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

Better Place Forests Co.

Better Place Forests Co. 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

Better Place Forests Co. operates in Other, based in SAN FRANCISCO.

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

Better Place Forests Co. has raised $28M in disclosed capital across 3 recorded rounds, aggregated from public filings. Its latest round is modeled as Series B (a $15M–$40M round).

Largest single filing: $20M on 2021-10-04.

Most recent recorded round closed around 2023-07-13.

Valuation (modeled)modeled

Provath models Better Place Forests Co. at approximately $61M (range $20M–$132M). This is an algorithmic estimate from round sizes and same-niche peers — not a quoted or reported figure.

Read: Under-valued. Modeled value is 0.39× the median modeled value of Series B Other companies in 2022–2024 (465 peers) — value vs value, same stage and era.

Financing rhythm & timingmixed

Historic cadence: a new round about every 42 months.

Last raise 3.0 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 2.6× smaller than the prior — a bridge or down round.

Comparablesmixed

Capital scale ranks ahead of 89% of Other peers (25015 compared).

Modeled value ranks above 75% of those peers.

Closest niche peers: Ever/Body, Inc., Financeware Holdings LLC, American Cricket Enterprises Inc., Xlerate Ultimate Holdings, Lp, MDME Ultimate Holdings, LP.

Peoplefiled

18 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.