That creates enormous productivity potential, but it also creates a new security problem: Companies now need to protect not only users, devices and applications, but software actors that can take actions on their behalf.

AI agents are becoming a new class of enterprise identity

An agent may access corporate files, query databases, send emails or execute code. Once it has that level of access, it needs permissions, monitoring and governance. Companies will need to know which agent accessed what information, which systems it connected to, and whether the actions it took were authorized.

As enterprises move from experimenting with a few agents to deploying hundreds of them, agent identity will become another important layer of cybersecurity. The challenge is that these identities are not passive. Agents can move between systems, invoke tools and make decisions, which makes controlling them more complex than managing traditional users or service accounts.

The value will sit in specific control points

This market will probably not develop as one broad category called “AI security.” The real opportunity will be around specific control points.

One company may protect agent identity, another may control the data an agent can access, while others may focus on prompts, MCP servers, plug-ins, traffic or auditability.

We are already seeing activity around these areas. recently acquired Israeli startup which focuses on real-time data classification and policy enforcement. Israeli cybersecurity startup , meanwhile, raised a $27 million Series A led by and focuses on understanding and securing increasingly complex internet traffic, including traffic generated by autonomous systems.

These companies are solving different problems, but together they show how the market may begin to separate into distinct security layers.

These control points are creating a new M&A map

Identity providers may extend identity governance to autonomous agents. Data-security vendors may need to control what information agents can access. Cybersecurity platforms, cloud companies and enterprise software vendors may eventually need agent-security capabilities embedded directly into their products.

For entrepreneurs, this means that “AI security” may already be too broad a positioning. The more important question is what exactly the company controls.

is a strategic adviser to tech companies, investors, CEOs and boards, specializing in strategy, growth and M&A. He is a guest contributor to ���ϳԹ� News and a university lecturer on strategy, finance and entrepreneurship. Learn more at and connect with him on .

Related ���ϳԹ� queries:

Illustration:

One of the strangest things about the current AI cycle is just how fast the math changes for the people building it. You can be a 20-something founder who feels like you are still in the warm-up phase of your career, yet on paper your equity is already life changing. Or a mid-level engineer who went from holding startup options to staring at a substantial personal balance sheet practically overnight.

The gap between life experience and the sudden reality of managing serious wealth is widening as AI-native companies reach major valuations faster and private company liquidity arrives earlier.

A of more than 3,400 founders and senior leaders across 20 countries found that AI-native startups are reaching billion-dollar valuations in about 3.5 years, roughly half the time it took before generative AI. They are doing it with about half the staff.

We have seen an even more compressed version firsthand. We recently advised founders who went from launching their company to a major liquidity event in less than a year.

When the money outpaces the mindset

For decades, tech wealth followed a more predictable script. Significant personal wealth often accumulated alongside a long career. Equity vested over years, responsibilities grew and additional grants often followed. If everything went right, an acquisition or IPO marked a visible transition into a very different financial reality.

Today, that boundary is much less clear. AI capabilities allow companies to grow at a much faster pace.

A young founder can suddenly face questions that used to come much later in life. What are their long-term personal goals? What should the new capital be used for? What does financial independence mean for someone who may still be figuring out what they want their life to look like?

These are not always questions that can be answered overnight.

Compounding this is the fact that one doesn’t have to wait for an IPO to de-risk. Tender offers and secondary transactions allow founders and employees to turn part of their equity into cash while the company remains private.

Take as an example. While still only 3 years old, the company authorized a $100 million secondary sale for staff at a $6.6 billion valuation. By February 2026, it had at an $11 billion valuation.

For someone inside a company moving at that speed, the sequence can look very different from the traditional startup script. It is a dizzying loop of grants, valuations and a sudden liquidity window. All of this can happen long before an IPO.

Flexibility is the name of the game

A sudden liquidity event can make financial independence a realistic goal. It may make buying a home possible, even while someone is still single or has no idea where they want to live long term. It may allow them to take care of parents or fund another entrepreneurial chapter.

The pace of these cycles can also be contagious. Opportunities seem to be everywhere. At the same time, a founder may still be taking substantial risks with the current venture and have very little idea what life will look like in five years.

When we advise technology executives and founders in this position, we try to leave room for several possible paths while the broader picture is still developing. Some capital may eventually support long-term family security. Some may need to remain available for opportunities or life changes that do not exist today.

A future business endeavour, a career change, a relocation to another country, or other less conventional ideas can change the picture again. Some of these moves can be made today, but others need time to develop.

A company may compress 10 years of growth into three, but people cannot compress 10 years of life into three. Ignoring that gap is where real risk can build.

Valuations and liquidity can move incredibly fast. Decisions about family wellbeing, security, career and the future still move at a human pace. Your financial architecture needs to respect the difference.

is co-CEO of , where he works with founders, senior technology executives and families on wealth strategy, liquidity events and long-term financial planning. Before moving into wealth planning, he spent many years in the technology industry and writes about the intersection of technology, equity and personal wealth.

Related ���ϳԹ� list:

Illustration:

Startups across sales, marketing and customer management have raised $7.5 billion so far this year, according to ���ϳԹ� data. The largest rounds span everything from advertising and customer data to sales software, e-commerce and customer support — reflecting just how many companies are still trying to build a better way to market and sell.

The broad trend: Investors are making far fewer bets on sales and marketing startups than immediately before and after the COVID-19 pandemic, but they’re still writing checks into the space.

Unsurprisingly, AI-focused companies are capturing a much larger share of funding than during the prior peak, with most sales, marketing and CRM investment going to companies in ���ϳԹ� AI-related categories.

