Diligence memo · auto-generated · as of July 1, 2026

Euclid, Inc.

Euclid, Inc. looks fair 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

Euclid, 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

Euclid, Inc. has raised $5.8M in disclosed capital across 1 recorded round, aggregated from public filings. Its latest round is modeled as Series A (a $4.0M–$15M round).

Largest single filing: $5.8M on 2011-01-11.

Most recent recorded round closed around 2011-01-11.

Valuation (modeled)modeled

Provath models Euclid, Inc. at approximately $88M (range $7.9M–$477M). This is an algorithmic estimate from round sizes and same-niche peers — not a quoted or reported figure.

Read: Fair. Modeled value is 0.97× the median modeled value of Series A Other companies in 2010–2012 (632 peers) — value vs value, same stage and era. Within the normal band (97% of peer median) for its niche.

Financing rhythm & timingmixed

Last raise 15.5 yr ago; this sector typically re-raises about every 11 months.

Only one round on record and long silent — often defunct, acquired, or gone quiet.

Comparablesmixed

Capital scale ranks ahead of 69% of Other peers (25008 compared).

Modeled value ranks above 81% of those peers.

Closest niche peers: SWMF Life Science Venture Fund, Limited Partnership, PrimaLoft Holding Company, LLC, Applied Merchant Systems West Coast, Inc., Graphics Properties Holdings, Inc., Avi-Spl Holdings, Inc..

Peoplefiled

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

Risks & flagsmixed

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

Broad sector classification weakens peer comparison.

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