Agtech fundraising / The founder’s outlook
There is money for agtech in 2026, but the figures do not show a broad recovery. The most likely 2027 scenario offers only modest improvement. Build your fundraising plan around what your company can prove, rather than a return of investor enthusiasm.
Investment in farming, food production and related technologies was about half its peak in 2025. The adjusted 2026 figures give little reason to assume that the market has reopened. [1][5]
The base case is $4–5.5bn of global agtech investment, with a 50% planning probability. That supports some companies’ growth; it does not imply easier access for every founder.
Show who buys, whether they buy again, and what it costs to deliver. Request the capital needed to prove the next part of the business, with room for fundraising to take longer.
The question to take into your next investor meeting: what will this round establish that makes the following round easier to justify?
01 / Is fundraising getting easier in 2026?
PitchBook recorded $4.6bn of agtech investment in the first nine months of 2026. At that pace, the year would reach $6.1bn. But a single $1.2bn defence-focused drone round accounts for about a quarter of the money.
The annual pace implied by nine months of reported investment. [5]
The annual pace after excluding Quantum Systems. This is the more useful starting point for the funding outlook. [5][6]
About $1bn in the quarter, extended over a year. Roughly the same quarterly amount as Q2.
These are run rates: what a full year would look like if the observed pace continued. They are not final 2026 totals or forecasts. Removing one deal also does not remove every company that serves industries beyond agriculture.
PitchBook’s Q3 2025 Agrifood VC First Look, published in October 2025, recorded 108 agtech deals. Its Q3 2026 Agtech VC First Look, published in October 2026, recorded 101. Comparing those initial quarterly counts gives a decline of about 6.5%. That comparison is more useful than comparing an incomplete current year with a more complete previous year. The original nine-month 2025 count has not been checked, so a comparable nine-month decline cannot be established. [4][5]
For your raise: treat a large funding headline as evidence that a particular company raised, not that your investor pool has expanded. Build the target list around investors currently able to fund your stage and business model.
| Measure | Calculation | Annual pace |
|---|---|---|
| All reported investment | $4.6bn × 12 ÷ 9 | $6.13bn |
| Without Quantum Systems | ($4.6bn − $1.2bn) × 12 ÷ 9 | $4.53bn |
| Q3 without Quantum Systems | ($2.2bn − $1.2bn) × 4 | About $4bn |
Adjusted Q3 investment was about 17% below the first-half quarterly average of $1.2bn, but about 3% above Q2’s $974.3m. This indicates a roughly flat quarter, not a clear sequential recovery or decline.
Deal counts increase as late transactions are reported. July coverage put H1 at 263 deals; October’s figures imply 277. The 378 deals recorded through Q3 annualize to 504, but that is not a reliable finished-year count. [14]
02 / What gives a company a stronger funding case?
Investment is spread across genetics, software, equipment, food science and other businesses. Being in a funded category helps identify relevant investors. It does not establish demand for your product.
Identify the cost, loss or production limit the customer already faces. Explain how much your product changes it, under the conditions in which the customer operates.
Bring field performance, paid use, repeat orders or renewals. Explain what still needs validation and what this round will resolve.
Installation, support, servicing and working capital belong in the economics. Sales growth is less persuasive if every new customer creates an unfunded obligation.
These are suggested investment criteria, not claims that every funded company meets the same criteria.
AgFunder groups the categories below as “upstream”: businesses working in farming, food production and related systems. The group includes finance, food science and non-food biomaterials, so it is broader than farm technology.
2025 investment, US$bn. [2] Category size measures capital raised, not investor returns or ease of fundraising.
For a science-led company: technical novelty can help at seed, but it does not carry the whole funding case. AgFunder found a 78% seed-round premium for deeptech companies; it did not persist from Series B onward. Use early capital to build the commercial evidence the later investor will need. [3]
03 / Will US farmers buy?
Your customer’s ability to adopt is part of your funding case. Investors need to understand not only whether the technology pays back, but whether the buyer can fund it now.
The projected decline after inflation. National averages hide large differences between crops, livestock businesses and individual farms. [7]
The increase before inflation. Higher costs put pressure on what customers can spend, even when they need better technology. [7]
507 rounds, with funding down 8%. This includes delivery and retail technology, not just companies selling to farms. [2]
| What the buyer asks | What your investor needs to see |
|---|---|
| What must I pay upfront? | The full purchase, installation and financing cost, plus a credible payment or leasing option if you offer one. |
| When do I get the money back? | Payback based on actual customer results, including downtime, integration and support. |
| Can this fit into my operation? | Evidence of adoption in the crop, herd, equipment base or workflow you target. |
No verified US-only 2026 funding total was available in the accessible sources. The global run rate is not presented as US investment.