The numbers: So far in 2026, startups in sales, marketing and CRM have raised $7.5 billion globally across 830 funding rounds, ���ϳԹ� data shows. At the current pace, funding could finish near the $9.3 billion raised in both 2023 and 2024, although potentially below last year’s $11.1 billion. Deal volume, meanwhile, is on track to fall for a fourth consecutive year — pointing to a market where investors are putting more money into fewer companies.

Funding in recent years remains far below past levels. In 2022, for example, funding in the sector topped $27 billion, and in 2021, it totaled nearly $41 billion.

Notable deals

The year’s largest funding recipient so far was, which raised more than $1 billion in a June Series E from , , and . The San Francisco-based marketing measurement company, whose products now include AI agents that analyze marketing data and automate tasks, was valued at $2.7 billion.

Restaurant financing and rewards platform announced $450 million in new capital in February. The Austin-based company did not identify a lead investor or disclose a valuation.

In January, AI-native customer service company raised a $350 million Series D led by . The Berlin-based company develops AI agents that handle customer conversations by phone and other channels. The financing tripled its valuation to $3 billion.

Meanwhile, , an online marketplace for digital products, communities and courses, received a $200 million strategic investment from in February. The deal valued the New York-based company at $1.6 billion.

Another larger deal went to Dubai-based property listings platform , which announced a $170 million equity investment in January. The company uses AI in products including home valuations and tools that help real estate agents improve and prioritize listings. led the deal, with participation from another UAE sovereign wealth fund and existing investor . The company did not disclose a valuation.

On Sept. 9,  AI-powered sales automation startup announced it had raised a $115 million Series D at a $7.1 billion valuation. This was more than double the $3.1 billion valuation it achieved when it raised a $100 million Series C in August 2025. Wellington led the latest round, with participation from , , ’s a16z Perennial wealth management arm, , and others. The company says the raise followed 4x revenue growth in 2025. It also told ���ϳԹ� News that it’s on track to hit $200 million in ARR this quarter, and $240 million by the end of the fiscal year.

Exits

The sector has produced one notable public offering, but most exits are coming through acquisitions as larger companies buy specialized sales and marketing products to add to their existing platforms, ���ϳԹ� data shows.

, a Redwood City, California-based mobile advertising and app-marketing company, began trading on the in June. It initially sold 19 million shares at $23 each, raising $437 million. The IPO valued Liftoff at $3.83 billion, based on the outstanding shares disclosed in its IPO prospectus.

There have been a number of M&A deals this year in the sector, too, though in most cases, the acquisition price was not disclosed.

The largest known deal was Dutch payments giant acquisition of , a Berlin-based loyalty and promotions platform, in July for about $880 million. Talon had previously raised over $120 million in venture funding.

Other startup M&A deals in the marketing and sales arena in 2026 include:

• In July, acquired Seattle-based sales intelligence startup to add information about prospective buyers to its sales products.
• In June, agreed to acquire , whose software helps companies identify and contact people visiting their websites.
• Sales platform acquired , which helps sales teams identify prospective customers based on product use and other signals, in March.
• acquired the Estonian startup , whose software connects sales and marketing data, in August.
• acquired India-based marketing intelligence startup in September through a team and technology deal.

Funding is down from peak years, but it’s clear investors haven’t lost interest in sales and marketing startups. However, they are putting more money into fewer of them. Companies that help businesses find customers, increase sales, or retain existing business are still landing big checks and attracting buyers. But with acquisitions far more common than IPOs, a public-market exit remains much harder to come by.

Related ���ϳԹ� query:

Related reading:

• Exclusive: Schematic Raises $6.5M To Help Companies Update Their Pricing Faster And Easier In The AI Era
• Exclusive: Winn.ai Raises $18M Series A For AI-Powered Real-Time Sales Assistant
• AI-Powered Sales Automation Startup Clay More Than Doubles Valuation To $3.1B

Illustration:

An overwhelming majority of early venture-backed startups utilize a standard four-year vesting schedule with a one-year cliff. It seems like the ultimate one-size-fits-all template. Yet almost no one talks about how this default framework routinely causes bitter legal battles over founder equity, wasting hundreds of thousands of dollars on litigation that could have been avoided.

By the time a founder leaves or gets terminated, the damage is already done, leaving the company stuck with costly “dead weight on the cap table.”

What dead weight actually costs your company

When a co-founder with substantial ownership leaves — voluntarily or involuntarily — they often walk away with a massive, permanent piece of the company.

From a VC’s perspective, and that of the remaining partners, this is pure dead weight. You now have someone holding 15% to 20% of the equity who is no longer providing any value. Of course, contractually it’s theirs, and they’ve usually earned it.

Practically, it can break the company in three distinct ways:

• It kills motivation: The remaining team has to grind for years toward an IPO or acquisition, knowing that a fifth of the exit payout is going to someone sitting on the sidelines.

• It breaks future dilution pools: When you need to bring in new executives or raise a new VC round, your outstanding share count is artificially bloated by a departed founder. Issuing a simple 1% option pool suddenly requires 20% more shares than it otherwise should.
• It creates voting and control nightmares: If a departed founder owns 20%, you need their signature on standard investment documents and major shareholder votes. Even if they didn’t leave under bad circumstances, their risk tolerance and timeline are completely misaligned with the active team.

The shrinking threshold of tolerance

Five to 10 years ago, investors might have tolerated a departed founder holding 5%, 10% or even 20% of the company. Today, that threshold has collapsed. Many VCs will now insist that a former founder hold no more than 2.5% of the cap table.

However, because the standard four-year vesting agreement has no contractual mechanisms to claw back shares, companies start looking for alternative ways to do so when a founder leaves.

Initially, this usually involves pressuring them to give up shares “for the goodwill of the company.” When that fails, they sic investors on them, threaten their professional reputation, and sometimes resort to litigation.

