Who are the top investors in longevity?
In our longevity market deck, you will find everything you need to understand the market
SUMMARY
age1 is the top pure longevity VC today, Apollo Health Ventures is its closest specialist rival, Khosla Ventures is the strongest large generalist, and Hevolution Foundation has the deepest pool of dedicated longevity capital.
The ranking changes quickly depending on what counts as longevity. Funds look very different when we restrict the field to aging biology rather than folding in diagnostics, preventive health, wellness and every disease that becomes more common with age.
Raw deal count is therefore a weak shortcut. GV and ARCH can dominate broad longevity databases while still looking less committed to aging itself than smaller specialists whose portfolios are built almost entirely around healthspan and geroscience.
Capital is also concentrating. Longevity financing more than doubled from 2023 to 2024 while deal count barely moved, so the investors that matter now are increasingly the ones able to keep funding companies once clinical development pushes round sizes into nine figures.
age1 stands out because it combines an unusually pure mandate with fresh lead-investor activity. Its recent roles in Loyal and Aerska show that the firm is still making decisions at the center of the market rather than living off a strong historical portfolio.
Apollo looks slightly different. It behaves more like a specialist biotech institution, using a dedicated fund and company-creation model to build around mechanisms such as mTOR, senescence, FOXO biology and cellular reprogramming.
Hevolution sits outside the normal VC comparison. More than $400 million has already been committed to healthspan science, and its structure lets it support grants, research partnerships and companies across a much longer part of the scientific pipeline.
Among large generalists, Khosla has the strongest case because its longevity exposure survives a narrow definition. BioAge, Rubedo and NewLimit represent separate approaches to aging biology, which is more convincing than a long list of loosely age-related healthcare bets.
Founders Fund is the clearest high-conviction outlier. Its longevity reputation is still concentrated heavily in NewLimit, but sticking with the company from earlier rounds through a $435 million Series C says more about conviction than a much broader but shallow portfolio would.
The practical answer depends on stage. Specialists such as age1 and Apollo are most useful when the science is still unconventional and early; larger funds, crossover investors and pharma capital become much more important once the same company needs clinical trials, manufacturing and hundreds of millions of dollars.
This market map, featured in our longevity market deck, highlights top companies and startups in the longevity market
What does “top longevity investor” actually mean today?
We rank repeated bets on aging biology and healthspan above raw healthcare deal count, because the two produce very different lists of top longevity investors.
A strict longevity portfolio includes companies trying to change the biology of aging itself, or at least turn aging mechanisms into therapies. BioAge uses human aging data to identify drug targets. NewLimit is developing epigenetic reprogramming medicines. Rubedo targets pathological senescent cells. Loyal is trying to extend healthy lifespan in dogs. Those companies fit comfortably.
The definition gets much looser once we include preventive diagnostics, biological-age testing, personalized medicine, wellness platforms and every biotech treating a disease that becomes more common with age. Function Health can reasonably sit inside a broad healthspan market, for example, but investing in Function Health tells us something different about an investor than backing cellular reprogramming.
That distinction explains why some enormous healthcare funds dominate public longevity rankings while dedicated firms such as age1, Apollo Health Ventures or LongevityTech.fund appear much smaller. For this analysis, we care about four things: how much of an investor’s activity is genuinely tied to longevity, how often the investor comes back to the sector, whether it still invests actively today, and whether it can support companies as they become more expensive.
| Type of longevity investing | What it includes | Investors that look strongest |
|---|---|---|
| Aging biology | Reprogramming, senescence, autophagy, aging pathways | age1, Apollo, Hevolution |
| Broader healthspan | Aging biotech, prevention, diagnostics | Khosla, a16z, LongeVC |
| Broad longevity economy | Age-related biotech, health tech, wellness | GV, ARCH, Casdin |
Are GV and ARCH really the biggest longevity investors?
GV and ARCH lead some longevity rankings by deal count, but we would place both below the strongest specialists when the question is who is most committed to longevity itself.
A 2025 analysis published by Longevity Investors counted 81 longevity-related deals for GV, 52 for ARCH Venture Partners, 49 for Casdin Capital and 38 for Khosla Ventures. By that measure, GV is far ahead.
