Diligence memo · auto-generated · as of July 2, 2026
Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Services, LLC
Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Services, LLC looks under-valued against its niche peers and is active on financing cadence.
Businessfiled
Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Services, LLC operates in Other, based in NEW YORK.
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
Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Services, LLC has raised $28M in disclosed capital across 14 recorded rounds, aggregated from public filings. Its latest round is modeled as Series A (a $4.0M–$15M round).
Largest single filing: $4.1M on 2022-01-07.
Most recent recorded round closed around 2026-01-09.
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 Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Services, LLC at approximately $4.1M (range $1.9M–$6.2M). This is an algorithmic estimate from round sizes and same-niche peers — not a quoted or reported figure.
Read: Under-valued. Modeled value is 0.21× the median modeled value of Series A Other companies in 2025–2027 (487 peers) — value vs value, same stage and era.
Financing rhythm & timingmixed
Historic cadence: a new round about every 3 months.
Last raise 6 mo ago; this sector typically re-raises about every 11 months.
Raising on or ahead of the sector's normal rhythm.
The last round was 1.4× smaller than the prior — a bridge or down round.
Comparablesmixed
Capital scale ranks ahead of 89% of Other peers (25015 compared).
Modeled value ranks above 22% of those peers.
Closest niche peers: Sea Court GP, LLC, Kastle Biopartners II LP, Econic Investment LLC, DCFC Holdings, LLC, HeadVantage Corp.
Peoplefiled
10 named people on file across officers, directors and signatories.
Risks & flagsmixed
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.