Robotics Funding Tracker (364 deals)

Our funding tracker covering the robotics 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 Robotics Market.

Is robotics funding actually huge right now, or do mega-rounds make it look huge?

Robotics funding is huge at the top of the market, while the typical financing is still much closer to $10 million than $50 million.

We tracked 362 qualifying financings across 312 companies. Together they represent $15.33 billion of measurable capital on our conservative disclosed-capital basis.

The gap between the headline and the normal deal is wide. The median round is $13 million, while the average reaches $44.8 million. Remove rounds above $50 million and measured capital falls to $3.50 billion. The 53 known financings of $100 million or more account for 66.3% of all measurable dollars even though they make up only 14.6% of deals.

So yes, robotics is a seriously funded market today. But most founders are operating in a very different funding market from Figure, Apptronik, Saronic or the handful of other companies raising hundreds of millions.

Metric	Result
Financing events	362
Unique companies	312
Measurable capital	$15.33B
Median round	$13.0M
Average round	$44.8M
Capital excluding >$50M rounds	$3.50B
Known $100M+ rounds	53
Capital coming from $100M+ rounds	66.3%

How many robotics companies are actually getting funded?

We found 312 funded robotics companies, although only a small group manages to come back for another round during the period we studied.

Of those 312 companies, 270 appear only once. Thirty-five appear twice and seven appear at least three times. That leaves just 42 companies with multiple qualifying financings, or 13.5% of the funded population.

Those repeat fundraisers still collected about $6.90 billion, roughly 45% of all measurable capital. Companies that appear only once raised $8.43 billion.

A company appearing once in our dataset has not necessarily raised only once in its lifetime. It may have raised before our window or may raise again later. What we can say is that repeated access to capital within almost three years is concentrated in a fairly small group.

The shape is fairly stark: hundreds of companies can get funded, but only a few dozen show up repeatedly.

Is most robotics funding concentrated in just a handful of companies?

A small group of robotics companies holds a large share of the money, although no single company is big enough to explain the whole market.

The ten largest cumulative recipients account for 37.9% of measured capital. The top five account for 25%. Yet the largest company in our window, Mind Robotics, represents only 6.6%.

Company concentration is also noticeably higher than deal concentration. The ten largest individual financings account for 27.4% of capital, compared with 37.9% for the ten largest companies. Repeat rounds from companies such as Mind Robotics, Apptronik, ROBOTERA and Galaxea AI add up quickly when we stop treating every announcement as an isolated event.

Company-level funding tells us more about who really has financial firepower. A $300 million round is important, but a company that repeatedly raises $50 million, $100 million and then several hundred million is building a very different balance sheet from the rest of the market.

Company	Measurable capital in our window	Qualifying rounds
Mind Robotics	$1.015B	3
Apptronik	$923M	3
Figure AI	$675M	1
ROBOTERA	≥$625M	4
Saronic Technologies	$600M	1
Galaxea AI	≈$476M	3
Galbot	≥$453M	2
LimX Dynamics	≈$400M + undisclosed round	3
Bedrock Robotics	$337.3M	2
Walden Robotics	$300M	1

What can a normal robotics startup realistically raise today?

Most robotics startups are raising somewhere in the low millions to low tens of millions, not the giant checks that dominate funding headlines.

More than half of all financings, 55.5%, are below $20 million. We count 86 deals below $5 million and another 115 between $5 million and $20 million. By comparison, there are only 53 known rounds at $100 million or more.

The picture is similar at company level. Median cumulative funding per company is $11.6 million, against an average of $49.1 million. Almost 31% of funded companies never exceed $5 million during our window, while 21.5% raise more than $50 million.

For a founder, the $44.8 million average round is therefore a pretty poor benchmark. The $13 million median and the distribution below $20 million tell us much more about what an ordinary financing looks like.

The giant rounds are real. They just live in a different part of the market.

Is robotics funding going to new startups or companies that already raised before?

Most robotics capital today goes to companies that already have investors behind them.

Only 67 transactions in our research are identified as first financings, or 18.5% of the total. Their median size is $4 million.

Follow-on financings account for 287 deals and carry an $18 million median. More strikingly, they absorb roughly 93.5% of measurable capital.

The stage data point in the same direction. Seed and Series A still account for 64.7% of classified transactions, so plenty of younger robotics companies are entering the market. But those rounds receive only 37.5% of classified capital.

Robotics still has a healthy stream of early-stage bets, while the really large pools of money are being reserved for companies that have already survived one or more rounds of technical and commercial scrutiny.

Which parts of robotics are getting the biggest checks right now?

Collaborative and humanoid-style robotics currently stand out for check size, while Infrastructure Service Robots remain the largest category by sheer volume.

Infrastructure Service Robots account for 143 financings and $5.44 billion. Their 39.5% share of deals is actually larger than their 35.5% share of capital.

