MedTech funding: a quarter-by-quarter analysis

All funding deals in the MedTech 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 MedTech market.

Is MedTech funding actually recovering?

MedTech funding recovered strongly in early 2026, but the latest quarter shows that investors are already pulling back from that pace.

We tracked 245 financings worth approximately $8.54 billion across five complete quarters, from Q3 2025 to Q3 2026. Deal activity fell from 40 transactions in Q3 2025 to 28 in Q4, then climbed to 54 in Q1 2026 and 76 in Q2. By Q3, the number had dropped to 47.

The increase in early 2026 was substantial, especially given how weak the final quarter of 2025 had been. But two consecutive quarters of growth, followed by a 38.2% decline, are not enough to establish a lasting recovery.

Capital raised tells an even more uneven story. Total funding reached $3.17 billion in Q2 2026, more than twice the previous quarter's figure, before falling to $1.15 billion in Q3. Much of that volatility came from unusually large transactions.

Our calculations show that capital excluding financings above $50 million rose from $353.7 million in Q4 2025 to $735.1 million in Q1 2026, then barely increased to $758.5 million in Q2.

For now, the clearest conclusion is that MedTech financing became much more accessible during the first half of 2026, but that expansion has already started to lose momentum.

Quarter	Deals	Total capital	Capital excluding >$50M
Q3 2025	40	$1.26B	$536.4M
Q4 2025	28	$1.51B	$353.7M
Q1 2026	54	$1.46B	$735.1M
Q2 2026	76	$3.17B	$758.5M
Q3 2026	47	$1.15B	$554.0M

Why did MedTech startups raise more money even as deals fell in late 2025?

MedTech investors concentrated their money in a smaller group of companies during Q4 2025, creating the appearance of a stronger funding market even as fewer startups secured financing.

Deal volume fell 30% between Q3 and Q4, from 40 to 28 transactions. Yet total capital increased nearly 20%, reaching $1.51 billion.

Eight rounds above $50 million accounted for 76.6% of that quarter's funding. Five financings reached at least $100 million, and the largest was $250 million.

Meanwhile, the median round barely moved, falling from $21.45 million to $20.25 million. Funding below the large-round threshold contracted by more than a third.

Large checks remained available, but fewer companies were getting funded overall.

The market became unusually dependent on a handful of substantial financings. This helps explain why the following quarter's recovery was so striking: investors suddenly started financing many more companies without spending more money overall.

What changed in MedTech funding at the start of 2026?

MedTech investors started backing far more early-stage companies in Q1 2026, making it the clearest turning point in the five-quarter period.

Financings almost doubled, increasing from 28 to 54, while total capital actually declined slightly to $1.46 billion.

The expansion came from smaller transactions. Seed and Series A financings increased from 11 to 29, while first financings rose from three to 12. A wave of seed and Series A deals is the kind of early momentum we follow every quarter in our MedTech market report.

We also calculated a 107.9% increase in capital excluding rounds above $50 million. That is particularly striking because the five largest financings accounted for only 40.1% of funding, down from 63.4% in the previous quarter.

There were changes across multiple categories, too. Therapeutic Devices increased from six to 22 transactions, Digital Medical Software from one to eight, and Implantable Devices from five to nine.

The increase was therefore visible across company maturity, financing sizes and several medical-technology categories.

Q1 was the strongest quarter for genuinely broader funding activity, even though it attracted less total capital than Q4.

Was the huge MedTech funding jump in Q2 2026 mostly one company?

The extraordinary MedTech funding total in Q2 2026 was largely driven by MiRus, which received a $1.5 billion strategic equity investment from Boston Scientific.

Boston Scientific announced the transaction on May 18, 2026, acquiring approximately 34% of MiRus. Its SEC filing specifies a 33.75% fully diluted equity interest and an exclusive option relating to MiRus's transcatheter aortic valve business.

The investment was closely tied to MiRus's SIEGEL valve technology, which uses a proprietary rhenium alloy and was entering a pivotal clinical trial involving up to 1,025 patients.

The deal alone represented 47.4% of the $3.17 billion recorded across MedTech that quarter.

Without financing rounds above $50 million, capital increased only 3.2% from Q1 to Q2. That gives a much better idea of how little ordinary funding changed beneath the record total.

Still, Q2 produced 76 financings, up from 54 in Q1. We counted 38 early-stage deals and 19 first financings, both higher than the previous quarter.

