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

Athletes' Performance, Inc.

Athletes' Performance, 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

Athletes' Performance, Inc. operates in Other, based in Phoenix.

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

Athletes' Performance, Inc. has raised $44M in disclosed capital across 8 recorded rounds, aggregated from public filings. Its latest round is modeled as Series B (a $15M–$40M round).

Largest single filing: $22M on 2012-07-02.

Most recent recorded round closed around 2012-07-02.

Valuation (modeled)modeled

Provath models Athletes' Performance, Inc. at approximately $374M (range $56M–$1.4B). This is an algorithmic estimate from round sizes and same-niche peers — not a quoted or reported figure.

Read: Fair. Modeled value is 1.03× the median modeled value of Series B Other companies in 2010–2012 (251 peers) — value vs value, same stage and era. Within the normal band (103% of peer median) for its niche.

Financing rhythm & timingmixed

Historic cadence: a new round about every 73 months.

Last raise 14.0 yr ago; this sector typically re-raises about every 11 months.

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

The last round stepped up 3.6× from the prior — scaling.

Comparablesmixed

Capital scale ranks ahead of 92% of Other peers (25015 compared).

Modeled value ranks above 93% of those peers.

Closest niche peers: ATS Consolidated, Inc., Amber Holding Inc., Varsity AP Holdings LLC, Nordic Cold Storage Holdings, LLC, Nevsun Resources Ltd.

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.