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

Cribl, Inc.

Cribl, Inc. looks fair 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

Cribl, Inc. 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

Cribl, Inc. has raised $389M in disclosed capital across 4 recorded rounds, aggregated from public filings. Its latest round is modeled as Series D+ (a $100M–$400M round).

Largest single filing: $210M on 2021-07-27.

Most recent recorded round closed around 2024-08-02.

Valuation (modeled)modeled

Provath models Cribl, Inc. at approximately $1.3B (range $774M–$1.8B). This is an algorithmic estimate from round sizes and same-niche peers — not a quoted or reported figure.

Read: Fair. Modeled value is 0.94× the median modeled value of Series D+ Other companies in 2022–2024 (109 peers) — value vs value, same stage and era. Within the normal band (94% of peer median) for its niche.

Financing rhythm & timingmixed

Historic cadence: a new round about every 17 months.

Last raise 23 mo 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 1.5× smaller than the prior — a bridge or down round.

Comparablesmixed

Capital scale ranks ahead of 99% of Other peers (25015 compared).

Modeled value ranks above 97% of those peers.

Closest niche peers: Getaround, Inc, Relentless Topco, Inc., NQ PE Project Colosseum Parent, L.P., Cowboy Topco, Inc., Office Topco, Llc.

Peoplefiled

8 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.