Startup Valuation Delta: H1 2025
In a market defined by macroeconomic caution, a "flight to quality" has created a bifurcated landscape. Capital is abundant for a select few, while most face a higher bar for funding. This analysis reveals the anatomy of an investable startup in the new era of disciplined execution.
"Pre-Seed" Classification: We classify ‘pre-seed’ as companies without a fully built-out product (nothing beyond an MVP) raising their first institutional round of investment (no VCs on the cap table).
Global Pre-Seed Valuation & Fundraising Trends - 2019-2025
The last five years have been a rollercoaster for startup valuations. After the peak of the ZIRP-era bubble in 2021, the market has undergone a significant correction, with valuations falling back to pre-boom levels while dilution remains stubbornly high.
Annual Median Valuation & Capital Requirement
Data sourced from 3,000+ valuations completed on Equidam in H1 2025
Year | Median Valuation ($M) | Median Capital Req. ($M) |
---|---|---|
2019 | 3.64 | 0.50 |
2020 | 4.25 | 0.60 |
2021 | 5.88 | 1.00 |
2022 | 4.75 | 0.80 |
2023 | 3.81 | 0.60 |
2024 | 4.01 | 0.62 |
H1 2025 | 3.95 | 0.65 |
Valuation trends for pre-seed startups in H1 2025 show a slight recovery from the lows of 2023, though average figures remain below those seen in the highs of early 2024. This suggests that while optimism—especially around generative AI—temporarily lifted valuations, persistent market uncertainty has limited the strength and duration of the rebound. This ongoing hesitancy stems from the concentration of venture capital into a narrow set of clear AI winners, leaving less room for risk-taking in the broader early-stage landscape. As a result, the average pre-seed startup still struggles to command the kind of valuation multiples seen during the 2021 bubble or even the 2020–2022 AI acceleration.
Quarterly Implied Dilution Trend
Quarter | Implied Dilution (%) |
---|---|
Q1 2019 | 16.80 |
Q2 2019 | 17.00 |
Q3 2019 | 16.20 |
Q4 2019 | 17.10 |
Q1 2020 | 16.20 |
Q2 2020 | 17.00 |
Q3 2020 | 16.60 |
Q4 2020 | 15.80 |
Q1 2021 | 16.40 |
Q2 2021 | 15.20 |
Q3 2021 | 15.40 |
Q4 2021 | 14.10 |
Q1 2022 | 16.30 |
Q2 2022 | 17.00 |
Q3 2022 | 18.10 |
Q4 2022 | 21.00 |
Q1 2023 | 20.80 |
Q2 2023 | 20.30 |
Q3 2023 | 20.20 |
Q4 2023 | 18.60 |
Q1 2024 | 17.20 |
Q2 2024 | 17.80 |
Q3 2024 | 18.00 |
Q4 2024 | 18.90 |
Q1 2025 | 19.20 |
Q2 2025 | 19.50 |
The corresponding trend in dilution paints a complementary picture. After hitting an all-time low in Q4 2021, dilution peaked in Q4 2022 amid investor caution and falling valuations. From there, it declined steadily into Q1 2024, boosted by renewed enthusiasm for AI and a broader sense of recovery. However, by mid-2025, dilution has begun to climb again—nearing the levels last seen in mid-2023. This increase suggests founders are conceding more equity to secure funding, again pointing to weakened investor competition and uncertain deal dynamics.
Global Valuation & Fundraising Dynamics
H1 2025 reveals a global valuation correction. While the US still commands premium valuations, founders in other regions face a tougher climate, often conceding higher dilution for less capital.
Regional Snapshot: Pre-Seed Valuation, Capital & Dilution - H1 2025
A look at how deal dynamics vary significantly across the globe.