Collaborative Robots look completely different. They represent only 14.4% of transactions but absorb 27.4% of capital, with a $69.1 million median financing. That is several times the market-wide median and far above the $10.6 million median for Infrastructure Service Robots.

Industrial Robot Arms come next at $1.84 billion, followed by Warehouse Mobile Robots at $1.76 billion and Surgical Robotics Systems at $1.50 billion. Agricultural Field Robots bring up the rear with $594 million.

There is an important taxonomy caveat here. Our category system has no dedicated humanoid bucket, so some general-purpose humanoid companies sit inside Collaborative Robots, Infrastructure Service Robots or Warehouse Mobile Robots. Figure AI's $675 million round, for example, falls into Warehouse Mobile Robots under this taxonomy and alone accounts for 38.4% of that category's capital.

The category borders are imperfect. The broader pattern is clear: general-purpose embodied and humanoid robotics are attracting checks that look very different from most of the market.

Category	Deals	Share of deals	Capital	Median round
Infrastructure Service Robots	143	39.5%	$5.443B	$10.6M
Collaborative Robots	52	14.4%	$4.195B	$69.1M
Industrial Robot Arms	38	10.5%	$1.838B	$16.5M
Warehouse Mobile Robots	49	13.5%	$1.758B	$12.0M
Surgical Robotics Systems	43	11.9%	$1.502B	$14.7M
Agricultural Field Robots	37	10.2%	$594M	$8.6M
Whole market	362	100%	$15.33B	$13.0M

Why are humanoid robot startups raising so much money right now?

Humanoid robot companies are raising enormous rounds because scaling one of these businesses now means paying for factories, robot fleets, real-world data and AI compute at the same time.

Apptronik gives us a good example. Its $520 million Series A-X took the company's reported Series A above $935 million. Apptronik says that money is supporting Apollo production, commercial deployments and its robot-training infrastructure. Our dataset assigns $923 million to clearly dated qualifying Apptronik financings because roughly $12 million of the company's reported 2025 Series A cannot be cleanly attached to a separate dated event.

Earlier this year, Apptronik expanded its Austin Robot Park to nearly 90,000 square feet. Fleets of Apollo 2 robots now collect real-world training data there and at partner sites including Google DeepMind, Mercedes-Benz and GXO. Apptronik is also working with Jabil both to manufacture Apollo and to test the robots inside manufacturing operations.

Figure is pushing the same model even further. The company recently said it had produced more than 350 Figure 03 robots and moved its manufacturing cycle from roughly one robot per day to one per hour at BotQ. Its first BotQ line was designed around capacity of up to 12,000 humanoids a year.

The AI bill is becoming just as important as the hardware bill. Figure's Index network has already collected more than 16 million human videos for physical-world training, and the company says it plans to spend more than $1 billion on data and compute over the following 12 months. More recently, Figure announced a partnership with Nscale for access to as many as 100,000 next-generation NVIDIA Vera Rubin GPUs.

Google DeepMind is meanwhile using Apptronik's Apollo 2 as one of the humanoid platforms for Gemini Robotics 2, its latest whole-body robotics model.

Put all of that together and the funding numbers are easier to read. Investors are financing companies that increasingly combine advanced AI research with hardware manufacturing, supply-chain development, customer deployments and massive data collection. That gets expensive very quickly.

Why is agricultural robotics raising so much less money?

Agricultural robotics gets funded regularly, but investors are writing much smaller checks than they are in humanoids, industrial robotics or infrastructure robotics.

We found 37 agricultural-robotics financings across 34 companies. The category is large enough that its low capital share cannot be brushed off as a tiny-sample problem.

Those companies raised $594 million, only 3.9% of all measurable robotics capital. The median agricultural round is $8.6 million.

The companies are not especially young either. Median company age at financing is six years, compared with three years for Collaborative Robots. Yet the older agricultural cohort is raising far less money.

Corporate involvement is also limited. Strategic investors participate in 16.2% of Agricultural Robot financings, the lowest rate of any major category we studied. Collaborative Robots sit above 50%.

We should be careful about forcing those correlations into one neat explanation. Agriculture has different unit economics, deployment environments and customer structures depending on the product. What the funding data says confidently is simpler: agricultural robotics has a real pipeline of companies, but the market has not built the same large-check financing layer that now surrounds humanoid robotics.

Why does robotics funding fall off so hard after Series B?

The hardest visible jump in robotics funding comes after Series B, when the number of financings collapses just as the typical check reaches roughly $100 million.

We count 108 Seed rounds, 94 Series A rounds and 58 Series B rounds. Series C falls to only 21.

The financial requirement moves in the opposite direction. Median funding rises from $3.56 million at Seed to $12 million at Series A and $39.5 million at Series B. By Series C, the median is $100 million.