MiRus explains much of the extraordinary capital figure. The wider increase in financed companies was real, although it proved short-lived.

Are MedTech startups getting smaller funding rounds now?

MedTech startups are generally raising smaller rounds than they were in late 2025, even though a few exceptionally large investments continue to dominate headline funding totals.

The median financing declined from $21.45 million in Q3 2025 to $9.65 million in Q2 2026. It then stabilized around $10 million in Q3.

One reason is the growing number of smaller deals. Financings below $20 million increased from 14 in Q4 2025 to 32 in Q1 and 47 in Q2, before falling to 29 in Q3.

The $20 million–under $50 million segment was much steadier during 2026, recording 12, 14 and 12 financings across the three quarters.

There is also an important difference between first-time recipients and companies returning for more capital. In Q3, the median first financing was just $1.5 million, compared with $16.3 million for follow-ons.

This suggests investors have become more willing to finance companies at relatively modest ticket sizes, while larger amounts remain concentrated among businesses with established funding histories.

The broader availability of small rounds was one of the clearest developments in early 2026. Whether that ultimately produces more companies capable of raising substantial growth capital remains unanswered.

Financing size	Q3 '25	Q4 '25	Q1 '26	Q2 '26	Q3 '26
Under $5M	8	5	11	23	15
$5M–under $20M	10	9	21	24	14
$20M–under $50M	14	5	12	14	12
$50M–under $100M	4	4	7	8	5
$100M+	4	5	3	5	1
Undisclosed	0	0	0	2	0

Did MedTech funding suddenly get worse in Q3 2026?

MedTech fundraising slowed sharply in Q3 2026, with fewer deals, less capital and weaker activity across several previously expanding categories.

Transactions declined from 76 to 47, while recorded capital fell from approximately $3.17 billion to $1.15 billion.

The decline looks less dramatic once we remove exceptionally large financings, but it remains meaningful. Capital excluding rounds above $50 million decreased 27% to $554 million.

The number of early-stage transactions also fell from 38 to 21. First financings dropped from 19 to nine, while Digital Medical Software went from ten transactions to three.

Europe experienced an especially sharp reversal, with MedTech deals falling from 28 to 12. North America also declined, although less severely, from 37 to 29.

There were some pockets of resilience. Diagnostic-device capital continued growing, and the median financing across the market stayed near $10 million.

Q3 still recorded considerably more deals than Q4 2025, so the market has not returned to its weakest point. But the decline is too widespread to dismiss as the disappearance of one large transaction.

Is MedTech funding becoming concentrated around a few winners?

MedTech capital remains heavily concentrated, and the share captured by the biggest financings changes dramatically from one quarter to the next.

In Q4 2025, the five largest transactions accounted for 63.4% of all funding. That share fell to 40.1% in Q1 2026, climbed back to 61.6% in Q2 and declined to 47% in Q3. Quarters where five deals take most of the money are easier to read next to the market maps and grids in our report on MedTech.

These changes reflect different types of funding quarters.

Q4 2025 featured several large deals alongside relatively weak financing volume. Q1 2026 brought more transactions and much broader access to capital. Q2 combined a large number of financings with the exceptional MiRus investment.

Concentration is especially important in a sector where individual clinical-device platforms can attract substantial investment from established medical-technology groups.

The $140 million financing announced by SetPoint Medical in August 2025 provides another example. It comprised a $25 million second tranche of Series C and a separate $115 million Series D, co-led by Elevage Medical Technologies and Ally Bridge Group.

SetPoint said the money would support commercialization of its neuroimmune modulation system for rheumatoid arthritis and development of treatments for other autoimmune diseases.

That is a very different financing situation from an early-stage startup raising several million dollars to advance a device concept.

As seen earlier, changes in the number and size of these large transactions can dramatically reshape quarterly funding totals, even when ordinary financing activity follows a different path.

Are investors still funding new MedTech startups?

New MedTech startups are still getting funded, but their financing activity has fallen back from the early-2026 peak.

We identified three first financings in Q4 2025, followed by 12 in Q1 2026 and 19 in Q2. The number then declined to nine in Q3.

At the peak, first financings represented one-quarter of all quarterly deals, compared with only 10.7% at the end of 2025.

Their capital share was much smaller. In Q2, companies classified as first-time recipients raised approximately $152.7 million, while follow-on recipients attracted around $3.01 billion.