Regional shifts in pre-seed valuations over the past few years highlight a notable reshuffling in the global early-stage funding landscape. While the United States continues to lead with the highest average valuations, the Middle East has firmly established itself as the second most valuable region, overtaking Europe—a position it held historically—thanks to stronger economic growth, political stability, and a more consistent fundraising environment. Europe has slipped to fourth place, now trailing Oceania, which posts higher average valuations despite its smaller ecosystem. Meanwhile, Latin America, Southeast Asia, and Africa remain clustered at the lower end, with average pre-seed valuations between $2.1M and $2.2M. These shifts reflect both investor confidence and the varying maturity levels of startup ecosystems globally.
Region | Avg. Valuation ($M) | Avg. Capital Req. ($M) | Avg. Dilution (%) |
---|---|---|---|
Africa | 2.28 | 0.24 | 10.69 |
Europe | 3.24 | 0.68 | 21.00 |
Latin America | 2.16 | 0.39 | 18.15 |
Middle East | 3.70 | 0.92 | 24.80 |
Oceana | 3.32 | 0.39 | 11.67 |
South East Asia | 2.08 | 0.41 | 19.51 |
United States | 5.27 | 1.04 | 19.69 |
Industry Snapshot: Where Capital is Flowing
Pre-seed valuations and funding differ dramatically by industry, reflecting varying capital intensity, risk profiles, and investor appetite.
Industry Snapshot: Pre-Seed Valuation, Capital & Dilution - H1 2025
Capital-intensive sectors like Energy and Healthcare command the highest valuations and capital raises.
Industry shifts in early-stage valuations and dilution highlight a divergence in capital needs and investor confidence across sectors. Energy/Climate and Healthcare/Pharma are the most capital-intensive, with high average raises and correspondingly high dilution (18.9% and 16.9%, respectively), reflecting investor willingness to fund long-term innovation in exchange for greater ownership. Finance leads in pre-money valuation at €9.1M and maintains moderate dilution (14.2%), showing continued investor interest in fintech with relatively favorable founder terms. Software & IT and Other sectors demonstrate more conservative funding patterns and lower dilution, aligning with their capital-light nature. An outlier is Food and Drink, with an unusually low dilution of 1%, likely due to atypically small raise sizes or alternative deal structures. These patterns reflect both sector-specific funding dynamics and shifting investor priorities in early 2025.
Industry | Avg. Valuation ($) | Avg. Capital Req. ($) | Avg. Dilution (%) |
---|---|---|---|
Finance | 9.10 | 1.50 | 14.2 |
Energy / Climate | 8.56 | 2.00 | 18.9 |
Food and drink | 5.11 | 0.10 | 1 |
Healthcare and pharma | 8.68 | 1.76 | 16.9 |
Software & IT | 5.50 | 0.65 | 10.6 |
Other | 5.52 | 0.62 | 10.1 |
The Founder Archetype: A Flight to Experience
Investors aren't just betting on ideas; they're betting on people. In a risk-off environment, capital flows to founders who have already proven they can navigate the startup lifecycle and deliver returns.
Founder Team Size
VCs overwhelmingly back teams of 2-3 founders, mitigating the single-point-of-failure risk of solo founders while maintaining agile decision-making.
# of Founders | All (%) | VC-Backed (%) | >$1M Rev (%) |
---|---|---|---|
1 | 44.33 | 20.18 | 41.63 |
2 | 30.48 | 37.22 | 32.78 |
3 | 14.96 | 25.11 | 14.83 |
4 | 5.81 | 11.66 | 5.55 |
5+ | 4.42 | 5.83 | 5.20 |
The data shows that venture capital overwhelmingly favors startups with 2–3 founders, with these configurations significantly overrepresented among VC-backed companies. While solo founders make up 44.3% of all startups, they account for just 20.2% of VC-funded ventures, suggesting that investors view single-person teams as higher risk due to the lack of complementary skill sets and the vulnerability of single-point failure. Teams of two founders are the most favored among VC-backed startups (37.2%), followed by three-person teams (25.1%). Despite this bias, solo founders remain competitive in terms of outcomes: they represent 41.6% of companies exceeding $1M in revenue, showing that execution strength can override structural concerns at later stages.
Founder Experience
A prior successful exit is the ultimate "de-risking" signal for investors. Successful repeat entrepreneurs are massively over-represented in VC-backed companies.
Experience Level | All (%) | VC-Backed (%) | >$1M Rev (%) |
---|---|---|---|
First-time | 21.49 | 19.37 | 24.42 |
Repeat | 49.31 | 40.99 | 47.37 |
Successful Repeat | 29.20 | 39.64 | 28.21 |
Investor preference also strongly leans toward founders with prior startup experience, particularly those with a successful exit. Successful repeat founders make up 39.6% of VC-backed companies, compared to just 29.2% across the full sample. In contrast, first-time entrepreneurs make up only 19.4% of VC-funded companies, despite representing 21.5% of the overall founder population. This points to the role of prior success as a critical de-risking signal in the early-stage fundraising process. However, in terms of company performance, the revenue data tells a more nuanced story: repeat founders (with or without prior exits) make up the bulk of companies exceeding $1M in revenue, but first-time entrepreneurs still account for a healthy 24.4%, reinforcing the idea that strong performance is not limited to prior-exit founders and that execution often trumps experience as companies grow.
Founder Age - All Companies
The overall startup ecosystem shows a broad distribution of founder ages, valuing maturity and industry experience.
Age Range | Percentage (%) |
---|---|
< 25 | 2.31 |
25–34 | 19.65 |
35–45 | 43.22 |
> 45 | 34.82 |
Founder Age - VC-Backed
VC funding is even more concentrated among mature founders, with over 77% being 35 or older, reflecting a strong bias for experience.
Age Range | VC-Backed (%) |
---|---|
< 25 | 0.43 |
25–34 | 22.08 |
35–45 | 47.62 |
> 45 | 29.87 |
The data on founder age distribution across all startups and VC-backed companies reveals a clear and consistent bias toward more mature founders, particularly those aged 35 and older. Among all companies, 43.2% of founders are aged 35–45 and 34.8% are over 45, indicating that nearly 80% of startups are founded by individuals with considerable life and likely industry experience. Only 2.3% of founders are under 25, reinforcing the notion that the stereotype of the “young tech prodigy” is more myth than norm. When we isolate for VC-backed companies, the age preference sharpens. This disparity suggests that VCs heavily prioritize experience, network maturity, and execution credibility over youthful energy or raw innovation potential. Notably, while younger founders are somewhat more represented in the VC group than in the general startup population, it’s the mid-career and later-career founders who dominate. In short, age correlates strongly with perceived investability, reinforcing the idea that successful fundraising is not just about the idea or market, but also the founder’s stage of professional life—with investors heavily favoring founders who can demonstrate proven competence, resilience, and leadership maturity.
The Anatomy of an Investable Team
Investors seek teams that can execute with speed and build a defensible product. In-house expertise is a critical proxy for a startup's ability to create a long-term competitive moat.
Business Leadership
Over 81% of founding teams include seasoned managers, signaling operational readiness to build a scalable organization and go-to-market strategy.
Business Experience Level | Percentage (%) |
---|---|
None | 4.02 |
Business-related studies | 6.00 |
Work experience | 8.43 |
Mid-level manager | 27.34 |
Top-tier manager | 54.00 |
The majority of founding teams possess substantial business leadership experience, with over 81% including either mid- or top-tier managers. Specifically, 54% of startups are led by top-tier managers and another 27.3% by mid-level managers, signaling strong operational foundations and go-to-market readiness. This dominance of experienced executives highlights a clear preference—whether by founders or investors—for leadership with strategic and executional depth. Founders with only business-related studies (6%) or general work experience (8.4%) are far less represented, while those with no business background make up just 4% of founding teams. The data reflects a startup ecosystem where executional credibility and prior leadership roles are seen as vital to securing funding and scaling effectively.
Technical Capability
Relying on outsourcing introduces execution risk. Nearly 78% of startups have majority or all technical skills in-house to enable rapid iteration and protect IP.
Technical Skills Level | Percentage (%) |
---|---|
None | 1.54 |
Outsource all | 3.70 |
Some in-house | 17.27 |
Majority in-house | 24.44 |
All in-house | 53.05 |
In-house technical expertise is overwhelmingly prioritized, with nearly 78% of startups maintaining either majority or full technical capabilities internally. More than half (53%) of startups have all technical capabilities in-house, and another 24.4% maintain a majority, minimizing reliance on external providers. Only 3.7% outsource all technical work, and just 1.5% report having no technical skills at all, underscoring the critical role of internal technical capacity in product development, iteration speed, and IP protection. These findings reinforce that for most startups, outsourcing introduces execution risk, and maintaining technical talent internally is viewed as a strategic necessity for both efficiency and investor confidence.
The New Market Reality
Funding dynamics have been reshaped by the dominance of AI, creating new challenges and opportunities for founders navigating the capital landscape.
The AI Gravity Well & The Series A Choke Point
Venture capital is overwhelmingly flowing to a few late-stage AI companies, creating a "gravity well" that pulls funding away from other sectors and creating a funding chasm for early-stage startups.
The AI Effect:
Late-stage AI mega-deals are propping up overall funding numbers, masking a severe contraction in early-stage investment and crowding out non-AI startups.
The Series A Crunch:
A huge cohort of seed-funded companies from 2021-2022 now faces a much higher bar ($2M+ ARR) to secure a Series A, forcing many to seek smaller "bridge" rounds to survive.
The Rise of Alternative Capital
As traditional VC becomes more selective, a diverse ecosystem of capital providers is emerging to fill the gaps, offering founders more flexibility.
-
1
Venture Debt: Surging in popularity to extend runway and hit key milestones before raising a dilutive equity round.
-
2
Revenue-Based Financing (RBF): A non-dilutive option for companies with predictable revenue streams, like SaaS and e-commerce.
-
3
Micro-VCs & Solo Capitalists: Specialized, operator-led funds offering deep domain expertise and faster decisions.
-
4
ESG & Impact Funds: A growing source of capital for mission-driven startups in areas like climate tech and healthcare.
Company Vitals: The New Mandate for Profitability
The "growth-at-all-costs" era is over. Investors now demand a clear and credible path to profitability, fundamentally changing how startups are built and valued.
Stage of Development
The ecosystem has a healthy pipeline, but the journey to growth and maturity is long. Most failures occur in the first few stages.
Stage | Percentage (%) |
---|---|
Idea | 5.72 |
Development | 30.42 |
Startup | 24.07 |
Expansion | 19.56 |
Growth | 12.85 |
Maturity | 7.37 |
The data on stage of development shows that the startup ecosystem maintains a healthy pipeline, but most companies remain in the earlier phases of growth. The largest proportion—30.4%—are in the development stage, with another 24.1% classified as startups, indicating that over half of all ventures are still pre-traction or early in their go-to-market journey. This aligns with the reality that many startups are still refining their product, validating market fit, or building operational foundations. The expansion stage accounts for 19.6%, showing a significant drop-off as companies begin to scale operations and customer acquisition. Further down the funnel, only 12.9% have reached the growth stage, and just 7.4% are in maturity, underscoring the steep attrition and extended timeline involved in scaling a startup to sustainability or exit-readiness. The relatively small share at the idea stage (5.7%) suggests that most reported ventures have already made initial progress, but the majority remain far from profitability or long-term resilience.
Revenue Status
VCs strongly prefer to invest after a company achieves initial market traction. Post-revenue status is a key de-risking milestone.
The data highlights that VCs strongly prioritize startups with early revenue traction, even though they’re known for high-risk investing. Among VC-backed companies, 82.4% are post-revenue (>$10K), compared to 70.3% of the overall startup population. This suggests that despite a reputation for funding ideas at inception, VCs often wait for some form of market validation or monetization before investing. The lower proportion of pre-revenue startups among VC-backed ventures (17.6% vs. 29.7% overall) reinforces that early revenue generation serves as a key de-risking milestone, signaling to investors that the business has product-market fit potential and traction to build on.
Revenue Status | All (%) | VC-Backed (%) |
---|---|---|
Pre-revenue (<$10k) | 29.71 | 17.57 |
Post-revenue (>$10k) | 70.29 | 82.43 |
Profitability Paradox
VC-backed firms are disproportionately unprofitable, reflecting the model of funding aggressive growth as a core feature.
While VC-backed startups are more likely to be generating revenue, they are far less likely to be profitable. Only 36.9% of VC-backed companies are profitable, compared to 65.8% of all startups. In fact, more than half (52.8%) are unprofitable, which reflects the venture growth model's emphasis on scaling over short-term returns. This “growth-first” approach often involves aggressive spending on hiring, product, and market expansion—delaying profitability in favor of capturing market share or achieving strategic positioning. The data supports a common theme in venture capital: revenue is expected, profit is optional—at least for now. This reveals the trade-off founders must navigate between sustainability and rapid growth when pursuing VC funding.
Profitability Status | All (%) | VC-Backed (%) |
---|---|---|
Unprofitable | 14.85 | 52.80 |
Breakeven | 19.40 | 10.28 |
Profitable | 65.75 | 36.92 |
The Shifting Liquidity Landscape
With companies staying private longer, the pathways to liquidity are changing. M&A is the most likely exit, while secondary sales have become a critical tool for retaining talent.
Purpose of Valuation - H1 2022 vs. H1 2025
The decline in "Fundraising" and rise in "M&A" and "Secondary Sales" shows a market maturing from pure growth to realizing returns.
Purpose | H1 2022 (%) | H1 2025 (%) |
---|---|---|
Fundraising | 68.27 | 62.81 |
M&A | 7.49 | 11.03 |
Secondary share sales | 11.71 | 14.51 |
Employee equity planning | 12.53 | 11.64 |
The comparison between H1 2022 and H1 2025 reveals a gradual shift in the purpose of startup valuations, signaling a maturing market. While fundraising remains the dominant reason for valuations, its share has declined slightly from 68.3% to 62.8%, suggesting that valuations are no longer driven purely by growth-oriented capital raises. In contrast, M&A-related valuations have risen from 7.5% to 11.0%, reflecting a growing trend of startups “building for acquisition” by aligning more deliberately with potential buyers and exit opportunities. Meanwhile, secondary share sales have increased from 11.7% to 14.5%, driven by the “private-for-longer” environment, where startups stay private longer and provide liquidity to early employees and investors through secondaries. This trend also supports employee retention in the absence of traditional exit events. Employee equity planning has remained relatively stable, slightly dipping from 12.5% to 11.6%, indicating that while it remains an important internal tool, it's not a growing use case for valuations. Overall, this shift points to a startup ecosystem that is evolving from pure capital accumulation toward return realization and strategic outcomes.
About Equidam's Startup Valuation Delta
As the leading provider of valuations to early stage companies, we provide…
- Valuations with an open, standard methodology, focused on enabling investment in the most innovative companies.
- Context on valuation data with associated capital requirements, revenue and EBITDA forecast data.
- Coverage of established markets such as the US and Europe, as well as emerging markets like Africa and Southeast Asia.
These indicators collectively offer an understanding of the financial landscape and sentiment surrounding startups.
By examining these trends collectively, investors, entrepreneurs, and industry observers can gain insights into the overall health of the early-stage fundraising market. It helps identify emerging sectors, evaluate risk appetite, and make informed investment decisions. Additionally, analyzing these factors over time can provide a broader perspective on the evolving dynamics and trends within the startup ecosystem. Each quarter we will release our own analysis on this data, and what it implies for early stage fundraising.