The problem is the size of the underlying universe. The ranking captures a broad group of companies across biotechnology, age-related disease and the wider longevity economy. A large life-science investor can therefore accumulate dozens of qualifying deals without building its strategy around slowing or modifying aging.
ARCH still deserves serious weight. The firm has backed ambitious aging companies including Altos Labs and Unity Biotechnology, and it has the scientific depth to fund very difficult biology. GV has also spent years investing at the intersection of biology and technology. We just would not read the 81-versus-52 deal count as proof that GV has nearly twice ARCH’s longevity conviction, or that either firm is four times more committed to longevity than age1.
| Investor | Broad longevity deals reported | How we read the number |
|---|---|---|
| GV | 81 | Huge life-science exposure, relatively broad definition |
| ARCH Venture Partners | 52 | Deep biotech investor with important aging bets |
| Casdin Capital | 49 | Large life-science footprint |
| Polaris Partners | 39 | Broad healthcare and biotech exposure |
| Khosla Ventures | 38 | Broad count backed by several explicit aging investments |
If you want more recent data on this point, please see our latest longevity market report.
As this slide shows, and as featured in our longevity market deck, online search interest in longevity has been steadily increasing
Is longevity funding actually moving toward fewer, bigger bets?
Yes. Longevity funding has become much more concentrated, with dollars rising far faster than the number of deals.
Longevity.Technology counted $8.49 billion of financing across 325 deals in 2024, versus $3.82 billion across 331 deals the year before. Deal count fell slightly while financing more than doubled. Divide those totals by the number of deals and the average capital attached to a reported transaction jumps from roughly $11.5 million to $26.1 million, about 2.3 times higher.
The mix changed too. Later-stage venture financing reached about $2.7 billion, while seed financing was only about $248 million and early-stage VC around $533 million. Discovery platforms alone attracted about $2.65 billion.
The same pattern keeps showing up in companies closest to the core longevity thesis. NewLimit has moved into nine-figure financings as it approaches human testing. Loyal raised $100 million while pushing a canine lifespan drug through the FDA process. Retro Biosciences has moved from founder-backed experimentation into institutional financing at a $1.8 billion pre-money valuation while taking its first program into human trials.
That changes the investor ranking. Being early still counts, but the field now has companies that can consume hundreds of millions of dollars before proving that their central scientific thesis works in humans.
Is age1 the top pure longevity VC right now?
Yes. Among conventional venture firms, age1 currently has the strongest combination of longevity focus, early-stage specialization and fresh lead-investor activity.
age1 grew out of Laura Deming’s Longevity Fund, one of the earliest venture vehicles built explicitly around extending healthy lifespan. The firm still describes its mandate in unusually direct terms: therapeutics, tools and technologies targeting aging and age-related disease. Its normal checks run from $500,000 to $4 million, and it prefers to lead early rounds.
The portfolio is concentrated enough that we do not have to stretch the definition of longevity to make the thesis work. Deciduous Therapeutics focuses on immune mechanisms behind age-related disease. Rubedo Life Sciences targets senescent cells. Loyal is developing lifespan-extension medicines for dogs. Other age1-backed companies attack neurodegeneration, regenerative biology and other problems that become central as people age.
More importantly, age1 is still putting money to work. Earlier this year, it co-led Aerska’s $39 million Series A with EQT’s Dementia Fund. Aerska is trying to deliver RNA medicines across the blood-brain barrier for diseases such as Alzheimer’s. Days later, age1 led Loyal’s $100 million Series C, with Baillie Gifford participating.
Those two rounds show a wider range than the old image of a longevity fund making tiny experimental bets. age1 can still get involved extremely early, while its network now reaches companies raising serious clinical-stage capital. For a founder building directly around aging or healthspan, age1 would be the first specialist we would call today.
If you want more recent data on this point, please see our latest longevity market report.
This chart, featured in our longevity market deck, illustrates yearly VC funding for longevity startups
Is Apollo Health Ventures as strong as age1 for longevity biotech?
Apollo Health Ventures is the closest institutional rival to age1 for a therapeutics founder, especially when the company starts with a specific mechanism of aging.
Apollo manages a $180 million second fund built around extending healthspan and treating age-related disease. Its legal investment mandate explicitly covers biotech companies developing drugs for age-related diseases and data companies focused on their underlying causes, with initial investments mainly at seed and Series A.
