What’s funding like in the Prop Tech market right now?

All funding deals in the Prop Tech market over the last 24 months

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 Prop Tech Market.

Is Prop Tech funding actually healthier now?

Prop Tech funding today looks weaker on breadth but stronger in the middle of the market.

We counted 120 financings from September 20, 2025 through September 19, 2026, down from 138 during the previous 12 months. The number of funded companies fell even faster, from 138 to 114. Fewer Prop Tech companies are getting checks these days.

The companies that do get funded are doing better on round size. The median disclosed financing increased from $4.4 million to $6.4 million, even though total disclosed capital fell from $2.067 billion to $1.168 billion.

That apparent contradiction is the main story. Last year's total was heavily inflated by a few enormous rounds, while today's funding is spread more evenly across normal venture and growth financings. Once rounds above $50 million are removed, the decline shrinks to just 5.1%.

So the market has become harder to enter, but it remains capable of funding credible companies with larger checks than a year ago.

Market measure	Latest 12 months	Previous 12 months	Change
Deals	120	138	-13.0%
Unique funded companies	114	138	-17.4%
Disclosed capital	$1.168B	$2.067B	-43.5%
Capital excluding >$50M rounds	$728.0M	$767.1M	-5.1%
Median disclosed round	$6.4M	$4.4M	+45.5%
Average disclosed round	$14.1M	$21.1M	-33.3%
First financings	42	41	+1
Strategic-backed deals	18	29	-11
Largest disclosed round	$170M	$370M	-54.1%

Did Prop Tech funding really fall 43%?

The 43.5% drop in Prop Tech funding overstates how much the everyday funding market weakened.

The biggest difference between the two periods sits at the very top. The previous 12 months included Lighthouse's $370 million round, Hostaway's $365 million financing and Entrata's $200 million investment. Together, those three deals generated 45.2% of all disclosed capital for the period.

The latest 12 months have large rounds too, led by Property Finder at $170 million, but the top three account for only 28.1% of disclosed funding.

The comparison changes dramatically once we strip out the biggest deals. Capital below $50 million fell from $767.1 million to $728 million. Using a $100 million cutoff gives an 11.8% decline instead of 43.5%.

Even the current funding spikes are less dependent on one company. The strongest monthly interval produced about $483 million, but that came from a cluster of sizable financings rather than one $300 million or $400 million transaction carrying the month.

So yes, Prop Tech funding is down. But saying that the market has lost nearly half of its available capital gives the wrong impression of what most funded companies are experiencing.

Are fewer Prop Tech companies getting funded now?

Yes, fewer Prop Tech companies are getting funded now, and this is the clearest weak spot in the market.

We found 114 funded companies in the latest period, compared with 138 a year earlier. Deal count also fell, although less sharply, because six companies managed to raise twice during the current 12 months. A shrinking count of funded companies is one of the market signals we track every quarter in our proptech market report.

The contraction reaches across the market without wiping out entire segments. All six Prop Tech categories we track are still receiving funding, and every major geographic region remains represented.

In practical terms, investors still want exposure to the same broad Prop Tech opportunities. They are simply choosing fewer companies within them.

That makes today's market tougher than the headline round sizes suggest. For a company that gets funded, conditions can be quite good. Getting into that funded group has become harder.

Are normal Prop Tech funding rounds getting bigger?

Yes, normal-sized Prop Tech rounds are getting bigger even though total disclosed capital is down.

The median round increased 45.5%, from $4.4 million to $6.4 million. Meanwhile, the average fell by one-third because the previous period had much more money sitting in the extreme upper tail.

The deal-size distribution shows the change more clearly. Sub-$5 million rounds represented 51% of known-size financings a year ago and only 41% now. Most of that share moved into the $5 million to $50 million range.

For founders, that's a meaningful shift. Prop Tech has fewer funded companies overall, but investors are writing larger ordinary checks when they decide to back one.