I see this over and over. We frequently see litigation that is nominally about intellectual property or confidentiality, but everyone knows the real goal is simply to get the equity back. These are multi-hundred-thousand-dollar lawsuits that never would have been filed except as a desperate attempt to claw back departing founder equity.

How to fix the problem

The four-year vest, one-year cliff standard is a very lemming-like system in which founders follow the same standard as everyone else.

They often pull the language in equity agreements off automated legal platforms because it’s cheap, fast and requires minimal thought. If we want to fix this problem — and I believe every startup should — the industry needs to converge on a new, more nuanced position built into founding documents from day one.

We can split the proposed solve into two categories:

Fixing control and voting (the easy part)

Founding documents can automatically strip voting power upon departure. It’s simple enough to build in an obligation to hand over a voting proxy to the current CEO the moment a founder leaves, along with a mandatory drag-along clause that requires them to comply with future sales or investment rounds. Alternatively, a class of nonvoting shares can be created for departed founders and other service providers.

Fixing the economics (the hard part)

Four years is too short. It does not match the actual lifetime of a modern startup heading toward an exit. There are structural changes to the standard founder equity and vesting templates that could address this problem:

• Extend and back-weight vesting: Move to a five- or six-year schedule and stop using even distributions. Force back-weighting — such as 5% in year one and 10% in year two — to reward longevity and protect the cap table if someone leaves early.
• Pre-agreed buyouts and forfeiture over time: Agree upfront on a methodology and price for the company to buy back vested shares post-termination, perhaps leaving the departed founder with a permanent floor of 2%. Alternatively, tie the equity to timing: If the company sells three months after a founder leaves, they keep their 20% because they built that value. If it sells four years later, a portion of that equity should automatically forfeit back to the pool.
• Automatic share class conversion: Build a mechanism where a departing founder’s equity automatically converts into a separate class of stock with no voting rights and inferior economic rights.

A watch-out for minority founders

Minority co-founders face the highest risk of litigation aimed at clawing back their equity. They should push for pre-agreed severance, clear definitions of “cause,” and accelerated vesting protections before signing paperwork.

Even if the dominant founder refuses those terms to satisfy institutional investors, having the conversation is a critical de-risking tool. Simply observing how your co-founder reacts to these structural negotiations can provide a lot of intel. Are they hostile and defensive? Are they secretive, claiming “the lawyers said no” without CC’ing you on the emails?

How a co-founder handles the equity conversation at the outset can provide valuable insight into how they will handle conflict when the stakes are much higher.

Protecting the cap table from day one

Right now, the venture ecosystem is still operating within an outdated, broken structure. VCs want clean cap tables, remaining founders want motivated teams, and departing founders want to be fairly compensated for the early risks they took. But the current four-year vest, one-year cliff template satisfies none of them. Instead, all it does is ensure that when a founder relationship ends, companies are left hobbled by dead weight on their cap table.

Startups face high-stake, bespoke risks. Equity structures should reflect that reality. Engaging a lawyer to properly customize and document these relationships at the outset isn’t hard or expensive. What is expensive is spending hundreds of thousands of dollars later on a lawsuit, searching for leverage to claw back equity that should have been protected from the very beginning.

is a partner at and an accomplished startup lawyer and litigator specializing in corporate, transactional, intellectual property and complex commercial matters. He has advised startups on multimillion-dollar financings and acquisitions and represented clients in sophisticated intellectual property and corporate disputes. Siegel is licensed to practice in both California and New York.

Illustration:

The highest-valued new entrants were China-based humanoid robotics business , valued at more than $6.3 billion; San Jose, California-based photonics company , valued at $5.5 billion; and Palo Alto, California-based AI model platform , and San Francisco’s semiconductor manufacturing startup , both valued at $5 billion.

AI software featured prominently across model training, assistants, agentic and enterprise workflow automation, coding and voice transcription.

Semiconductors was the second-largest sector, with five new unicorns. Robotics and financial services each added three, while data centers, security and energy each added two.

The U.S. accounted for 16 of August’s new unicorns. China followed with four. South Korea, India, Singapore, the United Arab Emirates, Switzerland, Germany and Turkey each added one. Nigeria and Indonesia also each added one new unicorn — for both, their first new unicorn of the year.

Nine companies exited the ���ϳԹ� in August, per ���ϳԹ� data: Three that went public — the most notable being — and six via acquisition, including , and .

New unicorns in August

Here are August’s new unicorn companies:

AI and software

• , a Palo Alto, California-based platform for training, fine-tuning and deploying custom AI models based on proprietary data, announced $1.1 billion in funding led by and . The less-than-1-year-old company, founded by former co-founder , was valued.
• San Francisco-based , an AI assistant that executes personal tasks, raised a $250 million Series B led by and . The 1-year-old company was valued at $2.5 billion.
• Shanghai-based , a builder of agents for digital and physical environments, raised a $220 million seed round led by and . The less-than-1-year-old company was valued at $2 billion. Its founder, , a researcher, left earlier this year.
• San Francisco-based , which builds AI-powered voice-writing and meeting-transcription tools, raised a $280 million Series B led by , who also led its Series A in 2025. The 5-year-old company was valued at $2 billion.
• San Francisco-based , which provides AI-powered code review and change-management tools, raised a $143 million Series C at a $1.5 billion valuation. and co-led the round. The 3-year-old company said it would commit more than $10 million to keep its tools free for open-source projects over the next year.
• San Francisco-based , which deploys AI agents across calls, email, documents and enterprise systems, raised a $150 million Series C at a $1.2 billion post-money valuation. and led the round. The company is 4 years old, started in logistics and has expanded to insurance, energy, telecommunications and airlines among others and counts 150 enterprise customers.
• Turkey-based , a developer of consumer mobile applications, raised a $50 million Series A led by . The 4-year-old company was valued at $1.25 billion. Its apps include AI chatbot Nova, diagnosing plants with PlantApp, and art generator DaVinci.