This difference partly reflects the smaller sums required at earlier development stages. It also shows how strongly capital allocation remains tilted toward companies with existing financing histories.

We should be precise about the meaning of first financing here. The classification comes from documented fundraising histories and does not claim that every private investment a company previously received has been identified.

Even with that limitation, the reversal is clear. New-company financing became much more common during the first half of 2026, then weakened as the wider market slowed.

Are MedTech investors moving away from early-stage companies?

Early-stage MedTech companies still attract a substantial share of deals, although investors continue putting most of their money into later-stage businesses.

Seed and Series A transactions represented 27.5% of deals in Q3 2025, climbed to 53.7% in Q1 2026 and reached 50% in Q2. Their share subsequently eased to 44.7% in Q3.

The capital distribution looked very different. Later-stage financings captured approximately 70.1% of Q1 2026 funding, 86.8% in Q2 and 72.5% in Q3.

More younger companies gained access to relatively modest rounds during the recovery, while businesses raising later-stage capital continued attracting much larger investments.

The combination makes sense for medical technology. Developing a device, testing it clinically, obtaining regulatory clearance and preparing it for commercialization can involve several distinct rounds of financing.

For example, SetPoint Medical's August 2025 financing was explicitly intended to support commercialization after years of development. MiRus's strategic transaction came while its SIEGEL valve was advancing through clinical evaluation.

Those transactions help explain why investors can increase the number of early-stage deals while continuing to direct most capital toward more mature opportunities.

There is no reliable evidence that the average funded company is becoming progressively older. Founding-year information is incomplete, particularly in Q3 2026, where several records contain invalid dates.

Is diagnostic technology becoming the hottest part of MedTech funding?

Diagnostic Devices currently shows one of the clearest improvements in MedTech fundraising, with more companies getting funded and capital continuing to rise even as the wider market slowed.

Diagnostic-device deals increased from three in Q1 2026 to 13 in Q2, before settling at nine in Q3.

Capital grew throughout that sequence, from $87.8 million to $128.3 million and then $167.4 million. Growth in diagnostics raises the question of who buys and which problems they would pay to solve, studied in our MedTech market report.

The particularly interesting detail is that typical rounds remained relatively small. The category's median financing was $3.9 million in Q2 and $4 million in Q3.

That combination suggests the increase was spread across multiple relatively modest financings rather than being created by one exceptionally large deal.

The commercial environment also gives us a reason to keep watching this category. The FDA's public medical-device records show continuing regulatory activity across diagnostic systems, and its AI-enabled device database now includes more than 1,600 authorized devices as of September 2026. These include imaging, diagnostic decision-support and monitoring technologies.

That regulatory progress provides useful context, although we cannot attribute the recent financing increase to FDA decisions without examining the milestones of each funded company.

What we can establish is that diagnostics outperformed several larger MedTech categories during Q3. Capital increased approximately 30.5% from Q2, even as overall MedTech funding contracted.

Why are implantable devices attracting so much money?

Implantable Devices attract some of MedTech's largest investments because certain technologies can become strategically valuable to major medical-device manufacturers long before they reach widespread commercial use.

The category raised approximately $710.6 million in Q3 2025, $442.5 million in Q4 and $385.6 million in Q1 2026. Capital then surged to $2.09 billion in Q2 before dropping to $463.8 million in Q3.

The extraordinary second-quarter increase came largely from MiRus. Its financing represented approximately 72% of the category's recorded capital that quarter.

Boston Scientific's investment gives us a concrete example of how strategic buyers approach promising medical technologies. Alongside its equity stake, Boston Scientific obtained an exclusive option to acquire the SIEGEL transcatheter aortic valve business, subject to additional payments and clinical milestones.

The SEC filing describes potential additional cash payments totaling $3 billion if the option is exercised under the specified conditions.

The deal therefore combined financing with a structured path toward potential ownership of a valuable product platform.

Implantable Devices still recorded 11 financings in Q3, and the category remained the largest by capital raised. But its dollar totals are unusually sensitive to transactions of this scale.

Which MedTech categories are actually gaining investors?

Diagnostic Devices is gaining the clearest momentum, while Therapeutic Devices remains active and several other categories have already given back much of their early-2026 growth.

Therapeutic Devices recorded 22 transactions in Q1, 17 in Q2 and 14 in Q3. Capital declined from $628.1 million in Q1 to $315.7 million in Q3.

