Diligence memo · auto-generated · as of July 2, 2026
Healthcare Technology Holdings, Inc.
Healthcare Technology Holdings, Inc. looks over-valued against its niche peers and is dormant on financing cadence.
Businessfiled
Healthcare Technology Holdings, Inc. operates in Other, based in FORT WORTH.
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
Healthcare Technology Holdings, Inc. has raised $5.7B in disclosed capital across 3 recorded rounds, aggregated from public filings. Its latest round is modeled as Growth/Late (a round over $400M).
Largest single filing: $2.8B on 2010-02-26.
Most recent recorded round closed around 2010-02-26.
Valuation (modeled)modeled
Provath models Healthcare Technology Holdings, Inc. at approximately $49.4B (range $21.7B–$88.9B). This is an algorithmic estimate from round sizes and same-niche peers — not a quoted or reported figure.
Read: Over-valued. Modeled value is 4.80× the median modeled value of Growth/Late Other companies in 2010–2012 (16 peers) — value vs value, same stage and era.
Financing rhythm & timingmixed
Historic cadence: a new round about every 241 months.
Last raise 16.3 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 100% of Other peers (25015 compared).
Modeled value ranks above 100% of those peers.
Closest niche peers: Conagra Foods Inc /De/, Chinos Holdings, Inc., Griffey Investors, L.P., Visteon Corp, Six Flags Entertainment Corp.
Peoplefiled
18 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.