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

Mighty Networks, Inc.

Mighty Networks, Inc. looks under-valued 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

Mighty Networks, Inc. operates in Other, based in LOS ANGELES.

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

Mighty Networks, Inc. has raised $5.3M in disclosed capital across 4 recorded rounds, aggregated from public filings. Its latest round is modeled as Seed (a $1.0M–$4.0M round).

Largest single filing: $2.0M on 2014-08-26.

Most recent recorded round closed around 2019-12-22.

Valuation (modeled)modeled

Provath models Mighty Networks, Inc. at approximately $13M (range $608K–$98M). This is an algorithmic estimate from round sizes and same-niche peers — not a quoted or reported figure.

Read: Under-valued. Modeled value is 0.45× the median modeled value of Seed Other companies in 2019–2021 (1101 peers) — value vs value, same stage and era.

Financing rhythm & timingmixed

Historic cadence: a new round about every 21 months.

Last raise 6.5 yr ago; this sector typically re-raises about every 11 months.

Silent for over 3× the sector's normal cadence.

The last round was 1.6× smaller than the prior — a bridge or down round.

Comparablesmixed

Capital scale ranks ahead of 67% of Other peers (25015 compared).

Modeled value ranks above 43% of those peers.

Closest niche peers: Esperos, Inc., AL International Holdings Inc., Clean Beam, LLC, SEAM Group Holdings, LLC, HemTex Holdings, LLC.

Peoplefiled

8 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.