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

TILT Holdings Inc.

TILT Holdings Inc. looks under-valued against its niche peers and is at-risk on financing cadence.

WatchOverdue for a raise versus sector cadence — could be a bridge, a down round, or distress. Watch for the next filing.

Businessfiled

TILT Holdings Inc. operates in Other, based in Phoenix, CA, USA. Mobile crowdfunding: The easiest way to collect, fundraise, and sell…

Sub-sector tags: Crowdfunding.

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

Capital & rounds (filed)filed

TILT Holdings Inc. has raised $102M in disclosed capital across 6 recorded rounds, aggregated from public filings. Its latest round is modeled as Series C (a $40M–$100M round).

Largest single filing: $53M on 2023-02-15.

Most recent recorded round closed around 2023-05-15.

Valuation (modeled)modeled

Provath models TILT Holdings Inc. at approximately $44M (range $17M–$77M). This is an algorithmic estimate from round sizes and same-niche peers — not a quoted or reported figure.

Read: Under-valued. Modeled value is 0.08× the median modeled value of Series C Other companies in 2022–2024 (192 peers) — value vs value, same stage and era.

Financing rhythm & timingmixed

Historic cadence: a new round about every 5 months.

Last raise 3.1 yr ago; this sector typically re-raises about every 11 months.

Past due for a raise versus sector cadence — watch for distress or a bridge.

The last round was 11.7× 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 69% of those peers.

Closest niche peers: Wild Type, Inc., Thingy Thing Inc., Intelycare, Inc., CertiK Global Ltd., Ivanhoe Electric Inc..

Peoplefiled

24 named people on file across officers, directors and signatories.

Risks & flagsmixed

Overdue for a raise versus sector norm — distress or bridge risk.

Broad sector classification weakens peer comparison.

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