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

Root Capital Inc.

Root Capital Inc. looks over-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

Root Capital Inc. operates in Other, based in CAMBRIDGE. Test meta description

Sector still resolves to a broad 'Other' bucket, so operating comparables below are weaker than for a tightly-classified peer.

Capital & rounds (filed)filed

Root Capital Inc. has raised $1.0B in disclosed capital across 6 recorded rounds, aggregated from public filings. Its latest round is modeled as Series D+ (a $100M–$400M round).

Largest single filing: $259M on 2013-09-19.

Most recent recorded round closed around 2013-09-19.

Valuation (modeled)modeled

Provath models Root Capital Inc. at approximately $4.5B (range $1.5B–$9.8B). This is an algorithmic estimate from round sizes and same-niche peers — not a quoted or reported figure.

Read: Over-valued. Modeled value is 1.63× the median modeled value of Series D+ Other companies in 2013–2015 (90 peers) — value vs value, same stage and era.

Financing rhythm & timingmixed

Last raise 12.8 yr ago; this sector typically re-raises about every 11 months.

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

The last round was 2.3× smaller than the prior — a bridge or down round.

Comparablesmixed

Capital scale ranks ahead of 100% of Other peers (25015 compared).

Modeled value ranks above 99% of those peers.

Closest niche peers: Campaign Monitor Holdings (UK) Ltd, Tomahawk Holdings, Inc., Cornell Capital Special Situations Partners II LP, Liberty Resources II, LLC, Resolute Investment Holdings, LLC.

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.

Modeled above niche peers — valuation risk on entry.

Broad sector classification weakens peer comparison.

No clearly named CEO/founder/principal in the surfaced records — key-person evidence is thin.