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

TopTenREVIEWS, Inc.

TopTenREVIEWS, Inc. looks fair 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

TopTenREVIEWS, Inc. operates in Other, based in OGDEN.

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

TopTenREVIEWS, Inc. has raised $137M in disclosed capital across 2 recorded rounds, aggregated from public filings. Its latest round is modeled as Series D+ (a $100M–$400M round).

Largest single filing: $135M on 2015-05-22.

Most recent recorded round closed around 2015-05-22.

Valuation (modeled)modeled

Provath models TopTenREVIEWS, Inc. at approximately $2.3B (range $765M–$5.1B). This is an algorithmic estimate from round sizes and same-niche peers — not a quoted or reported figure.

Read: Fair. Modeled value is 0.85× the median modeled value of Series D+ Other companies in 2013–2015 (90 peers) — value vs value, same stage and era. Within the normal band (85% of peer median) for its niche.

Financing rhythm & timingmixed

Historic cadence: a new round about every 65 months.

Last raise 11.1 yr ago; this sector typically re-raises about every 11 months.

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

The last round stepped up 90.0× from the prior — scaling.

Comparablesmixed

Capital scale ranks ahead of 97% 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

12 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.