Disclosed deal size	Current deals	Current share	Previous deals	Previous share	Change
<$5M	34	41.0%	50	51.0%	-10.1 pp
$5M–<$20M	31	37.3%	29	29.6%	+7.7 pp
$20M–<$50M	13	15.7%	11	11.2%	+4.4 pp
$50M–<$100M	4	4.8%	4	4.1%	+0.7 pp
$100M+	1	1.2%	4	4.1%	-2.9 pp
Known-size rounds	83	100%	98	100%	-15 deals
Median round	$6.4M	-	$4.4M	-	+45.5%

Are new Prop Tech startups still getting funded?

New Prop Tech startups are still getting funded at almost the same pace as a year ago.

We counted 42 first financings in the latest 12 months and 41 in the previous period. That's about as flat as it gets.

The share of deals going to first financings rose from 29.7% to 35%, but the percentage makes the change look bigger than it really is. New-company funding barely increased; the main reason its share rose is that follow-on activity declined.

There is still a small improvement underneath that flat deal count. First financings attracted $110.7 million of disclosed capital versus $92.6 million previously, and their median size increased from $2.6 million to $3 million.

As of now, we see no evidence of a new Prop Tech startup funding boom. We also don't see investors closing the door on new entrants.

Are existing Prop Tech companies taking more of the money?

Existing Prop Tech companies still take most of the money, but their share has actually eased.

Follow-on financings attracted about $1.057 billion, equal to roughly 90.5% of current disclosed capital. The previous figure was even higher at 95.4%.

What changed is how selective follow-on funding became. We counted 77 follow-on rounds versus 96 previously, while the median disclosed follow-on jumped from $6.05 million to $11.4 million. Follow-on money going to fewer companies shows where investors place their bets; we trace what they back and avoid in our market report about proptech.

Dwelly shows the extreme end of that pattern. Our dataset records roughly $43.2 million of equity in its first 2026 financing and another $95 million of equity in its Series B a few months later. The company announced the second transaction as a $170 million package once a separate $75 million debt facility was included.

Most Prop Tech companies obviously don't raise twice in a few months. Dwelly is useful because it shows what can happen when investors decide a company has earned another large check quickly: the amount available can be substantial.

Follow-on capital is being concentrated into fewer successful fundraisers rather than simply giving existing companies a bigger share across the board.

Is Prop Tech funding moving toward earlier-stage companies?

Prop Tech funding is moving earlier in dollar terms, mostly because giant late-stage checks disappeared.

Early-stage deals now represent 67.5% of activity, up from 60.9%. Their share of disclosed capital moved much more sharply, from about 18.6% to 34.5%.

Later-stage deal share barely changed at all: 18.1% previously and 18.3% now. Investors are still doing later-stage transactions. What we've lost are the unusually large checks that made late-stage funding dominate the previous period.

Series A gives us a better view of what is happening lower down the stack. The median Series A grew from $6.8 million to $14.7 million. Seed rounds also increased at the median, from roughly $2.42 million to $3.5 million.

Cubby's $63 million Series A is an unusually large example. The financing is formally early stage, but the money is being used for AI and software development, hiring, customer success and wider commercial scaling. That looks much closer to a serious expansion round than the stereotypical Series A used to find initial product-market fit.

Stage labels only tell part of the story these days. Capital is arriving earlier on paper, while some of the companies receiving it are already funding fairly mature scaling plans.

Which Prop Tech categories are actually gaining or losing momentum?

Brokerage Software has the clearest momentum in Prop Tech right now, while Building Operations has the clearest slowdown.

Real Estate Brokerage Software went from 29 to 30 deals, so its improvement is broader than Property Finder's $170 million financing alone. Deal share increased from 21% to 25%, capital share more than doubled to 28.3%, and the median financing rose from $3.65 million to $6.85 million. Where each category sits, from property marketplaces to software, is shown on the market maps and grids in our report covering the proptech market.

Real Estate Data Tools have become narrower but better funded at the median. Deals fell from 31 to 25, while the median increased from $2.3 million to $5.5 million. Last year's $370 million Lighthouse round also makes the year-on-year capital comparison look much worse than the normal deal flow suggests.

