Neurotechnology Funding Tracker (204 deals)

Our funding tracker covering the neurotechnology 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 on neurotech funding, valuations and who's ahead.

Is neurotechnology really a $5 billion funding market right now?

Neurotechnology funding is genuinely a multi-billion-dollar market, but the $4.95 billion headline makes money look much easier to raise than it actually is today.

We counted 204 financings across our research window, with disclosed deal sizes for 170 of them. Those known rounds add up to $4.95 billion. The catch is that most of the dollars sit at the very top: 25 rounds above $50 million generated 62.9% of all disclosed capital, while only eight rounds above $100 million generated 38.6%.

Meanwhile, the median disclosed round was $11 million. That number is far closer to the experience of a normal funded company than the giant BCI rounds people usually read about.

So yes, the market is large, but the distribution is extremely uneven. There is a long base of small and mid-sized financings underneath a narrow layer of very expensive neurotechnology platforms.

Deal size	Deals	Known capital
Under $5M	59	$134.1M
$5M–<$20M	52	$577.1M
$20M–<$50M	30	$927.3M
$50M–<$100M	18	$1.10B
$100M+	11	$2.21B
Amount undisclosed	34	-
Total	204	$4.95B

How many neurotechnology companies are actually getting funded?

We found 168 neurotechnology companies, and most of them only appeared once during the period we studied.

There were 136 companies with one qualifying financing, 28 with two, and only four with three or more. Just 32 companies, or 19.0% of the funded cohort, came back for another qualifying round during the window.

That gives a more useful sense of the market than the 204-deal headline. Neurotechnology has a decent number of funded companies, but repeat institutional financing is much rarer.

The gap is even bigger when we look at how far companies get financially. Nearly half of the companies we tracked never raised more than $5 million cumulatively during the window, while only 16.1% crossed $50 million.

Who is actually getting the biggest neurotechnology checks?

The biggest neurotechnology checks are going to a small group of BCI and advanced therapeutic-device companies.

The ten best-funded companies in our research account for 46.1% of all known capital. Neuralink sits far ahead at $650 million, followed by BrainCo, Merge Labs, Blackrock Neurotech and Synchron.

What stands out is how dominant BCI has become at the top. Six of the ten companies are BCI businesses. SetPoint, Saluda and Cognito show another route into the same funding tier: clinically advanced neuromodulation platforms can also absorb very large amounts once they approach approval or commercialization.

Company	Capital raised in our window
Neuralink	$650.0M
BrainCo	$336.3M
Merge Labs	$252.0M
Blackrock Neurotech	$212.4M
Synchron	$200.0M
Cognito Therapeutics	$140.0M
SetPoint Medical	$140.0M
Saluda Medical	$130.0M
Shanghai StairMed	$120.5M
Precision Neuroscience	$102.0M

What can a normal neurotechnology startup realistically raise?

For a normal neurotechnology startup today, a few million to the low tens of millions is a much more realistic benchmark than the nine-figure rounds in the headlines.

The median first financing was $3 million. The median across every disclosed round was $11 million, and Series A came in at $13.6 million. Companies reaching Series B were playing a different game, with a $33 million median.

The average round was much higher at $29.1 million because huge financings drag it upward. The same distortion appears at company level: the median company raised $7.4 million during our window, compared with a $29.5 million average.

For founders trying to understand what this market normally funds, those medians are the numbers worth remembering.

Which part of neurotechnology is getting the most money today?

Brain-computer interfaces are getting the biggest neurotechnology checks by a wide margin.

BCI generated 64 deals and $2.62 billion of known capital. That means 31.4% of financings captured 52.8% of the money. The median BCI round was $19.5 million, also the highest of the six categories we tracked.

Neuromodulation is actually busier, with 89 deals, but its $1.75 billion of funding is spread across a wider range of companies and check sizes. The rest of the market sits far below those two categories.

EEG analytics, neuro-monitoring, neurodiagnostics and clinical neurosoftware are all real funding markets. None currently comes close to the financial scale of implantable or therapeutic platforms.

Category	Deals	Known capital	Share of capital	Median round
Brain Computer Interfaces	64	$2.62B	52.8%	$19.5M
Neuromodulation Devices	89	$1.75B	35.4%	$12.0M
Neuro Monitoring Tools	18	$230.8M	4.7%	$4.7M
EEG Analytics Platforms	11	$142.2M	2.9%	$5.8M
Neurodiagnostic Systems	11	$124.4M	2.5%	$9.9M
Clinical Neurosoftware	11	$84.7M	1.7%	$6.2M
Total	204	$4.95B	100%	$11.0M

Why are BCI startups raising such huge rounds right now?

