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

OZPros QOF, LLC

OZPros QOF, LLC 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

OZPros QOF, LLC operates in Other, based in CHARLESTON.

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

OZPros QOF, LLC has raised $2.2M in disclosed capital across 1 recorded round, aggregated from public filings. Its latest round is modeled as Seed (a $1.0M–$4.0M round).

Largest single filing: $3.3M on 2021-10-01.

Most recent recorded round closed around 2021-10-01.

Valuation (modeled)modeled

Provath models OZPros QOF, LLC at approximately $25M (range $1.9M–$141M). This is an algorithmic estimate from round sizes and same-niche peers — not a quoted or reported figure.

Read: Fair. Modeled value is 0.90× the median modeled value of Seed Other companies in 2019–2021 (1101 peers) — value vs value, same stage and era. Within the normal band (90% of peer median) for its niche.

Financing rhythm & timingmixed

Historic cadence: a new round about every 1 months.

Last raise 4.7 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 51% of Other peers (25015 compared).

Modeled value ranks above 59% of those peers.

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

Peoplefiled

2 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.