Implantable Devices followed a less consistent path, with nine, 17 and 11 deals. Its capital peak was unusually concentrated.

Digital Medical Software expanded rapidly in the first half before dropping to three transactions in Q3. Patient Monitoring Devices increased from two deals in Q1 to eight in Q2, then moderated to five.

Surgical & Robotic Systems remained relatively steady in deal count, with five, six and four transactions, but its capital fell to just $27.4 million in Q3.

Medical Imaging Systems experienced an even sharper slowdown, moving from five deals in Q1 and Q2 to only one in Q3.

The differences between categories are becoming more important now that overall funding has slowed. A company operating in diagnostics faces a visibly different recent fundraising environment from one seeking capital in medical imaging or digital medical software.

MedTech category	Q1 '26 deals	Q2 '26 deals	Q3 '26 deals	Q3 capital
Diagnostic Devices	3	13	9	$167.4M
Therapeutic Devices	22	17	14	$315.7M
Implantable Devices	9	17	11	$463.8M
Digital Medical Software	8	10	3	$89.0M
Patient Monitoring Devices	2	8	5	$78.7M
Surgical & Robotic Systems	5	6	4	$27.4M
Medical Imaging Systems	5	5	1	$6.0M

Are investors losing interest in digital medical software?

Digital Medical Software funding has cooled dramatically since Q2 2026, although there is not enough evidence to conclude that investors are abandoning the category.

The change in deal activity was sharp. Software financings increased from one in Q4 2025 to eight in Q1 2026 and ten in Q2, then dropped to three in Q3. A sharp drop in software deals leaves open which digital models make money and keep margins, a question we study in our report on MedTech.

Capital followed a similar pattern, rising to $219.4 million in Q2 before falling to $89 million.

Still, the wider market also experienced a substantial third-quarter slowdown, and other physical-device categories suffered comparable reversals.

The regulatory picture is also worth separating from fundraising. The FDA continues authorizing AI-enabled medical devices, including software used in diagnostic imaging, clinical decision-making and monitoring.

Regulatory authorization and venture funding measure different things. A growing population of authorized medical-software products does not guarantee that investors will finance more startups in every quarter.

For now, the fundraising figures establish a sharp reversal after two strong quarters. We would need to see continued weakness relative to other MedTech categories before concluding that investor priorities have permanently changed.

Is North America taking over MedTech startup funding?

North America remains the biggest region for MedTech financing and increased its share of global deals in Q3 2026, partly because Europe slowed much faster.

North American deals rose from 12 in Q4 2025 to 24 in Q1 2026 and 37 in Q2. They subsequently declined to 29 in Q3.

Europe recorded 11, 18 and 28 deals across the same first three quarters, before falling to 12 in Q3.

That 57.1% European decline was much sharper than the overall market contraction.

Asia-Pacific followed another pattern. Deal activity peaked at ten transactions in Q1 2026, then fell to eight in Q2 and four in Q3.

As a result, North America accounted for 61.7% of Q3 MedTech financings.

There is a difference between increasing market share and attracting more investment. North America actually recorded fewer deals than in Q2, despite becoming relatively more dominant.

The region's earlier capital share was also heavily influenced by unusually large American transactions, particularly MiRus.

Our figures therefore confirm sustained North American leadership in funded-company activity. They do not yet show a continuously widening advantage in absolute financing volume.

Are corporate investors becoming more active in MedTech?

Corporate investors are appearing in a larger share of MedTech financings lately, with strategic-backed transactions reaching their highest proportion of the five-quarter period in Q3 2026.

Strategic investors participated in 7.1% of recorded deals in Q4 2025, followed by 16.7% in Q1 2026, 17.1% in Q2 and 21.3% in Q3.

The median strategic-backed financing also increased during the three 2026 quarters, from $11.75 million to $22.96 million and then $23.65 million.

Boston Scientific's MiRus transaction demonstrates the sort of opportunity that can attract corporate capital. It involved a substantial equity investment, access to a promising structural-heart technology and contractual rights over a potential future acquisition.

Other strategic-backed deals may serve different purposes, including product development, commercial partnerships or access to specialist technology.

Our investor records also show repeated lead or co-lead appearances from firms such as Medtronic and S3 Ventures in Q3.

However, the dataset does not fully reconcile investor aliases or identify every strategic participant. The shares should therefore be read as recorded participation rather than a complete census of corporate investment.

