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

Bloodhound Tracking Device, Inc

Bloodhound Tracking Device, Inc looks fair against its niche peers and is quiet on financing cadence.

Diligence furtherNo decisive signal either way from the public record alone — the call needs primary diligence beyond the filings.

Businessfiled

Bloodhound Tracking Device, Inc operates in Other Technology, based in WEBSTER.

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

Capital & rounds (filed)filed

Bloodhound Tracking Device, Inc has raised $15M in disclosed capital across 2 recorded rounds, aggregated from public filings. Its latest round is modeled as Series A (a $4.0M–$15M round).

Largest single filing: $8.5M on 2024-08-01.

Most recent recorded round closed around 2024-08-01.

Filings read as a recurring offering program rather than a clean venture-stage ladder — interpret stage labels and step-ups with that in mind.

Valuation (modeled)modeled

Provath models Bloodhound Tracking Device, Inc at approximately $45M (range $11M–$96M). This is an algorithmic estimate from round sizes and same-niche peers — not a quoted or reported figure.

Read: Fair. Modeled value is 0.90× the median modeled value of Series A Other Technology companies in 2022–2024 (1325 peers) — value vs value, same stage and era. Within the normal band (90% of peer median) for its niche.

Financing rhythm & timingmixed

Historic cadence: a new round about every 1 months.

Last raise 23 mo ago; this sector typically re-raises about every 13 months.

Slightly overdue versus sector cadence.

The last round was 1.3× smaller than the prior — a bridge or down round.

Comparablesmixed

Capital scale ranks ahead of 79% of Other Technology peers (21302 compared).

Modeled value ranks above 56% of those peers.

Closest niche peers: Phylum, Inc., Keon Foundation Ltd., Remoteam Inc., MultiSafe, Inc., Careerian Inc..

Peoplefiled

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

Risks & flagsmixed

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

Recurring-offering pattern: stage-based valuation has lower applicability.