MedTech funding tracker (454 deals)

Our funding tracker covering the MedTech 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 MedTech market.

Is MedTech really a $15 billion funding market today?

Yes. MedTech companies raised about $14.90 billion across 454 financings in the period we studied, but that headline makes the typical round look much bigger than it really is.

The median MedTech financing is $14.23 million, while the average is $32.97 million. That gap comes from a relatively small group of very large rounds. Just 76 financings above $50 million account for 62.4% of all capital.

Strip those rounds out and $5.61 billion remains. Even after removing every deal above $100 million, however, we still get $9.15 billion. MedTech is clearly a deep funding market; its headline size simply reflects a heavy upper tail.

That upper tail has become especially visible lately as advanced device companies have raised hundreds of millions for clinical programs, manufacturing and commercialization. Neuralink's $650 million Series E, HistoSonics' $250 million growth financing and Boston Scientific's investment in MiRus are three very different examples of how large MedTech checks can become once a company moves well beyond the prototype stage.

Market measure	Result
Financings	454
Companies	428
Known capital	$14.90B
Median round	$14.23M
Average round	$32.97M
Rounds above $50M	76
Capital excluding >$100M rounds	$9.15B

How much can a normal MedTech startup actually raise?

A normal MedTech financing today is much closer to $10 million or $20 million than to the giant rounds that dominate industry headlines.

More than half of the financings we found are below $20 million. There are 112 rounds below $5 million and another 148 between $5 million and $20 million. Together, those two groups represent 57.3% of disclosed deals but only around 12% of the money.

Once a company gets beyond $50 million, the economics change quickly. Only 86 financings reach that level, yet they pull in almost two-thirds of known capital. The 33 rounds of $100 million or more alone account for 43.3%.

For founders, that gives a much more useful benchmark than the market-wide average. A $10 million to $20 million raise sits near the middle of the MedTech market. A $50 million round already puts a company in a relatively small group. A $100 million-plus financing puts it firmly in the market's top tier.

Round size	Deals	Share of deals	Capital	Share of capital
<$5M	112	24.7%	$271.5M	1.8%
$5M–<$20M	148	32.6%	$1.57B	10.6%
$20M–<$50M	106	23.3%	$3.26B	21.9%
$50M–<$100M	53	11.7%	$3.34B	22.4%
$100M+	33	7.3%	$6.46B	43.3%
Usable round sizes	452	99.6%	$14.90B	100%

Is MedTech funding concentrated in just a few companies?

MedTech funding is top-heavy, but a surprisingly large amount of money still sits outside the biggest names.

The largest company accounts for 10.1% of capital, the top five for 19.6%, and the top ten for 26.6%. That leaves almost three-quarters of the money outside the ten largest recipients.

We also found a remarkably broad company base: 428 businesses received qualifying funding. Seventy-three of them raised more than $50 million cumulatively during the period, while about 28% never got above $5 million.

What makes the concentration unusual is that the biggest companies generally did not reach the top by raising over and over again. Most of the capital leaders appear only once in the period. The market's upper tail comes largely from different companies landing one exceptional financing.

Which MedTech companies raised the most money?

MiRus sits far above every other MedTech company in our funding ranking, followed by Neuralink and a cluster of companies around the $200 million to $270 million mark.

Boston Scientific invested $1.5 billion in MiRus for roughly 34% of the company. Neuralink raised $650 million in its Series E. Cornerstone Robotics accumulated $270 million across two qualifying rounds, while HistoSonics and Precision Neuroscience each reached $250 million.

The names below also show how much neurotechnology features near the top. Neuralink, Precision Neuroscience, Science Corporation, Blackrock Neurotech and Synchron all sit among the ten largest recipients. Large MedTech financing currently stretches well beyond traditional cardiovascular or surgical devices.

Company	Rounds	Capital
MiRus LLC	1	$1.50B
Neuralink	1	$650M
Cornerstone Robotics	2	$270M
HistoSonics	1	$250M
Precision Neuroscience	1	$250M
Science Corporation	1	$230M
CeQur	2	$220M
Blackrock Neurotech	1	$200M
Pulnovo Medical	2	$200M
Synchron	1	$200M

Is the MiRus deal making the MedTech market look bigger than it is?

Yes, MiRus makes the MedTech market look noticeably bigger in aggregate, and we should treat that transaction differently from an ordinary venture round.

