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

VP Advance Funding L.P.

VP Advance Funding L.P. looks over-valued 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

VP Advance Funding L.P. operates in Other, based in MELVILLE.

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

VP Advance Funding L.P. has raised $13M in disclosed capital across 1 recorded round, aggregated from public filings. Its latest round is modeled as Series A (a $4.0M–$15M round).

Largest single filing: $13M on 2018-12-03.

Most recent recorded round closed around 2018-12-03.

Valuation (modeled)modeled

Provath models VP Advance Funding L.P. at approximately $201M (range $18M–$1.1B). This is an algorithmic estimate from round sizes and same-niche peers — not a quoted or reported figure.

Read: Over-valued. Modeled value is 2.29× the median modeled value of Series A Other companies in 2016–2018 (707 peers) — value vs value, same stage and era.

Financing rhythm & timingmixed

Last raise 7.6 yr ago; this sector typically re-raises about every 11 months.

Only one round on record and long silent — often defunct, acquired, or gone quiet.

Comparablesmixed

Capital scale ranks ahead of 81% of Other peers (25015 compared).

Modeled value ranks above 89% of those peers.

Closest niche peers: Hogsalt Investors Llc, Fanchise League Co LLC, CannCare, Inc, Baba Joe Diamond Ventures Us Inc., Instapage, Inc..

Peoplefiled

1 named person 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.