The firm also builds companies instead of relying entirely on outside deal flow. Aeovian came out of work around selective mTORC1 inhibition, a pathway closely associated with aging biology. Cleara has worked on cellular senescence. Refoxy was built around FOXO biology. Focal Biosciences was created around cellular reprogramming. Apollo has therefore spread its aging thesis across several mechanisms rather than betting the fund on one fashionable approach.
We can also see these companies moving beyond the lab. Aeovian has progressed into clinical development and later attracted Hevolution, Sofinnova, venBio and other specialist investors. Auron, another Apollo company, has already dosed patients in a Phase 1 trial, although its immediate indication is cancer rather than longevity.
The difference between Apollo and age1 is mostly where each firm feels strongest. age1 has the cleaner identity as a pure longevity investor and a particularly strong founder network around the category. Apollo feels more like a specialist biotech institution built to turn aging science into drug companies. For a therapeutics founder, choosing between the two could come down to the science rather than the reputation.
Is Hevolution actually bigger than the longevity VCs?
By dedicated capital, Hevolution Foundation is already operating on a scale that specialist longevity VCs cannot match.
Hevolution says it has committed more than $400 million to healthspan science, spanning research grants, scientific partnerships and company investments. The foundation was set up with an annual budget of up to $1 billion, giving it theoretical firepower far beyond a $50 million or $200 million venture fund.
Only part of that capital goes into startups, which is why Hevolution should not be mixed mechanically into a VC deal-count table. Its advantage comes from being able to finance the whole chain around longevity science. Hevolution can fund academic work for years, support researchers before a company exists, back a startup once the biology looks commercial and then recycle financial returns into the same field.
Its company investments are also closely tied to the longevity thesis. Hevolution put $20 million into Aeovian while leading a $50 million financing extension around selective mTORC1 therapeutics. It later joined Vandria’s $30.7 million Series A, backing a company developing mitophagy-inducing drugs for neurodegenerative and other age-related diseases.
This makes Hevolution unusually important right now even though we would not call it the best longevity VC. A founder looking for a conventional venture partner may prefer age1 or Apollo. Someone asking which institution can change how much money reaches geroscience should probably start with Hevolution.
This chart, featured in our longevity market deck, looks at Function Health’s strategy in longevity
Which specialist has backed the most different longevity startups?
LongevityTech.fund appears to have built the broadest specialist longevity portfolio, with its own site currently reporting more than 35 portfolio companies across 12 countries.
The portfolio covers an unusually wide range of aging ideas. Repair Biotechnologies has worked on cholesterol removal and thymic regeneration. SENISCA focuses on RNA splicing and cellular senescence. Samsara Therapeutics works on autophagy. MitoRx targets mitochondrial biology. Rejuvenation Technologies has pursued telomere-related approaches. Cleara attacks senescent cells.
LongevityTech.fund has done this with a relatively small capital base. The firm reports more than $50 million in assets under management, so its 35-plus-company portfolio implies a very different model from Apollo’s. It spreads smaller checks across a large number of early experiments, giving it broad exposure to whatever mechanism eventually proves useful.
There is one reason we would rank LongevityTech.fund below age1 today: the visible portfolio has not refreshed as quickly lately. Most of the newest companies on its current portfolio page are dated 2024, while third-party investment databases show little disclosed activity after early 2025.
That does not erase the portfolio. It changes how we interpret it. LongevityTech.fund remains one of the best maps of early longevity experimentation, but age1 currently looks more active in leading important new rounds.
Where does LongeVC fit among the top longevity investors?
LongeVC belongs in the top specialist group, although its current portfolio stretches further into general biotech than age1’s.
The firm divides its strategy between therapeutics, diagnostics and prevention, and infrastructure. Its holdings include Rubedo Life Sciences, Insilico Medicine, Deep Longevity, SiPhox Health, Unnatural Products, Constructive Bio and several diagnostics or research-platform companies.
That breadth can look messy if we define longevity very narrowly. Insilico is an AI drug-discovery company. SiPhox sells health-testing technology. AOA Dx is focused on ovarian-cancer detection. Those are easier to classify as infrastructure for healthier aging than as direct attempts to slow aging.