Semiconductors

• , a San Jose, California-based developer of photonic interconnects for AI computing infrastructure, raised a $700 million Series C at a $5.5 billion valuation. , , , and led the round. The 2-year-old company is already deployed within data centers.
• raised $400 million in funding led by hedge fund . The 1-year-old company was valued at $5 billion. The San Francisco-based company creates tooling for semiconductor manufacturing and was founded by researchers.
• South Korea-based , which develops edge AI processors for on-device inference, raised about $29 million in the first tranche of its Series D funding from existing investors. The 8-year-old company targeting robotics and electronics was valued at about $2.2 billion.
• Shanghai-based , an AI chip startup for inference, raised a Series A led by local state capital investors and . The 4-year-old company was valued at about $1.5 billion with plans to ship its product in Q4 2026.
• Santa Clara, California-based , which develops low-power silicon and software for AI data centers and physical AI, raised a $110 million Series A led by . The 4-year old company was valued at more than $1 billion.

Robotics

• China-based , which is building the general-purpose IRON humanoid robot, raised more than $900 million in its first outside financing at a post-money valuation exceeding $6.3 billion. led the round, with participation from and support from and Alibaba Group. The company, a subsidiary of public smart electric vehicle company , is 10 years old.
• Singapore-based , which develops robots to operate in real-world environments, raised about $669 million in funding. The 2-year-old company was valued at about $3.3 billion and is set to deploy robots in a Dairy Queen in Shanghai to handle the entire 55-step process of taking orders, preparing the food and handing it to a customer.
• Zurich-based , which develops autonomous technology for heavy construction machinery, raised a $200 million Series A led by . The 4-year-old company was valued at $1 billion and works across multiple construction brands.

Financial services

• Bengaluru-based , a financial-services company spanning payment, lending and insurance, raised $100 million in funding led by . The 7-year-old company was valued at $1.3 billion.
• Berlin-based , a finance AI platform for European mid-sized businesses to  manage spend, card issuing and expenses, raised a $40 million Series C led by and . The 7-year-old company was valued at around $1.15 billion. The company says it has 5,000 businesses that use the service to give finance teams control.
• Palo Alto, California-based , an AI-native enterprise resource planning platform for accounting, raised a $100 million Series C led by . The 4-year-old company was valued at $1 billion.

Aerospace and defense

• Los Angeles-based , a manufacturer of autonomous military drones and counter-drone systems, raised a $250 million Series C at a $2.5 billion post-money valuation. and the co-led the round. The company is 3 years old. Neros has contracts with the U.S. military as well as half a dozen allied countries.
• Mountain View, California-based , which builds and operates satellite constellations for national security, civil and commercial customers, raised a $250 million Series C led by . The 5-year-old company was valued at $1.5 billion.

Data centers

• Palo Alto, California-based , a vertically integrated AI infrastructure platform, raised a $300 million Series A led by , , and . The less-than-1-year-old company was valued at $2.4 billion. Alongside the equity, Volta secured $5 billion in debt to fund data center buildouts.
• , a full-stack AI infrastructure and neocloud platform, received led by Doha-based broadband provider , which holds a 49% stake. Jakarta-based Zankore is less than 1-year-old and is valued at $1.6 billion. The platform is targeting 1 gigawatt of AI computing capacity.

Security

• San Francisco-based , an AI-native security company that provides autonomous penetration testing, raised a $250 million Series E led by and . The 7-year-old company was valued at $2 billion and is used by 7,000 organizations including defense, Fortune 10, banks and healthcare companies among others.
• Palo Alto, California-based , which provides security for AI agents and third-party applications, raised an $85 million Series D led by . The 9-year-old company was valued at $1.1 billion.

Energy

• China-based , a nuclear fusion company developing small modular reactors, raised about $179 million in seed funding. The 1-year-old company was valued at about $1.5 billion.
• Washington, D.C.-based , which develops software that adjusts AI data-center workloads based on power-grid demands, raised a $150 million Series A at a $1 billion valuation. and co-led the round. The 2-year-old company says the round brings total funding to more than $220 million.

Transportation

• Nigeria-based , a vehicle financing and autonomous fleet management infrastructure, raised a $250 million Series C led by , and . The 7-year-old company was valued at $2.1 billion. It operates a fleet of 42,000 vehicles — both human-driven and autonomous — across 29 cities, with annual recurring revenue of $420 million.��

Critical minerals

• Houston-based , which builds mines and refineries using its MarianaOS software platform, raised a $310 million Series B led by . The 2-year-old company was valued at $1.5 billion.

Web3

• Dubai-based , an AI-enabled stablecoin neobanking platform for cross-border payments and tokenized assets, raised a $68 million Series C led by Tokyo-based at a $1 billion valuation. The 7-year-old company says it processes more than $40 billion in annualized transaction volume.

Related ���ϳԹ� unicorn lists:

• (1,862)
• (658)
• (276)
• (195)
• (119)
• (102)
• (961)
• (547)
• (254)
• (39)
• (489)

Related reading:

• Global Venture Funding Jumps 122% In August As Streak Of Billion-Dollar Deals Continues
• Which Investors Have Backed The Most 2026 Unicorns?
• 40 Companies Joined The ���ϳԹ� In July, The Highest Count In 4 Years

Methodology

The ���ϳԹ� ���ϳԹ� is a curated list that includes private unicorn companies with post-money valuations of $1 billion or more and is based on ���ϳԹ� data. New companies are as they reach the $1 billion valuation mark as part of a funding round.��

The unicorn board does not reflect internal company valuations — such as those set via a 409a process for employee stock options — as these differ from, and are more likely to be lower than, a priced funding round. We also do not adjust valuations based on investor writedowns, which change quarterly, as different investors will not value the same company consistently within the same quarter.��

Funding to unicorn companies includes all private financings to companies that are tagged as unicorns, as well as those that have since graduated to .��

Exits analyzed here only include the first time a company exits.��

Please note that all funding values are given in U.S. dollars unless otherwise noted. ���ϳԹ� converts foreign currencies to U.S. dollars at the prevailing spot rate from the date funding rounds, acquisitions, IPOs and other financial events are reported. Even if those events were added to ���ϳԹ� long after the event was announced, foreign currency transactions are converted at the historic spot price.