Property Management tells a similar story. Disclosed capital fell heavily because the previous period had Hostaway at $365 million and Entrata at $200 million. Yet deal count actually increased from 16 to 17 and the median round moved from $4.5 million to $8.1 million.

Building Operations looks different. Deals dropped from 25 to 15, disclosed capital fell from around $310 million to $77 million, and the median financing collapsed from $17.25 million to $4.5 million. The weakness shows up almost everywhere we look.

Prop Tech category	Current deals	Deal share	Capital share	Current median	What changed
Real Estate Brokerage Software	30	25.0%	28.3%	$6.85M	Broad improvement
Real Estate Data Tools	25	20.8%	24.3%	$5.5M	Fewer deals, larger median
Property Operations Software	19	15.8%	12.5%	$7.5M	Modest breadth gain
Property Management Systems	17	14.2%	20.8%	$8.1M	Healthy underneath prior megarounds
Building Operations Systems	15	12.5%	6.6%	$4.5M	Clear contraction
Leasing Technology	14	11.7%	7.6%	$4.0M	Moderate slowdown

Is Prop Tech funding shifting away from North America?

Prop Tech funding is becoming a little less North America-heavy, with Europe gaining the more convincing share of activity.

North America still leads with 40% of current deals, but that is down from 44.2%. Its share of disclosed capital also fell from 66.3% to 55.6%.

Europe moved from one-third of deals to 38.3% and now sits very close to North America on financing activity. Its capital share barely changed, which makes the increase in deal share more interesting: Europe's gain came from more relative activity rather than one giant financing reshaping the total.

The Middle East also increased from 5.1% to 7.5% of deals, but its jump to 16.8% of disclosed capital needs more caution. Property Finder alone raised $170 million. That financing was led by Mubadala alongside another UAE sovereign investor and BECO Capital, after Property Finder had already announced a separate $525 million investment led by Permira the previous year.

For now, the geographic broadening looks modest, with Europe providing the strongest evidence. The Middle East is attracting more attention too, although its dollar share is still heavily influenced by one regional heavyweight.

Are Prop Tech investors getting more selective now?

Prop Tech investors look more selective now: fewer companies are getting checks, but the checks that clear the bar are larger.

Lead-investor disclosure is unusually comparable between the two periods because coverage is 72.5% in both. Within that sample, unique disclosed lead investors fell from 114 to 98.

The market does not appear to be collapsing into a tiny circle of funds. Only five investors appeared more than once in each period, so repeat-investor concentration barely changed.

Deal count fell 13%, quite close to the drop in active lead investors. That looks more like fewer financing opportunities being completed across the market than a small group of funds suddenly controlling most deals.

The larger median round gives the change its edge. Investors are doing less, but they aren't shrinking every check. They are putting more money behind the companies they choose.

Are strategic investors pulling back from Prop Tech?

Strategic investors are playing a smaller role in Prop Tech today, especially in Building Operations.

We found 18 current deals with identified strategic backing, down from 29. The participation rate moved from 21% to 15%.

Most of the drop came from Building Operations, where strategic-backed deals fell from 14 to three. Real Estate Data Tools moved the other way, increasing from three to six. Which building operations problems customers will still pay to solve is something we describe in our report on proptech.

Orbital is a good example of the strategic capital that remains. Its $60 million Series B included REV, the venture arm of RELX, alongside Grosvenor Group and JLL Spark. Those investors sit directly around the legal-information and real-estate industries Orbital serves.

The pattern is fairly specific. Strategic capital has become less common overall, while some data-heavy businesses that plug directly into established real-estate workflows are still attracting industry investors.

We wouldn't push the interpretation much further than that. The figures tell us where strategic participation moved; they don't tell us why every corporate investor passed on a deal.

Are Prop Tech companies raising again more slowly?

Prop Tech follow-ons appear to be taking longer, but the sample is too thin for a strong market-wide claim.