Rubedo gives LongeVC a much cleaner aging-biotech case. The company has now dosed its first patient in a Phase 1 trial of RLS-1496, a drug designed to target pathological senescent cells. LongeVC also points to Turn Biotechnologies’ large pharma partnership and Rubedo’s commercial collaboration with Beiersdorf as evidence that some of its earlier longevity bets are finding strategic buyers and partners.
LongeVC says its team examined more than 2,500 companies before investing in roughly 20. That selectivity, combined with a broader definition of the longevity ecosystem, makes LongeVC different from a high-volume specialist such as LongevityTech.fund. We would put it among the leading longevity-focused funds, but a step below age1 and Apollo for a company whose entire pitch is aging biology.
If you want more recent data on this point, please see our latest longevity market report.
This chart, featured in our longevity market deck, illustrates yearly funding for longevity startups
Which big generalist VC has the strongest longevity portfolio?
Khosla Ventures is currently our top generalist longevity investor because its exposure survives even when we remove the looser wellness and age-related-health categories.
BioAge is the clearest long-running example. The company uses human aging data to discover therapeutic targets, and its 2025 proxy statement showed Khosla Ventures as a 5.02% shareholder. Andreessen Horowitz, Sofinnova and other major biotech investors were also significant holders.
Khosla was also an early backer of Rubedo Life Sciences, which attacks cellular senescence and has since reached human testing. NewLimit gives Khosla exposure to epigenetic reprogramming, one of the most ambitious current approaches to reversing age-related cellular changes. Khosla has also appeared around longevity companies such as Loyal.
The breadth is more important than any one company. BioAge, Rubedo and NewLimit are based on quite different ideas about how to improve healthspan. Khosla has therefore made repeated bets on aging science without needing longevity to be the firm’s main identity.
That is why we put Khosla ahead of larger healthcare investors with higher broad deal counts. Thirty or forty loosely related healthcare investments tell us less than repeatedly showing up in companies where aging biology is central to the product.
Has Founders Fund become a top longevity investor?
Founders Fund has become one of the most important longevity investors today because it kept backing NewLimit and then led the company’s $435 million Series C.
The progression is unusually useful. Third-party financing data shows Founders Fund participating in NewLimit from its Series A onward, rather than appearing for the first time once the company became fashionable. Founders Fund then moved into the lead position for the latest financing.
The round valued NewLimit at roughly $3.1 billion according to the company’s CEO, and the company says the money will help bring its first aging-reprogramming medicine into human trials. Thrive Capital, Greenoaks and Quiet joined as new investors, while Kleiner Perkins, Eli Lilly Ventures, Human Capital and several earlier backers returned.
Founders Fund still lacks the portfolio breadth of age1, Apollo or Khosla. One company carries a large part of its longevity reputation. But the size, duration and increasing conviction of the NewLimit bet make Founders Fund impossible to leave out of a current ranking.
We would describe Founders Fund as a top high-conviction longevity investor rather than a top longevity specialist. If the firm backs another two or three independent aging companies at similar depth, that distinction will start to disappear.
If you want more recent data on this point, please see our latest longevity market report.
This chart, featured in our longevity market deck, compares the main business model options for longevity clinics
Does a16z really belong among the top longevity investors?
We put a16z in the second tier of longevity investors: BioAge gives it real aging-biotech credibility, while Function Health gives it exposure to the much broader preventive-health version of longevity.
BioAge is the harder scientific case. The company’s 2025 proxy listed Andreessen Horowitz entities as its largest disclosed shareholder at just over 9%. BioAge is explicitly trying to use the biology of human aging to develop therapies for metabolic disease, so this is a genuine longevity investment rather than a semantic stretch.
Function Health sits at the other end. a16z backed the company earlier in its development, and Function later raised $298 million in a Redpoint-led Series B at a $2.5 billion valuation. Function sells extensive recurring laboratory testing and health tracking rather than an intervention proven to slow aging.
Putting both companies together tells us how a16z sees the opportunity. The firm can invest in the science of aging and in consumer infrastructure built around people trying to stay healthier for longer.
