Diligence memo · auto-generated · as of July 2, 2026
CIPHERLOC Corp
CIPHERLOC Corp looks under-valued against its niche peers and is at-risk on financing cadence.
Businessfiled
CIPHERLOC Corp operates in Other, based in WORCESTER.
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
CIPHERLOC Corp has raised $58M in disclosed capital across 10 recorded rounds, aggregated from public filings. Its latest round is modeled as Series B (a $15M–$40M round).
Largest single filing: $17M on 2018-07-23.
Most recent recorded round closed around 2023-05-04.
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 CIPHERLOC Corp at approximately $92M (range $28M–$206M). This is an algorithmic estimate from round sizes and same-niche peers — not a quoted or reported figure.
Read: Under-valued. Modeled value is 0.58× 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 2 months.
Last raise 3.2 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 stepped up 1.0× from the prior — scaling.
Comparablesmixed
Capital scale ranks ahead of 94% of Other peers (25008 compared).
Modeled value ranks above 82% 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
11 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.
Recurring-offering pattern: stage-based valuation has lower applicability.