Illustration:

As a partner at Menlo Park, California-based venture firm Norwest, Jacobsohn focuses on enterprise software, drawing on his background in finance, sales and business development. His 15 active portfolio companies range from pre-revenue startups to businesses generating more than $300 million in revenue. Much of his portfolio falls within finance and HR software, although he also invests in supply chain and construction technology — often in companies building finance applications for those industries.

The common thread, he explained, is a focus on next-generation business applications taking on entrenched providers that have struggled to keep up. Jacobsohn has found particularly fertile ground in finance, where companies already have software budgets and many categories remain dominated by aging systems.

Norwest, founded in 1961, manages $15.5 billion and is investing out of its 17th fund, a $3 billion vehicle raised in 2024. Over time, the global venture and growth equity firm has backed more than 700 companies in sectors spanning enterprise, consumer and healthcare.

In an interview with ���ϳԹ� News, Jacobsohn discusses where he still sees openings in the crowded market for finance software, how far companies should trust AI with accounting work, why HR startups may be better off attacking the secondary products of large platforms, and why he tests a CEO’s sales ability before investing.

The interview has been edited for clarity and brevity.

���ϳԹ� News: The office of the CFO is an area where you’ve invested fairly extensively. Why is there still so much room for startups when finance software is already such a crowded market? Where is the opportunity right now?

Jacobsohn: I’m focused a lot on companies that are disrupting legacy players, and there are a lot of legacy players in the office of the CFO. We had more than 500 companies on our Office of the CFO market map, and probably three-quarters of those are legacy players.

What’s interesting about finance is that the CFO approves all software purchases across the organization, but CFOs also buy software for themselves. There’s actually one less layer of approval when they’re buying their own software, so it is a little easier to replace it when they’re the direct buyer.

I’ve found a lot of opportunities in both finance software that sells to every industry and software focused on specific industries. I’ve invested in a lot of horizontal applications, and so far the vertical solutions have been in construction and manufacturing. We’ve also invested in the healthcare space, but that’s not my area of focus. I’m also looking at companies in transportation and logistics.

Are there specific finance workflows that still strike you as surprisingly manual and therefore more ripe for disruption?

Jacobsohn: I actually think most workflows have been automated, but some are being automated by legacy solutions. Some could still be on-premise. Some could be companies making the transition from on-premise to the cloud that are still very legacy. You might even call them SaaS 1.0, because a company can be considered legacy and be only five to 10 years old now that a lot of the new generation is AI-native.

Every company wants to buy AI-native products these days. Some legacy companies have done a better job of reinventing themselves, and others are having more difficulty. Since most everything has been automated by someone, I’m focused on new-generation disruptors of legacy solutions.

What are some of the areas you think are ripe for disruption?

Jacobsohn: I have a portfolio company in some of these categories, and not in others.

One area where I do not have a company is ERP. I think there’s a potential opportunity to disrupt and Those companies have been around for a very long time. I’m seeing more disruption downmarket, and some of these companies will eventually move upmarket.

I think sales tax is another category with some ancient legacy players where there’s an opportunity to disrupt them. Treasury management also has some very old legacy players. Another area I’ve invested in is procurement.

Finance is particularly sensitive when it comes to accuracy and audits. Is that affecting how much work companies will actually hand over to AI agents, especially in accounting?

Jacobsohn: We think about this a lot. Finance people are risk-averse, and they need consistent answers. There’s some concern that there could be errors with AI, and there are.

It’s important to infuse AI into your finance products, but you have to be careful about what you’re giving AI to do. You don’t want AI doing calculations because it is not good at math. There are certain workflows it can handle where it doesn’t produce precise numbers. But when you need precision, accuracy and calculations, you can’t rely on AI for that.

In Norwest’s recent , you mentioned that categories including payroll, benefits and workforce management can be difficult to disrupt because of the time and expense associated with switching. If a startup wants to take business from Workday or ADP, how can it make switching more enticing?

Jacobsohn: I think it would be very hard to disrupt the core products of Workday, , SAP, and Dayforce. But it’s easier to disrupt some of their secondary products, where the category isn’t their core business. Those companies have really good distribution. Often, the best distribution wins, not necessarily the best product.

Workforce management is a category I’ve invested in through . UKG has a product in the space, but it started as an on-premise company and moved to the cloud. We’ve been a cloud-native AI player, and we’ve done well against it in the market.

Another company I invested in that complements these players is , which is in the benefits space. What’s interesting to me is that I worked at WageWorks, a legacy player in the space. Elevate is disrupting my old employer. Benefits isn’t the core business of the suite players I mentioned, but it’s a big enough market where a specialist can do well.

That’s how I look at it: What are some big markets where suite players aren’t putting much effort behind the product because they can only focus on so many things at once?

Is AI making it easier or harder to build a durable software company? Features and products can be built faster, but they can also be copied faster.

Jacobsohn: I do think it’s making it easier to build companies. We’re going from products that store data and automate some workflows to really smart solutions that understand, predict and execute work for you. It’s changing employees’ jobs. Employees can focus on higher-value work and automate some of their tasks with agents that can work really quickly.

