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

Aseptia, Inc.

Aseptia, Inc. 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

Aseptia, Inc. operates in Other, based in RALEIGH.

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

Aseptia, Inc. has raised $75M in disclosed capital across 7 recorded rounds, aggregated from public filings. Its latest round is modeled as Series B (a $15M–$40M round).

Largest single filing: $28M on 2013-02-25.

Most recent recorded round closed around 2013-02-25.

Valuation (modeled)modeled

Provath models Aseptia, Inc. at approximately $465M (range $70M–$1.8B). This is an algorithmic estimate from round sizes and same-niche peers — not a quoted or reported figure.

Read: Fair. Modeled value is 1.35× the median modeled value of Series B Other companies in 2013–2015 (273 peers) — value vs value, same stage and era. Within the normal band (135% of peer median) for its niche.

Financing rhythm & timingmixed

Historic cadence: a new round about every 4 months.

Last raise 13.3 yr ago; this sector typically re-raises about every 11 months.

Silent for over 3× the sector's normal cadence.

The last round was 1.5× smaller than the prior — a bridge or down round.

Comparablesmixed

Capital scale ranks ahead of 95% of Other peers (25015 compared).

Modeled value ranks above 94% of those peers.

Closest niche peers: PL Parent, LLC, ComplexCare Holdings, Inc., Sprinklr, Inc., Globaltranz Enterprises, Inc., Halco Acquisition Corp.

Peoplefiled

10 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.