For the 21 current follow-ons where we could reconstruct a previous Prop Tech financing date, the median interval was 14.9 months. The previous-period median was 11.7 months.

The raw comparison points toward a slower fundraising cycle. Only one-third of current observations returned within 12 months, versus 57.1% previously.

Coverage is the problem. We can reconstruct a prior date for only 21 of 77 current follow-ons and seven of 96 previous ones. The earlier comparison rests on seven companies, which isn't enough to confidently say the whole market has slowed by three months.

Round step-up data is even thinner. We found only 15 usable current observations and three in the previous period.

For now, the measurable companies are taking longer to come back to market. We'd want much better previous-round coverage before calling that a structural change in Prop Tech fundraising.

Do Prop Tech startups need more proof to raise now?

The biggest Prop Tech rounds today are going to companies with visible operating proof, although we can't show that every startup now faces a higher formal funding bar.

Company age gives us little evidence of investors simply demanding older businesses. The median age at financing actually moved from four years to three, while the first-financing median stayed at two years and the follow-on median stayed at five.

The better evidence comes from the companies receiving the larger checks. Property Finder's financing announcement pointed to strong financial performance, product adoption and continued regional expansion. Orbital's Series B is funding wider US and UK adoption of an already commercial platform. Dwelly's capital is being deployed into an operating business that acquires letting agencies and moves them onto its technology stack.

Those are very different businesses, but they share something useful: investors can see what the capital is supposed to accelerate.

We can't put a percentage on this trend because milestones aren't recorded consistently enough across the market. So we'd stop short of saying the funding bar has definitively moved higher for every Prop Tech startup.

What we can say is sharper: very large checks are currently clustering around companies that can point to commercial execution, not just a product roadmap.

What are Prop Tech companies actually raising money for now?

Large Prop Tech rounds now mix AI investment with sales, geographic expansion and acquisitions more often than pure product building.

Cubby's $63 million financing is going into AI and software development, hiring and customer success. Orbital's $60 million Series B supports expansion in the US and UK alongside continued product development. Dwelly's $95 million equity round combines AI-platform investment with buying more independent agencies and integrating them into the same operating system.

Property Finder sits further along the maturity curve. Its latest capital supports the continued scaling of a large regional property marketplace that is already attracting sovereign and global growth investors. Marketplaces and software startups earn money differently; we compare which proptech business models make money in our report covering the proptech market.

There is a clear commercial feel to these rounds, but scaling didn't suddenly appear this year. Hostaway's previous $365 million financing was already earmarked for international growth, product development and AI. Lighthouse's $370 million round was tied to platform innovation, strategic acquisitions and global expansion.

The shift is more subtle. AI is increasingly embedded inside the scaling plan itself. Companies are raising to automate real operating workflows, deepen product capabilities and then push those systems across more customers, markets or acquired businesses.

That gives current Prop Tech funding a more mature feel even while deal activity has become narrower.

What really changed in Prop Tech funding over the last 12 months?

Prop Tech funding has become narrower, more selective and less dependent on megarounds over the last 12 months.

The big dollar decline gets the attention, but it isn't the most useful description of the market. The structural change sits underneath it: fewer companies are being funded, ordinary successful rounds have become larger, and the biggest transactions no longer dominate the totals as much as they did a year ago.

Priority	What changed	What it tells us
1	Funding breadth declined	Getting funded has become harder for the average Prop Tech company
2	Ordinary round sizes increased	Investors still have capital for companies that clear the bar
3	Megaround dependence fell sharply	Headline funding now reflects the broader market better than last year's total did
4	New-company funding stayed resilient	Prop Tech has not shut out new entrants
5	Brokerage gained while Building Operations weakened	Category-level performance is diverging much more clearly
6	Follow-on capital became more selective	Fewer existing companies raised, while successful follow-ons became much larger
7	Large rounds increasingly fund execution and scaling	AI, expansion and acquisitions are now often part of the same financing story