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

Truvion Holdings

Truvion Holdings looks fair 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

Truvion Holdings operates in Other, based in IRVINE.

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

Truvion Holdings has raised $5.5M in disclosed capital across 2 recorded rounds, aggregated from public filings. Its latest round is modeled as Series A (a $4.0M–$15M round).

Largest single filing: $5.0M on 2023-11-15.

Most recent recorded round closed around 2023-11-15.

Valuation (modeled)modeled

Provath models Truvion Holdings at approximately $28M (range $6.8M–$69M). This is an algorithmic estimate from round sizes and same-niche peers — not a quoted or reported figure.

Read: Fair. Modeled value is 0.71× the median modeled value of Series A Other companies in 2022–2024 (1135 peers) — value vs value, same stage and era. Within the normal band (71% of peer median) for its niche.

Financing rhythm & timingmixed

Historic cadence: a new round about every 2 months.

Last raise 2.6 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 stepped up 10.0× from the prior — scaling.

Comparablesmixed

Capital scale ranks ahead of 68% of Other peers (25015 compared).

Modeled value ranks above 61% of those peers.

Closest niche peers: Ness Well, Inc., Quantori, Inc., Qquv Investments 5, Llc, Applause Network TV, Inc., Trustworthy Co.

Peoplefiled

7 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.