Diligence memo · auto-generated · as of July 2, 2026
Rivertop Renewables, Inc
Rivertop Renewables, Inc looks under-valued against its niche peers and is dormant on financing cadence.
Businessfiled
Rivertop Renewables, Inc operates in Other, based in MISSOULA.
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
Rivertop Renewables, Inc has raised $99M in disclosed capital across 30 recorded rounds, aggregated from public filings. Its latest round is modeled as Series B (a $15M–$40M round).
Largest single filing: $23M on 2014-04-03.
Most recent recorded round closed around 2015-11-12.
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 Rivertop Renewables, Inc at approximately $127M (range $19M–$488M). This is an algorithmic estimate from round sizes and same-niche peers — not a quoted or reported figure.
Read: Under-valued. Modeled value is 0.37× the median modeled value of Series B Other companies in 2013–2015 (273 peers) — value vs value, same stage and era.
Financing rhythm & timingmixed
Historic cadence: a new round about every 3 months.
Last raise 10.6 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 96% of Other peers (25015 compared).
Modeled value ranks above 85% of those peers.
Closest niche peers: PL Parent, LLC, ComplexCare Holdings, Inc., Sprinklr, Inc., Globaltranz Enterprises, Inc., Halco Acquisition Corp.
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.