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

Burlywood, LLC

Burlywood, LLC looks over-valued 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

Burlywood, LLC operates in Other, based in LONGMONT.

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

Burlywood, LLC has raised $16M in disclosed capital across 5 recorded rounds, aggregated from public filings. Its latest round is modeled as Series A (a $4.0M–$15M round).

Largest single filing: $7.1M on 2022-04-07.

Most recent recorded round closed around 2022-04-07.

Valuation (modeled)modeled

Provath models Burlywood, LLC at approximately $63M (range $9.6M–$228M). This is an algorithmic estimate from round sizes and same-niche peers — not a quoted or reported figure.

Read: Over-valued. Modeled value is 1.62× the median modeled value of Series A Other companies in 2022–2024 (1135 peers) — value vs value, same stage and era.

Financing rhythm & timingmixed

Historic cadence: a new round about every 10 months.

Last raise 4.2 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 3.7× from the prior — scaling.

Comparablesmixed

Capital scale ranks ahead of 83% of Other peers (25015 compared).

Modeled value ranks above 75% of those peers.

Closest niche peers: Ness Well, Inc., Quantori, Inc., Qquv Investments 5, Llc, Applause Network TV, Inc., Trustworthy Co.

Peoplefiled

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

Risks & flagsmixed

Financing has been silent well beyond sector cadence — possibly defunct, acquired, or paused.

Modeled above niche peers — valuation risk on entry.

Broad sector classification weakens peer comparison.

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