Diligence memo · auto-generated · as of July 2, 2026
Sierra Gold Corp
Sierra Gold Corp looks over-valued against its niche peers and is dormant on financing cadence.
Businessfiled
Sierra Gold Corp operates in Other, based in TORONTO.
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
Sierra Gold Corp has raised $21M in disclosed capital across 41 recorded rounds, aggregated from public filings. Its latest round is modeled as Pre-Seed (a round under $1.0M).
Largest single filing: $987K on 2007-08-13.
Most recent recorded round closed around 2008-08-13.
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 Sierra Gold Corp at approximately $17M (range $477K–$187M). This is an algorithmic estimate from round sizes and same-niche peers — not a quoted or reported figure.
Read: Over-valued. Modeled value is 2.06× the median modeled value of Pre-Seed Other companies in 2007–2009 (465 peers) — value vs value, same stage and era.
Financing rhythm & timingmixed
Historic cadence: a new round about every 0 months.
Last raise 17.9 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 86% of Other peers (25015 compared).
Modeled value ranks above 49% of those peers.
Closest niche peers: Miche Bag, LLC, Saint James CO, Soundbox Investment, LLC, Summit Brand Holdings, LLC, Alaska Juneau Aeronautics Inc.
Peoplefiled
11 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.
Recurring-offering pattern: stage-based valuation has lower applicability.