Company age adds another clue. The median company is two years old at Seed, five at Series A and seven at Series B. Robotics companies are often already fairly mature businesses by the time investors have to decide whether to finance serious deployment and manufacturing.

Recent commercial deployments show how demanding that next step can be. BMW says Figure 02 worked ten-hour shifts during its Spartanburg program, moved more than 90,000 parts over roughly 1,250 operating hours and contributed to production of more than 30,000 BMW X3 vehicles. Figure used what it learned there to redesign hardware and move to Figure 03.

At this stage, investors are increasingly being asked to fund reliability work, production, customer integration, field support, safety, data infrastructure and fleet operations together. A robot working in the lab gets a company only so far.

The fall from 58 Series B rounds to 21 Series C rounds is the clearest bottleneck we can see in the financing ladder.

Stage	Deals	Measurable capital	Median round	Median company age
Seed	108	$1.244B	$3.56M	2 years
Series A	94	$3.970B	$12.0M	5 years
Series B	58	$3.908B	$39.5M	7 years
Series C	21	$2.257B	$100M	7 years
Series D+	15	$1.461B	$100M	10 years
Growth Equity	16	$1.052B	$28.5M	8 years
Unknown	50	$1.439B	$9.15M	5 years

Do corporate investors actually change the size of robotics rounds?

Corporate and strategic investors show up disproportionately in the larger robotics rounds, especially once companies start scaling.

Strategic investors participate in 35.4% of all financings we tracked. The median round with a strategic investor is $29 million, compared with $9.4 million without one.

Their involvement changes sharply with stage. Only 14.8% of Seed rounds include a strategic investor. That rises to 37.2% at Series A, 55.2% at Series B, 52.4% at Series C and 68.8% in Growth Equity.

The names also make commercial sense. Google appears around embodied AI. Mercedes-Benz, BMW and other manufacturers provide deployment environments. NVIDIA brings AI infrastructure. Amazon has its own industrial investment fund and one of the world's largest operating robotics fleets.

Amazon says its Industrial Innovation Fund was created specifically around fulfillment, logistics, automation and related technologies. The company now operates more than one million robots across more than 300 facilities.

That kind of investor can bring a startup something a normal financial investor cannot: factories, warehouses, compute, manufacturing expertise, distribution or a real place to test thousands of hours of robot work.

The data do not show that strategic participation causes a round to be larger. They do show that strategic investors are much more common once robotics companies reach the expensive part of commercialization.

Which robotics investors keep showing up?

No single venture fund dominates robotics funding today; the lead-investor market is surprisingly fragmented.

We identified 340 distinct disclosed lead or co-lead names across 277 financings with usable lead information. Only 28 investors appear as a lead or co-lead more than once.

Plural and SUROSH are the most frequent names, with six deals each, and even they operate in very different corners of the market. Plural spans several categories and stages. SUROSH's six appearances are all Seed deals in surgical robotics.

Supernova Invest appears four times. Eclipse, Lightspeed Venture Partners, Insight Partners and S2G Investments appear three times each.

Only 23.1% of financings with disclosed leadership involve at least one lead that reappears elsewhere in our cohort.

Founders therefore do not face one obvious group of robotics gatekeepers. Capital comes from generalist VCs, deep-tech funds, industrial investors, specialist funds and regional investors, with relatively little repeated lead activity across the market as a whole.

The combined values below refer to the size of the rounds these investors led or co-led, not to the amount invested by the fund itself.

Lead or co-lead	Deals	Combined round value	Main footprint
Plural	6	$209M	Multi-category, Seed to C
SUROSH	6	$2.94M	Surgical Seed
Supernova Invest	4	$90.8M	Infrastructure, Warehouse, Collaborative
Eclipse	3	$350M	Surgical, Collaborative
Lightspeed Venture Partners	3	$237.5M	Warehouse, Collaborative, Industrial
Insight Partners	3	$113M	Infrastructure, Agricultural
S2G Investments	3	$111.5M	Infrastructure, Industrial
RoboStrategy	2	$300M	Industrial
General Catalyst	2	$139M	Collaborative
CRV	2	$108.5M	Industrial, Collaborative

Is the US really funding robotics more aggressively than Europe?

North America and Europe both produce plenty of robotics deals, but North American companies are getting much bigger checks.

North America accounts for 38.1% of financings and 51.4% of measurable capital. The median round is $16.1 million.

Europe represents 28.2% of financings but only 15% of capital, with a $9 million median. Asia-Pacific sits almost perfectly in the middle: 31.8% of deals and 32.4% of capital, with a $14.7 million median.

The European gap does not look like a disclosure quirk. We have usable amounts for roughly 98% of European deals.

Country-level examples make the point more tangible. France and Switzerland have similar numbers of financings, around 15 and 14 respectively, yet measurable capital comes to about $89 million in France and $633 million in Switzerland.

