Diligence memo · auto-generated · as of July 2, 2026

Amore Holdings Topco LP

Amore Holdings Topco LP looks under-valued against its niche peers and is at-risk on financing cadence.

WatchOverdue for a raise versus sector cadence — could be a bridge, a down round, or distress. Watch for the next filing.

Businessfiled

Amore Holdings Topco LP operates in Other, based in NEW YORK.

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

Amore Holdings Topco LP has raised $413M in disclosed capital across 2 recorded rounds, aggregated from public filings. Its latest round is modeled as Series D+ (a $100M–$400M round).

Largest single filing: $379M on 2022-06-01.

Most recent recorded round closed around 2022-09-16.

Valuation (modeled)modeled

Provath models Amore Holdings Topco LP at approximately $429M (range $195M–$730M). This is an algorithmic estimate from round sizes and same-niche peers — not a quoted or reported figure.

Read: Under-valued. Modeled value is 0.31× the median modeled value of Series D+ Other companies in 2022–2024 (109 peers) — value vs value, same stage and era.

Financing rhythm & timingmixed

Historic cadence: a new round about every 4 months.

Last raise 3.8 yr ago; this sector typically re-raises about every 11 months.

Past due for a raise versus sector cadence — watch for distress or a bridge.

The last round was 11.0× smaller than the prior — a bridge or down round.

Comparablesmixed

Capital scale ranks ahead of 99% of Other peers (25015 compared).

Modeled value ranks above 93% of those peers.

Closest niche peers: Getaround, Inc, Relentless Topco, Inc., NQ PE Project Colosseum Parent, L.P., Cowboy Topco, Inc., Office Topco, Llc.

Peoplefiled

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

Risks & flagsmixed

Overdue for a raise versus sector norm — distress or bridge risk.

Broad sector classification weakens peer comparison.

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