BCI startups are raising huge rounds because the leading companies are paying for clinical programs, implants, neural data, AI, manufacturing and eventual deployment at the same time.

Neuralink's $650 million Series E is the clearest example. The company said the funding would support wider patient access, new devices and additional brain-interface programs. That is a much broader spending problem than developing a piece of software.

Synchron shows what the next stage looks like. Its $200 million Series D was raised to push clinical development, commercialization and next-generation technology. The company's current website still describes Stentrode as investigational and says the system is being assessed in clinical studies in the United States and Australia.

Precision Neuroscience has moved further into clinical deployment. Its current website says its Layer 7 technology has been used in more than 95 study patients and across more than 15 hospital partners. The company also received FDA clearance for its cortical electrode array after raising its Series C.

Then there is Merge Labs, which raised $252 million at launch. OpenAI invested in the company and described a research collaboration around scientific foundation models and other AI tools for BCI development.

Once a company is building an implant or neural interface that has to work reliably in humans, raising money means funding much more than product engineering. That's where the check sizes start to jump.

Is neuromodulation still attracting serious neurotechnology money?

Neuromodulation is still attracting serious money, especially when a company reaches clinical, regulatory or commercial milestones.

Amber Therapeutics raised $100 million for an implantable adaptive neuromodulation system and used the funding to advance clinical work, manufacturing and preparation for a pivotal U.S. program.

SetPoint Medical provides an even clearer example of what later-stage capital can look like. The company announced $140 million of financing across a Series C tranche and Series D as it prepared to commercialize its vagus-nerve therapy for rheumatoid arthritis. Its system subsequently moved into the FDA-approved market, taking SetPoint beyond the development-stage profile that still describes much of neurotechnology.

Saluda Medical raised $100 million mainly to expand commercialization of its Evoke closed-loop spinal-cord stimulation system.

These deals explain why neuromodulation produces so many financings without matching BCI's overall capital intensity. The category includes everything from young device companies to businesses already funding commercial rollout.

How old are neurotechnology companies before investors write big checks?

Neurotechnology companies usually spend several years building before investors start writing the really large checks.

The median company was five years old at the time of financing. For rounds above $50 million, that rose to seven years. Companies raising less than $5 million had a median age of only three.

The progression by stage is also fairly intuitive. Seed companies were two years old on median. Series A companies were six, Series B companies seven and Series C companies eight. Series D+ companies had reached a median age of 14 years.

BCI is younger than the rest of the market, with a median company age of three years. Neuromodulation sits at five, while neurodiagnostic companies were seven years old on median.

Big neurotechnology funding usually comes after a long period of technical development, even if a handful of new BCI companies have managed to compress that timeline.

Is neurotechnology still mostly an early-stage market?

Early-stage neurotechnology deals dominate the count, while later-stage companies take most of the money.

Among financings where we could establish the stage reliably, 68.8% were early stage and 31.2% were later stage. Yet later-stage rounds captured 68.1% of classified capital.

Check sizes climb quickly as companies mature. Seed had a $3 million median, Series A $13.6 million and Series B $33 million. Series D+ reached $49 million.

One caveat is worth keeping visible: 16.7% of the deals did not have a stage we considered reliable enough to classify. Chinese private rounds, strategic investments and additional closes are responsible for a meaningful part of that uncertainty.

Even with that caveat, the broad picture is clear. Lots of companies get early money. Serious capital appears much later.

Why do so few neurotechnology companies reach Series C?

Series C is the clearest weak point in the neurotechnology funding ladder.

We counted 23 Series B financings but only nine Series C rounds. There were actually 15 Series D+ financings, which tells us this is not a neat venture funnel where every company moves from B to C to D in sequence. Some older businesses entered the window at a later stage, while other rounds had no reliable stage label.

Still, nine Series Cs is remarkably thin for a market with 204 financings.

By that point, a neurotechnology company often needs to show more than a promising prototype. Investors may be underwriting clinical evidence, regulatory execution, implant manufacturing, hospital workflows or the first real commercialization effort. Those are expensive milestones and much harder to finance than another year of early R&D.

Precision Neuroscience illustrates the bar well. By the time it raised Series C capital, the company had already moved into human studies and was building toward regulatory and clinical deployment.

Are new neurotechnology startups still getting funded?

New neurotechnology startups are still getting funded, but follow-on rounds dominate the market these days.