Boston Scientific invested $1.5 billion for approximately 34% of MiRus and received an exclusive option linked to its TAVR business. Boston Scientific also disclosed that exercising the option after specified clinical and regulatory milestones could involve another $3 billion of payments for the TAVR business.

That structure tells us much more than the round label alone. Boston Scientific was buying a large minority stake while securing strategic access to an investigational cardiovascular technology. MiRus had already started the STAR pivotal trial of its SIEGEL valve, targeting enrollment of up to 1,025 patients.

The investment therefore belongs in the equity totals, but using it as a benchmark for what a normal growth-stage MedTech company can raise would be misleading. The transaction combines financing with the economics of strategic technology access.

Its effect was dramatic enough to reshape an entire month of funding. During the market's busiest month, MiRus supplied roughly four-fifths of all dollars even though deal activity itself was also unusually high.

Which part of MedTech is attracting the biggest checks?

Implantable Devices currently sit at the center of gravity of MedTech funding, taking 42.1% of all capital from less than one-quarter of the deals.

We found $6.28 billion across 108 Implantable Devices financings. Therapeutic Devices produce more activity, with 131 deals, but receive $4.14 billion. The gap becomes even clearer at the median: $23.15 million for Implantables versus $18 million for Therapeutic Devices.

Surgical and Robotic Systems sit well below them at a $10 million median, while Patient Monitoring comes in at $9 million and Medical Imaging at $8.6 million.

The mix of companies explains part of this. Implantables include MiRus, Neuralink, Precision Neuroscience, Blackrock Neurotech and Synchron. Therapeutic Devices include large financings such as HistoSonics and SetPoint Medical but also a much wider population of ordinary rounds.

Medical Imaging sits at the other end. It generates 5.3% of deals but only 2.4% of funding, giving it the lowest median financing among the major categories in our comparison.

Category	Deals	Companies	Capital	Median
Implantable Devices	108	100	$6.28B	$23.15M
Therapeutic Devices	131	120	$4.14B	$18.0M
Surgical & Robotic Systems	54	53	$1.42B	$10.0M
Patient Monitoring	44	42	$1.02B	$9.0M
Digital Medical Software	47	45	$941.7M	$11.7M
Diagnostic Devices	46	44	$738.6M	$11.0M
Medical Imaging Systems	24	24	$358.6M	$8.6M

Why do implantable medical devices need so much money?

Implantable medical devices can stay expensive to finance long after the core technology already works because clinical validation, regulatory review, manufacturing and commercialization can each become major capital programs.

The FDA's current framework helps explain the funding pattern. Premarket Approval is the agency's most stringent medical-device marketing pathway and applies to Class III devices where sufficient scientific evidence of safety and effectiveness is required. For significant-risk clinical studies, sponsors can also need both FDA approval of an Investigational Device Exemption and institutional review board approval before starting the study.

That burden is particularly relevant to implants. The FDA explicitly includes implants among the devices that can qualify as significant risk when they present potential serious risk to patients.

We can see those economics in recent financings. Neuralink said its $650 million round would support wider patient access, global clinical trials and development of future brain-interface devices. Blackrock Neurotech described Tether's $200 million investment as capital to accelerate development and commercialization of implantable BCI technology. MiRus is running a pivotal TAVR trial while preparing a technology that Boston Scientific sees as strategically valuable.

SetPoint Medical gives another useful example. Its $140 million financing combined a $25 million Series C tranche with a $115 million Series D, with proceeds earmarked for commercialization of its neuroimmune modulation therapy and further pipeline development.

The expensive part of MedTech often starts after the invention has already proved interesting.

How old are MedTech companies when they raise serious money?

MedTech companies are usually several years old before large institutional checks arrive, and the typical funded company with reliable founding data is seven years old.

Company age rises steadily through the financing ladder. Seed companies have a median age of three years, Series A six, Series B eight, Series C nine, Series D+ eleven and Growth Equity thirteen.

Large rounds also skew older. Companies raising more than $50 million have a median age of eight years, compared with five years for companies raising less than $5 million.

Exact age comparisons need some caution because reliable founding information is available for roughly two-thirds of companies. During our quality-control work, we also found several obvious spreadsheet date artifacts that required checking against company records and official registries before they could be used.

Even with that limitation, the pattern is unusually clean. MedTech funding these days is mostly supporting companies that have already spent years building products, evidence and regulatory credibility.

