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

Poly Shield Technologies Inc.

Poly Shield Technologies 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

Poly Shield Technologies Inc. operates in Other, based in SAN JUAN.

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

Poly Shield Technologies Inc. has raised $14M in disclosed capital across 3 recorded rounds, aggregated from public filings. Its latest round is modeled as Series A (a $4.0M–$15M round).

Largest single filing: $6.9M on 2014-01-15.

Most recent recorded round closed around 2016-01-08.

Valuation (modeled)modeled

Provath models Poly Shield Technologies Inc. at approximately $16M (range $1.4M–$87M). This is an algorithmic estimate from round sizes and same-niche peers — not a quoted or reported figure.

Read: Under-valued. Modeled value is 0.18× the median modeled value of Series A Other companies in 2016–2018 (707 peers) — value vs value, same stage and era.

Financing rhythm & timingmixed

Historic cadence: a new round about every 12 months.

Last raise 10.5 yr ago; this sector typically re-raises about every 11 months.

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

The last round was 5.7× smaller than the prior — a bridge or down round.

Comparablesmixed

Capital scale ranks ahead of 81% of Other peers (25008 compared).

Modeled value ranks above 48% of those peers.

Closest niche peers: Cardinal Memorial Ultimate Holdings, Llc, PASSADO Co Ltd, Baba Joe Diamond Ventures Us Inc., Black Television News Channel, LLC, CannCare, Inc.

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.