As for whether anyone can vibe-code something, I think if you’re building a simple horizontal workflow for small businesses that isn’t very complex, it could be easy to build the product yourself, or it could lead to a lot of competition.

If you’re building something complex for the midmarket or enterprise, something that needs deep domain expertise or something vertical in nature, any of those areas would be really hard for a lot of people to build internally or for too many startups to compete in. Those solutions would also be really hard to maintain. I’m not seeing much competition from people wanting to build internally at my portfolio companies that are focused upmarket, where you need deep domain expertise.

The IPO market has improved, but it certainly isn’t where it was. How does the current exit environment affect what you’re willing to fund today, if at all?

Jacobsohn: It doesn’t impact our interest in funding. Our primary entry point is seed and Series A. I’ve done some Series B and C deals, so we can be opportunistic at the later stage.

We’re focused on backing entrepreneurs with deep domain expertise who are going after big markets with legacy players ripe for disruption, and we don’t worry about the exit environment. At some point, the IPO market will open up more, and maybe that will help us in the future. But more companies get acquired than go public.

I do want to invest in a company that, if it executes well, someday has the option to go public. But I’m realistic that most companies get acquired before that can happen.

How do you feel about an acquisition as an outcome?

Jacobsohn: You have to support your entrepreneurs and what’s in their company’s best interest. M&A can be a very good outcome, especially since we come in so early. If a company is acquired for less than $1 billion, it still could be a great outcome for us and the company.

The challenge is entering late, at a valuation above $1 billion. Not many companies will acquire another company for billions of dollars. We like to come in early so that if a company sells for less than $1 billion, which is where most buyers have budgets, it can be a really good outcome.

Is there a fundamental belief you have about funding or building startups that you think other investors might disagree with?

Jacobsohn: Something that’s different about me from most VCs is that I come from a sales background, and I think the CEOs I back need to be good at sales.

Just about every CEO I back comes from a product and engineering background, but that’s not enough. You need to be good at selling. You need to sell to customers, partners, investors and employees. Before I invest, I’ll go on a lot of sales calls I set up with the CEO to see how good they are at selling.

To me, that’s a big way of assessing the potential of a company.

Have you ever passed on a CEO or startup because you felt the founder didn’t have strong sales skills?

Jacobsohn: Yes. When I go on sales calls and people aren’t interested in a second meeting, and that’s a consistent theme, it often leads me to walk away.

Tell me about your Failure Museum. What are some of the biggest findings you’ve learned in building out the Failure Museum?

Jacobsohn: I have built a that includes more than 1,500 items from failed companies and products. I have them all on my website, where I study why they failed.

People are eager to share their successes and their failures. The museum evokes more optimism than one might think. People shouldn’t be afraid to take risks. Failure can be a springboard to success.

Related ���ϳԹ� queries:

Illustration:

Seven companies raised billion-dollar fundings in August, tied with a few months for the year’s second-highest count after July, when 13 companies did the same.

The largest startup funding deal in August went to 13-year-old which raised $5 billion at a $190 billion valuation.

Other companies across a broad range of industries raised billion-dollar-plus rounds, a testament to the strength of the technology sector impacting  a range of more traditional industries, including physical manufacturing, defense, aerospace and energy. They included defense tech startup ; , which performs custom AI fine-tuning for businesses; low-orbit satellite network ; nuclear energy company ; automated coding provider ; and home battery service .

Notable exits

On the IPO front, Hangzhou, China-based humanoid robotics company went public on Aug. 19 and soared 460% on its first day of trading on the .

The largest M&A news in August was ’s announcement that it aims to acquire open-source AI platform for $12.9 billion. Other notable acquisition news was Milan-based tech aggregator ’ plan to acquire 13-year-old database company for around $1.3 billion.

Big rounds are coming faster

Venture capital continues to concentrate rapidly among a small group of fast-growing companies. Two of August’s billion-dollar recipients illustrate the trend: Databricks added $56 billion to its valuation in just six months, while River AI raised both its seed and Series A rounds this year, amassing a staggering $1.1 billion in early-stage funding.

That accelerated cadence extended across August’s megadeals: Five of the seven billion-dollar funding recipients had last raised capital less than 12 months earlier, including three that closed their previous rounds earlier this year. The numbers underscore how quickly investors are doubling down on companies they believe can become the next generation of technology giants.

Related ���ϳԹ� queries:

Methodology

The data contained in this report comes directly from ���ϳԹ�, and is based on reported data. Data is as of Sept. 2, 2026.

Note that data lags are most pronounced at the earliest stages of venture activity, with seed funding amounts increasing significantly after the end of a quarter/year.

Please note that all funding values are given in U.S. dollars unless otherwise noted. ���ϳԹ� converts foreign currencies to U.S. dollars at the prevailing spot rate from the date funding rounds, acquisitions, IPOs and other financial events are reported. Even if those events were added to ���ϳԹ� long after the event was announced, foreign currency transactions are converted at the historic spot price.

Glossary of funding terms

Seed and angel consists of seed, pre-seed and angel rounds. ���ϳԹ� also includes venture rounds of unknown series, equity crowdfunding and convertible notes at $3 million (USD or as-converted USD equivalent) or less.

Early-stage consists of Series A and Series B rounds, as well as other round types. ���ϳԹ� includes venture rounds of unknown series, corporate venture and other rounds above $3 million, and those less than or equal to $15 million.

Late-stage consists of Series C, Series D, Series E and later-lettered venture rounds following the “Series [Letter]” naming convention. Also included are venture rounds of unknown series, corporate venture and other rounds above $15 million. Corporate rounds are only included if a company has raised an equity funding at seed through a venture series funding round.

Technology growth is a private-equity round raised by a company that has previously raised a “venture” round. (So basically, any round from the previously defined stages.)