We identified 54 first financings, representing 26.5% of all deals. They raised $727.8 million, or 14.7% of known capital. Their median check was just $3 million.

The 150 follow-on financings had a $14 million median and accounted for $4.23 billion.

Merge Labs makes the first-financing total look unusually large because its reported $252 million launch round sits inside that group. Remove exceptional cases like that and new-company funding looks much closer to a conventional Seed market.

So there is still plenty of formation happening in neurotechnology. The bigger pools of money are going to companies investors already know.

Where is neurotechnology funding happening right now?

North America remains the place where neurotechnology companies raise the most serious amounts of capital.

The region produced 81 deals, or 39.7% of the market, but captured $3.47 billion and 70.1% of all disclosed funding. Its median round was $18.9 million.

Asia-Pacific was surprisingly close in activity with 77 deals, yet those financings generated $965.2 million and a $9.8 million median. China can still produce major exceptions: BrainCo and Shanghai StairMed both raised large BCI financings.

Europe had 44 deals but only $501.9 million of known capital. Its $3.5 million median is the clearest indication of how different the financing environment is from North America.

Region	Deals	Known capital	Median round
North America	81	$3.47B	$18.9M
Asia-Pacific	77	$965.2M	$9.8M
Europe	44	$501.9M	$3.5M
Middle East	1	$11.0M	$11.0M
Latin America	1	$3.0M	$3.0M
Total	204	$4.95B	$11.0M

Do strategic investors actually matter in neurotechnology?

Strategic investors show up in a minority of neurotechnology rounds, but they tend to appear around much larger financings.

We found strategic participation in 32 deals, or 15.7% of the market. The median financing with a strategic investor was $22 million, versus $9.1 million without one.

The companies involved help explain the gap. BrainCo's large financing included industrial investors connected to electronics, components and manufacturing. SetPoint's Series D syndicate included Abbott, Boston Scientific and Northwell Health. OpenAI backed Merge Labs while also collaborating on AI research for its BCI work.

We should be careful with causality here. Strategic investors may be showing up because these companies have already reached a valuable stage rather than causing the round to become larger.

Either way, corporate participation tends to cluster around neurotechnology that is getting close to manufacturing, clinical deployment or a strategically useful platform.

Which investors keep coming back to neurotechnology?

Very few lead investors keep appearing across neurotechnology deals, which makes the market much more fragmented than the headline funding total suggests.

We could identify a lead investor in 150 financings and found 189 different disclosed lead investors across those rounds. Only 19 investors led more than once.

Nexus NeuroTech Ventures appeared four times. Hatteras and EQT Life Sciences appeared three times each. IDG, Morningside, Omega, Novo and OrbiMed were among the firms appearing twice.

There is clearly specialist capital in neurotechnology, but no tiny group of firms repeatedly underwriting the whole market from Seed to scale.

That fragmentation is manageable at the early stage, where many investors can write smaller checks. It becomes more noticeable once a company needs tens of millions for clinical development or commercialization.

Does neurotechnology funding arrive steadily or in bursts?

Neurotechnology deal flow is fairly steady, while the dollars jump around dramatically from month to month.

The median completed month had six financings. The busiest month reached 12 deals, so new transactions never disappeared for long during the period we studied.

Capital behaves very differently. The biggest month reached roughly $698 million, driven overwhelmingly by Neuralink's Series E. Other months with similar deal counts were worth only a fraction as much.

That is why a huge monthly funding number can be misleading in neurotechnology. It may tell us that one mature platform found a very large investor syndicate rather than that financing became easier for the whole sector.

As seen above, the same pattern runs through the entire market: activity is fairly broad, but big dollars arrive in bursts.

What should we actually take away from the funding data?

Neurotechnology funding today is much broader in company count than it is in serious capital.

There are 168 funded companies in our research, but only a small upper tier has access to the money needed for large clinical, manufacturing and commercialization programs.

BCI has become the financial heavyweight of the market. Investors are willing to write exceptionally large checks when they believe a neural-interface platform can move from engineering into humans and eventually into real use.

Neuromodulation follows a different path. There are more deals, and the category can produce very large financings once a therapy reaches pivotal development, approval or commercialization.

Early-stage neurotechnology is still active. The harder part is moving from a funded technical project into a company that can repeatedly raise institutional-scale capital. The thin Series C market captures that problem better than any headline funding total.

Finally, anyone looking at the $4.95 billion market total should keep the ordinary company in mind. Most neurotechnology businesses are raising millions, not hundreds of millions. The spectacular rounds are real, but they describe the top of the market rather than everyday fundraising conditions.