That is a valuable position, but longevity remains one theme inside an enormous Bio + Health strategy. a16z recently raised another $700 million for Bio + Health, so capital is certainly not the constraint. Focus is what separates a16z from age1 and Apollo in our ranking.
Are billionaire-backed longevity labs still attracting the biggest money?
Yes. At the extreme end of longevity investing, billionaire-backed companies can still start with budgets that ordinary biotech founders would need years of fundraising to reach.
Retro Biosciences began with unusually large backing from Sam Altman and set out to add ten healthy years to human lifespan. The company has since become much more institutional. Its latest financing was led by 4P Capital at a $1.8 billion pre-money valuation.
The timing makes 4P more interesting than a random late investor. Retro says it moved its oral autophagy drug RTR242 from indication selection to first-in-human dosing in about 15 months. The company has also built cell-therapy, tissue-reprogramming and AI protein-engineering programs. 4P is therefore entering when Retro is beginning to generate human clinical evidence rather than when the company was still mostly a research bet.
Altos Labs represents an even larger version of the billionaire-capital model. The cellular-rejuvenation company launched with roughly $3 billion of funding, with Jeff Bezos widely reported among its backers and ARCH Venture Partners involved in the company.
These companies distort simple investor rankings because a single billionaire can commit more capital to one longevity experiment than an entire specialist fund manages. What has changed recently is the arrival of institutional investors around the same projects. Retro now has 4P. NewLimit has Founders Fund, Thrive and Greenoaks. Loyal has age1 and Baillie Gifford. Longevity is slowly developing a conventional later-stage capital market around companies that originally looked too strange for conventional biotech investors.
This chart, featured in our longevity market deck, illustrates how revenue is distributed across customer segments in the longevity market
Which longevity investors are best at seed, and which ones matter later?
For an early longevity startup, age1 and Apollo are the strongest specialist partners; once a company needs hundreds of millions of dollars, large generalist and biotech investors become much more important.
age1 openly says its sweet spot is the earliest possible stage and normally writes $500,000 to $4 million checks. Apollo’s Fund II is designed mainly around seed and Series A investing, with the added option of creating companies internally. LongevityTech.fund and LongeVC also make sense around early scientific bets, particularly when a company is still proving the platform.
Hevolution can enter early too, but its role can extend beyond the cap table into research funding and scientific infrastructure. That is especially useful in longevity, where several years of basic or translational work may be needed before a conventional clinical program exists.
Later rounds look very different. Founders Fund, Khosla, Thrive, Greenoaks, Baillie Gifford and pharmaceutical investors such as Eli Lilly Ventures can support a company after the capital requirements move into nine figures. Several of these investors would be strange choices for a $2 million longevity seed round and excellent partners for a company approaching human trials.
The strongest longevity companies increasingly end up with both types. A specialist helps recognize unusual aging science before consensus forms. Much larger investors become essential if that science survives long enough to need clinical trials, manufacturing and regulatory work. The best longevity investor therefore depends heavily on where the company is in that journey.
Who are the top investors in longevity today?
Our current ranking puts age1 first among conventional longevity VCs, Apollo Health Ventures as its closest specialist rival, and Khosla Ventures first among large generalist funds; Hevolution sits in a separate category because its dedicated capital base is much larger than a normal venture fund.
age1 gets the top VC position because the firm combines longevity purity with current activity. Its history reaches back to The Longevity Fund, its mandate still centers on extending healthy lifespan, and it is currently leading or co-leading meaningful rounds rather than relying on investments made years ago.
Apollo comes very close for therapeutics. Its $180 million dedicated fund, venture-creation model and portfolio across mTOR, senescence, reprogramming and other age-linked biology make it one of the few investors where aging science genuinely shapes the institution.
Khosla wins among the big generalists. BioAge, Rubedo, NewLimit and Loyal give the firm repeated exposure to distinct approaches to aging rather than one lucky investment. Founders Fund has less breadth but much more concentrated conviction around NewLimit. LongeVC and LongevityTech.fund remain important specialist names, while a16z, ARCH and GV become more prominent as we broaden the definition from aging biology toward general healthspan and age-related biotech.