We would not reduce all of this to a claim that American investors simply “like robotics more.” The US happens to contain several of the companies raising enormous humanoid, autonomous-systems and industrial rounds. What we can say with much more confidence is that Europe currently has plenty of funding activity without anything close to the same density of very large checks.

Does robotics funding arrive steadily, or in sudden bursts?

Robotics funding comes in waves, and monthly dollar totals swing far more than the number of companies raising money.

Across completed months, we recorded an average of 11.1 financings and a median of 11. Deal activity therefore has a fairly recognizable baseline.

Capital is much less predictable. Average monthly funding is $471.6 million, while the median is $311.2 million.

The busiest month reached 28 financings and $1.54 billion. The deal count was about 2.5 times a normal month, while capital came in at almost five times the monthly median.

Another month produced only 11 deals, almost exactly normal activity, yet still crossed $1 billion because Figure AI's $675 million financing dominated the total.

There are quiet periods too, including two full months in our window with no qualifying transactions.

A billion-dollar month in robotics does not automatically mean funding suddenly opened up for everybody. Sometimes the market is genuinely busy. Sometimes one enormous transaction lands on an otherwise ordinary month.

What's still missing from the robotics funding market?

The big missing piece in robotics funding is a broad group of companies repeatedly reaching mature, industrial-scale financing.

Series C is the most obvious gap. The pipeline goes from 108 Seed rounds to 94 Series A and 58 Series B rounds before dropping sharply to 21 Series C financings.

Repeat fundraising is scarce as well. Only 42 companies appear more than once during the window, even though 312 companies receive funding.

The investor side remains fragmented too. Hundreds of lead names appear, yet the most frequent lead shows up only six times. Robotics has plenty of investors without a small, clearly dominant underwriting club carrying companies from one stage to the next.

Some categories also lack a serious late-stage capital pool. Agricultural robotics has dozens of funded companies but very little of the $100 million-plus financing we see elsewhere.

Taken together, the market currently seems much better at funding experiments, products and early commercial companies than at producing a wide population of fully financed scale-ups.

The exceptions are striking precisely because there are so few of them.

How reliable is the $15.33 billion robotics funding total?

Our $15.33 billion figure is a conservative estimate of measurable capital rather than an attempt to manufacture an exact market total.

We have a usable conservative amount for 342 of the 362 retained financings, giving us 94.5% amount coverage. Nineteen deals have no defensible disclosed amount.

When a source gives an explicit lower bound, we use the floor. When it gives a range, we use the lower end. We do not estimate undisclosed deals.

We also excluded NEURA Robotics' announced Series C of “up to $1.4 billion” from the capital total. “Up to” describes a maximum commitment and does not establish that $1.4 billion had actually closed.

Several deals required more hands-on treatment. Neocis announced a $20 million financing in January 2024, but its own release says the financing was secured in 2023, so we removed it from the period. Apptronik's November 2025 Form D overlapped with its broader Series A financing, so counting it as another additive round would have inflated both deals and capital. Armatrix's own company timeline says its $2.1 million pre-seed closed in June 2025, so we use that date for timing analysis even though a later date appeared elsewhere.

There are other comparability issues: currency translations, secondary components, extensions, additional closes, strategic structures and category ambiguity around humanoids.

Those uncertainties change how precisely we can split the dollars, especially at the top end. They do not change the broader picture: robotics funding is highly unequal, the normal financing is much smaller than the average, and a relatively small group of companies absorbs a very large share of the capital.

What should we actually take away from robotics funding right now?

Robotics funding currently looks like a barbell market: hundreds of companies can raise venture-sized rounds, while a much smaller group is raising the industrial-scale capital needed to manufacture and deploy robots at scale.

The market is broader than the famous names suggest. More than 300 companies received qualifying financing in our research. At the same time, repeat access to capital is concentrated in only a few dozen businesses, which explains why the same names keep reappearing in major funding announcements.

Humanoid robotics is where the economics are changing fastest. The biggest companies are now funding production lines, customer fleets, physical-data networks and AI compute alongside the robot itself. Recent developments at Figure, Apptronik and Google DeepMind make that much clearer today than it was even a year ago.

The financing ladder also tells us where things get difficult. Robotics has plenty of Seed, Series A and Series B activity. Series C is where the population thins dramatically, just as funding requirements move into nine figures and companies have to prove they can manufacture, deploy and support robots in the real world.

Corporate investors become increasingly important around that transition. Manufacturers, cloud and AI companies, logistics operators and industrial groups can bring customers, factories, data and infrastructure along with money.

The headline funding total needs to be read in that context. There is plenty of money in robotics today, but access to very large amounts of it remains concentrated around a small set of companies that investors believe can cross from impressive technology to large-scale industrial deployment.