Illustration:

But startup investors haven’t abandoned the sector, either, ���ϳԹ� data shows. Instead, they’re being more selective about their bets and putting more money into companies using AI and other technology to make construction, property operations and real estate transactions faster and less expensive.

That shift shows up in both the year’s largest funding rounds and biggest acquisitions — and, notably, much of the biggest funding activity is happening outside the U.S.

The broad trend: Even before the pandemic-fueled funding peaks, proptech startups received more than double the venture funding in 2019 than in more recent years. While investors haven’t given up on proptech, funding to startups in the space remains down as interest rates hover in the .

In case you forgot, during the COVID-19 pandemic, home buyers and owners had access to 15-year mortgage interest rates as low as 2.5%. Those historically low interest rates fueled investor interest in the space, especially in the U.S.

Today, venture investors are backing startups working in areas such as AI-driven construction, property operations, underwriting and transaction infrastructure with demonstrable ROI. At the same time, more generic real estate software and later-stage companies without exceptional growth face significant funding challenges, our data shows.

And interestingly, four of the five largest deals in 2026 to date took place outside the United States.

The numbers: So far in 2026, global real estate-related startups have pulled in about $8.7 billion in seed- through growth-stage financing, per ���ϳԹ� . That compares to $24 billion in 2019, the second-highest year on record after the 2021 venture funding spike. It also compares to $12.3 billion raised in 2025. It appears that with four months left in the year, proptech funding is on pace to roughly match or slightly exceed 2025 levels.

Deal count is also down fairly significantly, with 794 deals so far this year. For context, the space saw more than 2,400 deals in 2019. Last year, the sector notched 1,446 transactions. The lower deal count signals both potentially decreased investor interest in the space and larger round sizes.

Noteworthy deals

The three largest deals in the proptech space so far took place in Europe, and two of those top deals involved companies doing work with steel.

Stockholm-based , a green steel startup, landed the largest haul in a private equity deal led by , also of Sweden. In June, the 6-year-old company raised about $1.6 billion in a transaction that made Wallenberg its majority owner.

In August, of Madrid raised $695 million in a venture round led by another Madrid-based company, , for its own green steel plant. The 3-year-old startup raised the money at a $3.1 billion valuation.

And in January, Amsterdam-based , a cloud-native hospitality management system, closed a $300 million Series D funding round at a $2.5 billion valuation. London’s led the financing for the 14-year-old company.

The only U.S. company to crack the top five when it comes to the largest deals was San Francisco-based autonomous construction tech startup , which raised $270 million in a Series B funding round in February. The financing, co-led by and , brought Bedrock’s total funding to over $350 million and valued the company at $1.75 billion.

Montreal-based AI-powered digital mortgage startup rounds out the list with a $216 million Series E raised in June at a $1.47 billion valuation.

Exits

There have been some meaningful proptech exits in 2026, although the activity is much stronger in M&A than in IPOs.

The only known significant initial public offering in the space was conducted in January by Columbia, Missouri-based , a construction-equipment rental company with a jobsite technology platform. EquipmentShare raised about $747 million in primary proceeds by pricing 30.5 million shares at $24.50. Including shares sold by existing holders, the offering totaled approximately $859 million.

Real estate-related startup M&A, however, has been robust in 2026 so far, with several of the largest transactions involving brokerage consolidation. Overall, the broad acquisition trend is centered around incumbents buying data, workflow ownership and distribution so they can build credible AI products more quickly.

The largest deal in the proptech space was $3.6 billion cash purchase of , which operated an AI-powered equipment maintenance and asset management platform, announced in May. (MaintainX had seen its valuation jump to $2.5 billion in 2025 after a $150 million Series D raise.)

There were several other large acquisitions.

• In January, completed its acquisition of in an all-stock $1.6 billion transaction that made it “the world’s largest brokerage,” according to .
• Construction tech giant announced in July that it was acquiring , a provider of aerial and ground-based reality-capture software for construction and other industries, for $845 million in cash. In a smaller deal, Procore also picked up construction AI-agent platform .
• Commercial real estate giant in August completed its $800 million cash purchase of , a housing-market data and technology provider for the homebuilding industry.
• And also in August, officially completed its $880 million acquisition of , forming a new parent entity named the Real REMAX Group.

The AI effect

AI is starting to move from the testing stage into everyday use across real estate and construction, according to a from and titled “Proptech’s Impact on Real Estate Innovation and Transformation.”

The report says companies are using it to cut costs, make better decisions, and handle routine work more efficiently. Meanwhile, proptech is expanding beyond property-management software into areas such as construction, energy, infrastructure and climate technology.

Overall, proptech funding remains far below its pandemic-era highs, but the types of companies attracting money are evolving. Investors and buyers tend to favor businesses that can show they save customers time or money, particularly in construction, building operations and real estate finance. As such, the proptech sector increasingly includes companies that look quite different from those funded in years past.

Related ���ϳԹ� query:

Related reading:

• Sector Snapshot: Real Estate Tech Funding Sees Slight Rebound, But Still Far Lower Than Peak Years
• Steel Startups Forge Ahead With More Funding
• From Batteries To Building Materials, Green Manufacturing Startups Are Raising Billions

Illustration:

For the past few years, global funding to biotech startups has hovered between $36 billion and $40 billion. Per ���ϳԹ� data, 2026 is on track to stay close to that range.

The numbers don’t paint an especially bullish picture, even though overall venture investment rose to a record level in the first half of this year. Still, given that much of that largesse went to a couple of generative AI behemoths, biotechs scooped up a respectable share of what was left.

Biggest rounds

A few biotechs picked up some especially large financings. A good share of those were for — no shocker here — companies at the intersection of biotech and AI.

So far this year, more than $6 billion has gone to AI-focused biotechs, per ���ϳԹ� data.

