Venture raised $49 million while buyers announced about $2.3 billion in deals. Five transactions, who built what was bought, and what each one leaves out.
This is such a helpful breakdown! Adding what each deal could mean for patients makes the money side so much easier to follow. Fewer IVF injections would be a huge change for so many women.
That makes sense. On Gameto, I'd note how much Ferring is paying for the clinical step: Fertilo's US Phase 3 (FIRST, about 500 women aged 18 to 35) compares it against standard IVM, not conventional stimulated IVF. So even a clean result doesn't directly prove the fewer injections claim against the IVF most patients get today. That may be why so much of the $1.38bn sits in milestones.
Your "division of labour" framing is the clearest read of this market I've seen: venture carries the uncertain science, and acquirers buy distribution once the technical risk shrinks. As a founder in this space, I notice a category that fits neither box: tools that measure what's currently unmeasured, like how stress physiology shifts across perimenopause. Too early for strategic buyers, often too clinical for consumer VCs. Do you see philanthropy or public money stepping into that measurement gap, the way Uzima did for stillbirth?
This is such a helpful breakdown! Adding what each deal could mean for patients makes the money side so much easier to follow. Fewer IVF injections would be a huge change for so many women.
Thank you Jenni for this feedback! So much appreciated
That makes sense. On Gameto, I'd note how much Ferring is paying for the clinical step: Fertilo's US Phase 3 (FIRST, about 500 women aged 18 to 35) compares it against standard IVM, not conventional stimulated IVF. So even a clean result doesn't directly prove the fewer injections claim against the IVF most patients get today. That may be why so much of the $1.38bn sits in milestones.
Exactly, Dereck. And that's what makes the deal structure so interesting. The $1.38bn headline gets attention, but without knowing the upfront payment, it's difficult to assess what Ferring is actually paying for today versus what remains to be proven. I explored that in a bit more detail here https://blog.billiondollarblindspot.com/p/ferring-gameto-acquisition-fertility-investing?r=2ovz81&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
The clinical comparison is an important distinction too. Thanks for highlighting it!
Great news across the board! I like the breakdown into where the money comes in depending on stage.
Thank you dear Lara for this feedback! It’s so much appreciated.
Your "division of labour" framing is the clearest read of this market I've seen: venture carries the uncertain science, and acquirers buy distribution once the technical risk shrinks. As a founder in this space, I notice a category that fits neither box: tools that measure what's currently unmeasured, like how stress physiology shifts across perimenopause. Too early for strategic buyers, often too clinical for consumer VCs. Do you see philanthropy or public money stepping into that measurement gap, the way Uzima did for stillbirth?