The recent increase is worth taking seriously, especially because it continued during a weaker funding quarter. It remains an emerging pattern rather than a proven long-term trend.

Are new investors entering MedTech, or are the same firms funding everything?

MedTech attracted substantially more disclosed lead-investor activity during the early-2026 recovery, but we cannot yet show that the investor base itself is becoming more diverse.

The number of identifiable lead-investor names increased from 28 in Q4 2025 to 55 in Q1 2026, before declining to 54 in Q2 and 41 in Q3. Churn among lead investors makes it worth asking what they back and what they now avoid, as we do in our market report about MedTech.

Disclosure quality changed at the same time. We could identify lead investors for 74.1% of Q1 financings, compared with 57.9% in Q2 and 59.6% in Q3.

That makes it difficult to distinguish genuine changes in investor participation from differences in available information.

Several specialist investors appeared repeatedly. Sonder Capital was among the recurring names in Q4 2025, Arboretum Ventures and Sherpa Healthcare Partners in Q1 2026, and S3 Ventures and Medtronic in Q3.

SetPoint Medical offers a useful example of how specialist investors can work together on substantial rounds. Its August 2025 Series D was co-led by Elevage Medical Technologies and Ally Bridge Group, with participation from several new and returning investors.

The structure shows that established specialist investors can remain involved as companies approach commercialization.

We have stronger evidence that investor activity rose alongside financing volume than that entirely new pools of capital entered MedTech. The latter would require more complete investor identities and funding histories.

Are MedTech startups struggling to raise bigger growth rounds?

MedTech has a visible gap between the large number of smaller financings and the relatively limited number of substantial growth rounds. Whether that reflects an actual funding shortage is harder to prove.

During the first half of 2026, the increase in smaller deals was much stronger than the increase in mid-sized transactions.

By Q3, 29 financings were below $20 million, while only 12 were between $20 million and $50 million. There was just one financing of at least $100 million.

Capital requirements often increase substantially as medical-technology companies move toward pivotal clinical studies, regulatory submissions, manufacturing and commercialization.

The FDA's regulatory framework illustrates some of those development requirements. Depending on the product, a company may need to obtain 510(k) clearance, De Novo authorization or premarket approval. More demanding clinical and regulatory pathways can involve considerable development work before a device reaches the market.

Large private financings can help companies cross those stages. SetPoint Medical specifically linked its $140 million raise to commercialization and pipeline development, while MiRus received strategic capital alongside the progression of its transcatheter valve program.

But the database only captures completed financings. It does not record every unsuccessful fundraising attempt or how much money companies originally sought.

The concern is the narrow and inconsistent flow of larger rounds relative to smaller financings. We cannot yet calculate how many otherwise viable companies are being held back by a shortage of capital.

What is MedTech funding really telling us right now?

MedTech funding remains active, but the recovery has become less convincing after a sharp third-quarter slowdown. The strongest underlying change is that smaller startups gained much better access to financing during early 2026, even though large and established companies continued attracting most of the capital.

The early-2026 recovery was broad. More companies raised money, early-stage deals increased and several categories expanded together. Q1 was particularly strong because that improvement remained visible after removing the biggest transactions.

The subsequent boom in reported capital was much narrower. MiRus accounted for almost half of Q2 funding, showing how an individual strategic investment can completely change the headline picture.

Smaller rounds have become more common, but bigger growth financings remain inconsistent. This is one of the clearest areas to watch because medical-device companies often need substantial additional capital as their products approach commercialization.

Diagnostic Devices currently has the most convincing category momentum. Funding has increased across consecutive quarters, supported by elevated deal activity and relatively modest typical round sizes. Software, therapeutic devices and surgical robotics have experienced more uneven developments.

Strategic investors are another important part of the picture. Their participation reached a recent high in Q3, even as general deal activity slowed. Corporate involvement may become increasingly influential in deciding which advanced medical technologies receive substantial financing.

North America continues to lead by deal count, although its relative advantage increased recently because other regions weakened more sharply.

The most important unresolved question is whether the early-2026 expansion can resume. We would look for several consecutive quarters of higher deal counts, stronger financing outside the largest rounds, and renewed first-financing activity before concluding that MedTech has entered a lasting recovery.

For now, the market is still funding new ideas, but investors appear much more selective about where they commit substantial amounts of capital.