already raised more money than in previous full years?

Healthcare AI has already raised more capital than it did during all of 2024, although it has done so with far fewer financing events than a normal full year.

Current YTD funding is equivalent to 110.3% of the full-year 2024 total and 81.6% of all the capital raised in 2025.

Deal activity has not kept pace. The current period represents only 79.9% of 2024's full-year deal count and 60.4% of the 2025 total.

That gap is another way to see how capital-heavy 2026 has become.

We would not annualize the current total and present the result as a forecast. Healthcare AI financings arrive unevenly, and this year's numbers have already shown how one exceptional transaction can move the whole market.

As of now, the simpler point is enough: 2026 has already become an unusually large year for Healthcare AI capital without becoming an unusually large year for the number of startups funded.

Does the missing Forus round change the Healthcare AI funding picture?

The missing $150 million Forus Series C pushes Healthcare AI funding a little higher, but it actually reinforces the pattern we are already seeing.

Forus announced the Series C before the end of our research window, at a $3 billion valuation, with Bain Capital Ventures leading and every existing institutional investor reinvesting.

That financing is not included in our main calculations because it was absent from the underlying deal table when we completed the comparable analysis. We prefer to keep the main statistics internally consistent rather than silently add one externally discovered transaction after the calculations are finished.

Adding the round as a sensitivity check would take current capital from about $6.42 billion to roughly $6.57 billion. It would not add another unique company because Forus had already raised earlier in the year.

The company itself is a good illustration of where money is flowing. Forus says its network now supports millions of people across all 50 U.S. states and works with nine of the world's 15 largest biopharma companies. Its latest round therefore adds more capital to an already funded platform rather than expanding the pool of Healthcare AI startups receiving their first institutional check.

There was another data-quality issue around Forus. An earlier $100 million Tandem Technology entry referred to the company before its rebrand and appeared to describe a financing still being assembled. We consolidated that report with the later completed Series B rather than count the same financing process twice.

What is actually changing in Healthcare AI funding?

Healthcare AI funding is becoming more concentrated, more expensive and harder to access for newcomers.

The biggest change is breadth. Fewer companies are raising money than last year, and first financings have fallen much faster than the market as a whole. For a new Healthcare AI startup, the environment currently looks tougher than the aggregate funding total would suggest.

The second change is check size. Successful companies are increasingly raising in the low tens of millions rather than at the very small end of venture funding, while a small group of mature companies can now absorb extraordinary amounts of capital.

The third change is where investors are comfortable taking risk. Seed has weakened, Series B activity has strengthened, and follow-on financing dominates the current market. Investors increasingly seem to want evidence that a Healthcare AI company can survive real clinical, commercial or operational use before committing serious capital.

Category rotation is more nuanced. Life Science AI owns the headline thanks largely to one exceptional financing, while Revenue Cycle AI shows a broader shift toward larger rounds among fewer companies. Clinical workflow AI has lost funding share from its 2025 peak even as real-world deployment continues to spread across large health systems.

The most cautious interpretation should be reserved for geography and Life Science AI market share. Both are heavily distorted by Isomorphic Labs and could reverse quickly if the next megaround lands somewhere else.

The clearest picture today is a Healthcare AI market where investors still have plenty of money for companies they believe have already proved something. What has become harder is getting into that group in the first place.