Hevolution deserves the biggest asterisk. If somebody asks who has the most dedicated financial power in longevity today, we would choose Hevolution over any VC on this list. If the question is which venture firm has built the strongest specialist investing franchise, age1 remains our answer.
| Investor | Our current judgment | Why we rank it here |
|---|---|---|
| age1 | Top pure longevity VC | Deep specialist history, concentrated aging portfolio and fresh lead-investor activity |
| Apollo Health Ventures | Top aging-biotech specialist | $180M dedicated fund plus venture creation around aging mechanisms |
| Khosla Ventures | Top large generalist | Repeated bets across BioAge, Rubedo, NewLimit and other explicit longevity companies |
| Hevolution Foundation | Most powerful dedicated capital platform | $400M+ committed across geroscience, grants, partnerships and company investments |
| Founders Fund | Top high-conviction major VC | Long-running NewLimit exposure followed by leadership of its latest major round |
| LongeVC | Leading broad specialist | Portfolio spans longevity therapeutics, diagnostics and biotech infrastructure |
| LongevityTech.fund | Broadest specialist portfolio | 35+ companies and unusually wide exposure to early aging mechanisms |
| a16z Bio + Health | Major second-tier longevity investor | Strong BioAge position plus broader preventive-health exposure |
| ARCH Venture Partners | Biotech heavyweight with major longevity exposure | Deep scientific investing and ambitious bets including Altos and Unity |
| GV | Broad deal-count leader | Extremely active across life sciences, although its longevity exposure is less concentrated |
| 4P Capital | Fast-rising name to watch | Institutional lead investor in Retro as the company moves deeper into human testing |
If you want more recent data on this point, please see our latest longevity market report.
This chart, featured in our longevity market deck, shows how longevity plan technology has evolved over time
OUR METHODOLOGY
This analysis asks who the top investors in longevity are today. We compare investors across four dimensions: how directly their portfolios are tied to longevity, how often they return to the field, how recently they have invested, and whether they have enough capital to keep supporting companies as those companies move into expensive clinical stages.
We use a relatively strict definition of longevity when judging investor conviction. Companies built around aging biology, geroscience, reprogramming, senescence, autophagy and other mechanisms of aging carry more weight than preventive diagnostics, wellness platforms or broad healthcare investments that happen to serve older populations.
Deal count is treated as evidence of breadth, not as a ranking by itself. That is why broad life-science investors such as GV, ARCH and Casdin can lead some public longevity tables without automatically ranking above specialist firms whose activity is much more concentrated around aging and healthspan.
Recency matters throughout. We gave more weight to fresh lead roles, repeat participation and current portfolio activity than to investments that built an investor’s reputation years ago but no longer show the same level of active commitment.
We also separate investor models rather than pretending they are directly interchangeable. age1, Apollo, LongeVC and LongevityTech.fund are specialist venture investors; Khosla, Founders Fund, a16z, ARCH and GV are broader firms; Hevolution combines research funding with company investment; and investors such as 4P, Thrive, Greenoaks and Baillie Gifford become more relevant as companies reach larger later-stage rounds.
The funding environment is part of the ranking because longevity companies are getting more capital intensive. Longevity.Technology reported $8.49 billion of financing across 325 deals in 2024, versus $3.82 billion across 331 deals in 2023, which means the ability to finance winners through larger rounds now matters much more than it did when the market was dominated by small experimental bets.
Key sources include age1 on its investment strategy, stage and check sizes, Apollo Health Ventures on its $180 million Fund II, Apollo’s formal investment mandate, Hevolution on more than $400 million committed to healthspan science, Hevolution on its funding model and annual budget, LongevityTech.fund on portfolio size and assets under management, and LongeVC on its current portfolio.
For company-level evidence, we used BioAge on its human-aging platform, BioAge’s SEC filing on major investors, NewLimit on its $435 million Founders Fund-led Series C, Loyal on its $100 million Series C led by age1, Aerska on its $39 million Series A, Retro Biosciences on its 4P Capital-led financing, and Rubedo Life Sciences on the clinical progression of RLS-1496.
We also used Longevity.Technology’s 2024 annual investment report, a16z on its BioAge investment, a16z on Function Health, Function Health on its $298 million Series B, Vandria on Hevolution’s participation in its Series A, and Unity Biotechnology’s filing documenting ARCH Venture Partners ownership.
In our longevity market deck, we identify pain points entrepreneurs should prioritize