The largest round — and the biggest for any biotech this year — was a $2.1 billion Series B for London-based , which describes itself as an AI-first drug design and development company.

Delaware-based , which develops AI platforms for developing protein therapeutics, was the second-largest fundraiser, closing on $787 million in March. The next-largest AI-focused fundraise was San Francisco’s , a startup applying AI to drug discovery, which secured $400 million in Series C this summer at a $3.8 billion valuation.

Of course, not all of this year’s heavily funded biotechs describe themselves as AI-centric. A case in point is , a longevity startup based in South San Francisco, California, focused on developing medicines to restore youthful function in old cells, that raised $435 million in a June Series C. For a broader view, below we put together a list of 10 of this year’s most heavily funded global biotechs.

Still an early-stage game, with plenty of exits

But while top-funded biotechs may skew a bit later-stage, that’s not the case for the overall startup pipeline.

Funding rounds this year are heavily tilted toward seed and early stage, which comprise more than half of all investment and most rounds. This is a pattern we see in prior years as well, as later-stage biotechs often seek to go public after a Series B or Series C financing rather than raise another venture round.

This year, we’ve also seen a fair share of biotechs go public rather early in their lifecycles, particularly for hot areas like obesity therapeutics and pain management.

, a developer of oral and injectable therapies for obesity, was a prominent example. The Waltham, Massachusetts, company, founded in 2024, went public in April, six months after closing its Series B.

Personalized medicine startup followed a similar trajectory, making its debut in June after raising more than $550 million in early-stage funding the prior year. And , a developer of non-opioid therapies for chronic pain, completed its IPO in August, about a year-and-a-half after its Series B.

Later-stage biotechs also didn’t sit out the IPO parade. The year’s largest biotech offering, for example, was 10-year-old , focused on cancer therapeutics, which raised its Series F in January.

Biotech startups also delivered some big M&A exits. Per ���ϳԹ� data, at least 12 funded companies sold in transactions valued at $1 billion or more, including potential milestone payments. They are listed below.

Healthy outlook

Overall, ���ϳԹ� data shows biotech funding and exits holding up at healthy levels this year. True, conditions look pretty tame compared to the exuberance of the AI investment blitz. As funding at the intersection of AI and biotech continues to accumulate, however, we might see more of that enthusiasm spilling over in coming quarters.

Related ���ϳԹ� queries:

Related reading:

• ���ϳԹ� Data: Global Startup Investment Hit Record $510B In H1 2026 As AI Boom Accelerates Funding And Exits

Illustration:

So far this year, a record $20.3 billion in global seed- through growth-stage funding has gone to companies in space- and satellite-related sectors, per ���ϳԹ� data. That’s already by far the highest annual tally on record, and we’ve still got four months left in 2026.

Excitement extends beyond obvious markers like a behemoth IPO. The latest quarterly from venture investor declares that “the space economy has entered a new era,” and that “capital is flowing at unprecedented scale,” with scant indication of a near-term pullback.

It’s a global phenomenon as well, with the United States, China and Europe accounting for the overwhelming majority of funding. So far this year, U.S. startups pulled in around $12.7 billion, more than 60% of global space tech funding. Just over 20% of funding went to China-based companies, while Europe pulled in about 10%.

Top fundraisers

Funding looks robust, but, as usual, the larger rounds cluster at later stages.

This is true for 2026 fundraising leaders. The top-ranked investment recipient, , pulled in $5 billion in a May Series H. (Anduril is a diversified defense technology company rather than a pure-play space tech company, but it includes space and satellites among its focus areas.)

Shanghai-based , also referred to as SpaceSail, which is developing a low-Earth orbit satellite internet constellation to rival , was another prodigious fundraiser, pulling in a $1 billion round in August.

, a Torrance, California-based developer of large, high-powered satellites, also picked up a big round, securing $500 million in Series D funding in July.

For a broader view, below we put together a list of nine of this year’s largest space tech funding round recipients.

Exits rising

Needless to say, space tech investors aren’t just deploying capital — they’re also seeing eye-popping exit returns.

SpaceX set an initial valuation of nearly $1.8 trillion for its June IPO — the largest by far of any public offering to date — and raised over $80 billion in the process. Shares of the rocket developer, launch provider, Starlink operator and AI hyperscaler have fluctuated since then, but recently hovered near the initial offer price.

Of course, no other company operating in the space tech sector will come close to that. Leaving that aside, however, we did see some offerings and acquisitions that were significant by most other comps.

One example was , a private equity-backed space and defense tech company, which went public in January at a valuation of over $4 billion. Its stock has fallen sharply since then, however, indicating that a space tech focus alone is not enough to keep shares aloft.

More recently, , operator of a satellite constellation that sells signals intelligence to defense and government customers, went public in May. Its shares are also down some from their first-day closing price.

Startup M&A deals are also happening. York Space Systems announced this year that it is acquiring , a provider of satellite communications terminals, in a $355 million deal. It acquired two other venture-backed companies this year for undisclosed sums: , a developer of satellite propulsion systems, and , focused on solar energy for space.

Another recent market entrant, , also made a significant acquisition, picking up , a developer of lunar landers and rovers, for $300 million in June.

Risks and rewards

Of course, even the most sunnily optimistic startup investors don’t expect space tech valuations to always move up and to the right. It’s a notoriously risk-prone sector, and even the sector’s high-valuation market newcomer, SpaceX, has suffered its share of rocket failures and other high-profile disappointments.

That said, startup backers clearly believe space tech rewards outweigh the risks. We’ll see in coming quarters if that still holds true.

Correction: The 2025 dollar amount in the chart was updated.

Related ���ϳԹ� query:

Related reading:

• SpaceX Shares Close Up 19% After Largest IPO Of All Time

Illustration: