Diligence memo · auto-generated · as of July 2, 2026
MoneyOnMobile, Inc.
MoneyOnMobile, Inc. looks fair against its niche peers and is dormant on financing cadence.
Businessfiled
MoneyOnMobile, Inc. operates in Other, based in DALLAS.
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
MoneyOnMobile, Inc. has raised $32M in disclosed capital across 20 recorded rounds, aggregated from public filings. Its latest round is modeled as Series A (a $4.0M–$15M round).
Largest single filing: $5.7M on 2017-12-27.
Most recent recorded round closed around 2017-12-27.
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 MoneyOnMobile, Inc. at approximately $86M (range $7.8M–$469M). This is an algorithmic estimate from round sizes and same-niche peers — not a quoted or reported figure.
Read: Fair. Modeled value is 0.98× the median modeled value of Series A Other companies in 2016–2018 (707 peers) — value vs value, same stage and era. Within the normal band (98% of peer median) for its niche.
Financing rhythm & timingmixed
Historic cadence: a new round about every 3 months.
Last raise 8.5 yr ago; this sector typically re-raises about every 11 months.
Silent for over 3× the sector's normal cadence.
The last round stepped up 11.6× from the prior — scaling.
Comparablesmixed
Capital scale ranks ahead of 90% of Other peers (25015 compared).
Modeled value ranks above 81% of those peers.
Closest niche peers: Hogsalt Investors Llc, Fanchise League Co LLC, CannCare, Inc, Baba Joe Diamond Ventures Us Inc., Instapage, Inc..
Peoplefiled
24 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.
Recurring-offering pattern: stage-based valuation has lower applicability.