Diligence memo · auto-generated · as of July 3, 2026

Alliant Holdings I, L.P.

Alliant Holdings I, L.P. looks fair against its niche peers and is dormant on financing cadence.

DeprioritizeFinancing has gone silent well past the sector's normal cadence — treat as inactive until outside confirmation of a live operation.

Businessfiled

Alliant Holdings I, L.P. operates in Other, based in SAN DIEGO.

Sector still resolves to a broad 'Other' bucket, so operating comparables below are weaker than for a tightly-classified peer.

No verified homepage on file yet — operating evidence is limited to the public record.

Capital & rounds (filed)filed

Alliant Holdings I, L.P. has raised $624M in disclosed capital across 1 recorded round, aggregated from public filings. Its latest round is modeled as Growth/Late (a round over $400M).

Largest single filing: $624M on 2012-12-20.

Most recent recorded round closed around 2012-12-20.

Valuation (modeled)modeled

Provath models Alliant Holdings I, L.P. at approximately $11.1B (range $4.9B–$20.0B). This is an algorithmic estimate from round sizes and same-niche peers — not a quoted or reported figure.

Read: Fair. Modeled value is 1.08× the median modeled value of Growth/Late Other companies in 2010–2012 (16 peers) — value vs value, same stage and era. Within the normal band (108% of peer median) for its niche.

Financing rhythm & timingmixed

Last raise 13.5 yr ago; this sector typically re-raises about every 11 months.

Only one round on record and long silent — often defunct, acquired, or gone quiet.

Comparablesmixed

Capital scale ranks ahead of 100% of Other peers (25015 compared).

Modeled value ranks above 100% of those peers.

Closest niche peers: Healthcare Technology Holdings, Inc., Conagra Foods Inc /De/, Chinos Holdings, Inc., Griffey Investors, L.P., Visteon Corp.

Peoplefiled

9 named people on file across officers, directors and signatories.

Risks & flagsmixed

Financing has been silent well beyond sector cadence — possibly defunct, acquired, or paused.

Broad sector classification weakens peer comparison.

No clearly named CEO/founder/principal in the surfaced records — key-person evidence is thin.