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

Caspida, Inc.

Caspida, Inc. 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

Caspida, Inc. operates in Other, based in PALO ALTO.

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

Caspida, Inc. has raised $19M 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: $9.7M on 2014-02-19.

Most recent recorded round closed around 2014-02-19.

Valuation (modeled)modeled

Provath models Caspida, Inc. at approximately $147M (range $13M–$800M). This is an algorithmic estimate from round sizes and same-niche peers — not a quoted or reported figure.

Read: Over-valued. Modeled value is 1.67× the median modeled value of Series A Other companies in 2013–2015 (623 peers) — value vs value, same stage and era.

Financing rhythm & timingmixed

Last raise 12.4 yr ago; this sector typically re-raises about every 11 months.

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

The last round was 1.0× smaller than the prior — a bridge or down round.

Comparablesmixed

Capital scale ranks ahead of 85% of Other peers (25015 compared).

Modeled value ranks above 86% of those peers.

Closest niche peers: Biloxi Baseball, LLC, United Sample Inc, Revolution Lighting Technologies, Inc., County Waste of Virginia, LLC, Marathon Patent Group, Inc..

Peoplefiled

4 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.