Diligence memo · auto-generated · as of July 3, 2026

Urgentmed Holdings, LLC

Urgentmed Holdings, LLC 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

Urgentmed Holdings, LLC operates in Other, based in New York.

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

Urgentmed Holdings, LLC has raised $331M 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: $276M on 2021-11-29.

Most recent recorded round closed around 2023-07-11.

Valuation (modeled)modeled

Provath models Urgentmed Holdings, LLC at approximately $600M (range $309M–$932M). This is an algorithmic estimate from round sizes and same-niche peers — not a quoted or reported figure.

Read: Under-valued. Modeled value is 0.44× the median modeled value of Series D+ Other companies in 2022–2024 (109 peers) — value vs value, same stage and era.

Financing rhythm & timingmixed

Historic cadence: a new round about every 19 months.

Last raise 3.0 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 5.1× smaller than the prior — a bridge or down round.

Comparablesmixed

Capital scale ranks ahead of 99% of Other peers (25015 compared).

Modeled value ranks above 95% of those peers.

Closest niche peers: Getaround, Inc, Relentless Topco, Inc., NQ PE Project Colosseum Parent, L.P., Cowboy Topco, Inc., Office Topco, Llc.

Peoplefiled

3 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.