Where does the MedTech funding ladder get hardest?

Series A to Series B is the clearest financing bottleneck in MedTech right now.

We count 113 Series A deals and only 68 Series B deals, a drop of about 40%. At the same time, the median financing jumps from $11.73 million to $25.3 million.

That's a demanding combination. There are substantially fewer Series B financings than Series A financings, just as the typical capital requirement more than doubles.

The ladder keeps narrowing after that, although less abruptly: 52 Series C financings, 42 Series D+ and 25 Growth Equity deals. Median round sizes rise to $40 million at Series C and $51 million at Series D+.

One curious feature appears at the bottom. Series A actually has more deals than Seed. That makes sense once we look at company age and financing history: plenty of businesses entering our period were founded well before it and had already received previous capital.

Stage	Deals	Capital	Median round
Seed	93	$388.8M	$2.5M
Series A	113	$1.87B	$11.73M
Series B	68	$2.27B	$25.3M
Series C	52	$2.59B	$40.0M
Series D+	42	$3.55B	$51.0M
Growth Equity	25	$2.94B	$50.0M
Unknown	61	$1.30B	$5.55M

Is MedTech mostly funding companies that have already raised before?

Yes. MedTech is overwhelmingly a follow-on funding market, with investors putting most of their money into companies that had already raised external capital.

We classify 373 deals as follow-ons and only 78 as first financings. Follow-ons account for roughly 96% of known funding.

The company-level picture adds another layer. Of 428 funded companies, 403 appear only once during our 33-month window. Twenty-four appear twice and only GT Medical Technologies appears three times.

Those two facts fit together. Most MedTech businesses had funding histories stretching back before our period, but they were not returning every few months for another round during it.

Long development cycles help explain why. A company can spend substantial time between financings enrolling patients, obtaining regulatory clearance, manufacturing devices or building a commercial organization. Neocis is a good example of why financing dates can even become ambiguous: the company announced $20 million of additional financing in January 2024 while stating that the money had actually been secured during 2023.

MedTech capital is mainly going toward progressing existing businesses rather than financing newly created ones.

Do strategic investors really matter in MedTech?

Strategic investors matter a lot more economically than their deal count suggests: only 18.7% of MedTech financings include an identified strategic investor, yet those rounds have almost twice the median size.

The median financing with a strategic investor is $23.3 million, compared with $12.5 million without one.

Strategics also appear where the technology can connect directly with an existing product portfolio or healthcare network. Medtronic is the most recurrent named strategic in our review, appearing in six deals. Intuitive Ventures, Mayo Clinic, Orlando Health Ventures, OSF Ventures, ZEISS Ventures and CU Healthcare Innovation Fund also recur.

The pattern gets stronger later in the financing ladder. Strategic participation reaches roughly 29% around Series C and 28% in Growth Equity. Patient Monitoring has the highest category penetration at 29.5%, ahead of Surgical and Robotic Systems and Digital Medical Software.

Boston Scientific and MiRus show the extreme end of this relationship. At a more conventional scale, SetPoint Medical's Series D included existing investors Abbott and Boston Scientific as the company prepared for commercialization.

We should not read the larger median as proof that strategic investors themselves create bigger rounds. More mature companies are more likely to attract both large checks and corporate attention. Still, corporate participation is clearly part of the funding architecture once MedTech assets become commercially meaningful.

Which MedTech investors keep showing up?

MedTech has repeat specialist investors, but no small group controls the funding market.

Lead investors are disclosed in 307 deals, and we count 343 distinct disclosed leads because a substantial number of rounds are co-led. Only 59 leads appear more than once.

Arboretum Ventures is the most frequent repeat lead with six financings. Ally Bridge Group, Novo Holdings, U.S. Venture Partners and S3 Ventures appear five times each. Andera Partners, Sofinnova Partners, EQT Life Sciences, Vensana Capital, Panakès Partners and Bpifrance each appear four times.

The investor mix is also wider than classic venture capital. Growth investors, healthcare specialists, regional funds, crossover investors and corporate investors all appear repeatedly.

Only 43.6% of deals with disclosed leads involve at least one investor that leads another deal elsewhere in the market. In practice, a founder looking for MedTech capital is dealing with a much broader investor universe than the usual handful of famous Silicon Valley funds.

Is MedTech funding mainly an American market?

Yes. The United States gives MedTech its biggest financing pool by a wide margin, even though Europe has plenty of deal activity.

North America generates 49.3% of financings but 66.5% of capital, with a median round of $21.8 million. Europe contributes 38.1% of deals and only 23.7% of dollars, with a $10 million median.

The U.S. alone accounts for 215 financings and $9.73 billion. France, the UK and Switzerland each contribute substantial activity, but their individual totals remain far below the American market.

Europe's funding is more evenly distributed, though. Its largest deal represents only 4.2% of regional capital, while North America's largest financing accounts for 15.1%.

Asia-Pacific and the Middle East are much smaller in deal count. Their largest transactions also have more influence on regional totals, which makes short-term comparisons more sensitive to individual rounds.

For now, the geographic picture is fairly clear: Europe has a broad MedTech startup ecosystem, while the U.S. is where companies are much more likely to access very large checks.

Is MedTech funding getting busier lately?

Yes. Deal activity became noticeably busier during the later part of our period, and the increase goes beyond one or two mega-rounds.

The typical completed month has 12 financings. In the stronger stretch, monthly totals reached 24, 25, 29, 22 and 22 deals across several months.

The peak month reached 29 financings, more than twice the monthly median. It also produced $1.856 billion of capital, although the dollar figure was heavily inflated by MiRus.

That distinction is important when reading MedTech funding news. Monthly dollars can jump because one advanced company lands an enormous round. Monthly deal counts tell us whether the broader financing market is actually active.

Here, both moved higher during the strongest part of the period. The capital spike was concentrated, while the rise in deal volume was much broader.

Does MedTech actually have enough late-stage capital?

Yes. MedTech has a real late-stage funding market, although only a minority of companies make it there.

Series D+ contributes 42 financings worth $3.55 billion, while Growth Equity adds another 25 deals worth $2.94 billion. Series C brings in a further $2.59 billion.

Later-stage deals therefore account for the majority of classified capital, even though early-stage financings remain more numerous.

HistoSonics shows what scale capital can finance once a product moves into commercialization. The company announced a $250 million growth financing after its Edison histotripsy system had reached commercial use, with the money directed toward geographic expansion, new clinical indications and operational capacity.

CeQur offers another example. Its $120 million equity financing was aimed at commercial expansion of its wearable insulin-delivery device, followed later by another $100 million Series E as commercial activity continued.

There is plenty of money at the top of the MedTech ladder. Getting a company far enough along to qualify for it is the harder part.

What is surprisingly missing from MedTech funding today?

Very young companies, frequent repeat raises and a wide late-stage funnel are all relatively scarce in today's MedTech funding picture.

Only seven reliably dated funded companies were founded in 2025 or 2026. First financings account for 17.2% of deals. Only 25 companies come back for another qualifying round inside the period. Growth Equity contains 25 financings.

None of those counts means MedTech startup creation has stopped. Founding-year coverage is incomplete, and companies can receive grants, founder capital or other financing before their first institutional equity round.

Still, the overall shape is hard to miss. MedTech takes time. The market contains many Series A companies, fewer Series B companies, fewer again at Series C and a relatively small population capable of raising true scale capital.

The scarce resource is successful progression.

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

MedTech is currently a deep but demanding funding market: hundreds of companies can raise money, while very large checks remain concentrated among businesses that have already spent years reducing clinical, regulatory and commercial risk.

The typical financing is around the mid-teens of millions, far below the market-wide average. That is the most useful starting point for understanding what an ordinary MedTech company can realistically raise.

Implantable Devices are where the biggest capital requirements show up most clearly. They take more than two-fifths of funding, helped by enormous transactions in cardiovascular implants and brain-computer interfaces.

The clearest pressure point comes between Series A and Series B. Companies face a sharp fall in financing count just as the typical check more than doubles.

Company maturity is central to the whole story. The median reliably dated funded business is seven years old, and later stages are progressively older. Most of the money also goes into follow-on rounds rather than first financings.

Strategic investors sit in a minority of deals but become much more visible around larger and more mature financings. Medtronic, Boston Scientific and other industry players are putting capital behind assets that can eventually fit into existing clinical and commercial ecosystems.

And despite all the giant-round headlines, this remains a broad market. Hundreds of companies receive capital and nearly three-quarters of total funding sits outside the ten largest recipients. MedTech funding today rewards progress across a wide company base, but the checks become dramatically larger once a company proves it can survive the clinical, regulatory and commercialization journey.