For your forecast: distinguish a successful trial from an approved purchase. Model when the customer can commit cash, not just when the product is ready.
04 / What could make 2027 better or worse?
The most likely 2027 scenario is a similar funding environment, with some room for improvement. Four conditions could change that forecast.
S2G closed a $1bn growth fund covering agriculture, energy and oceans. That is a meaningful pool of capital, but it is neither reserved entirely for agtech nor aimed at seed companies. The relevant question is how much newly raised capital can reach companies at your stage. [9]
What would help: more completed fundraises with budgets for companies at your stage. A fundraising target is not money ready to invest.
Deere bought Sentera and GUSS, but their prices were undisclosed. PitchBook recorded four agtech exits in Q3 2026. Buying useful technology and delivering strong returns to investors are different outcomes. [5][12][13]
What would help: cash returned to fund investors, giving them more reason and capacity to commit to the next fund.
The Fed held its policy rate at 3.75–4.00% in October. The base case assumes no automatic help from rate cuts. Customers’ actual loan rates and terms determine what they can finance. [8]
What would help: lower total financing costs and available credit, particularly for equipment purchases.
Pressure on farm income can delay purchases, renewals and expansion. Those delays then weaken the revenue evidence a startup brings to investors.
What would help: stronger margins and fewer postponed orders in your specific customer segment.
05 / The 2027 forecast
The base forecast is $4–5.5bn of global agtech investment in 2027, with an estimated probability of 50%. The downside is $3–4bn; the upside is $5.5–7bn.
These are forward-looking estimates for the coming year, not reported 2026 results. The ranges assume no repeat of the large defence-focused round. The probabilities are subjective planning judgments, not outputs from a statistical forecasting model.
Forecast for full-year 2027
Assumption used to build the range
Subjective planning judgment
Investors continue to back selected companies, but new funds and exits do not improve enough to reopen the whole market. Customers remain careful with spending. Expect a market near the adjusted 2026 pace, with modest room for improvement.
What this assumes: $1.0–1.375bn invested each quarter, multiplied by four. The lower end matches adjusted Q3; the upper end allows improvement. No repeat defence megadeal is assumed.
Do not assume that many more companies will get funded. Build a targeted investor process around your stage and evidence of progress.
Size the ask from the work needed, not an expectation that typical rounds will grow. Larger follow-ons need a stronger business case.
| 2027 scenario | Estimated probability | 2027 funding forecast | Founder planning implication |
|---|---|---|---|
| Downside | 30% | $3–4bn | Fewer funds and weaker customer budgets. Protect cash and narrow the milestone you must finance. |
| Base | 50% | $4–5.5bn | Selective funding continues. Raise against measurable progress and allow for a longer process. |
| Upside | 20% | $5.5–7bn | More funds, stronger exits and better purchasing conditions create more options for proven companies. |
Reveneering estimates, not a statistical forecast. The ranges come from quarterly investment assumptions, not a complete agriculture-only dataset. All exclude a repeat defence-led megadeal. Details are in the appendix.
When to change the plan: look for more relevant funds with money to deploy, exits that return cash and customers moving from trials to purchases. A better funding headline without those changes is not enough.
06 / How should you prepare your next raise?
AgFunder’s global round medians were $1m at seed, $7m at Series A and $14m at Series B. Use them as reference points, then work backward from the milestone and cash required. They are not promised round sizes or US-only benchmarks. [2]
| Your stage | The investor’s question | What the round should help establish |
|---|---|---|
| Seed $1m reference | Does this work for a customer with a reason to buy? | Performance in the intended setting, a clear buyer, paid demand or credible commitments, and a costed route to the next test. |
| Series A $7m reference | Can this become a repeatable business? | Repeat purchases or renewals, measurable customer value, understood delivery costs and a credible path to profitable sales. |
| Series B $14m reference | Will more money scale what works? | Sales beyond the founders’ network, reliable delivery and support, and evidence that expansion strengthens the economics. |
The milestone guidance is an interpretation of the funding evidence. Hardware, biologicals and regulated products may need different validation periods and financing structures.
An illustrative $5–8m ask can start the discussion around the $7m reference. Justify it with the work: customer expansion, field validation, lower delivery costs or a manufacturing step. Explain what will be demonstrably different when the money is spent.
Separate pilots from paid deployments, and first orders from renewals. Explain the customer’s result and your cost to deliver it. That makes the growth plan easier for an investor to assess.
Illustration: reserving 15% of a $7m raise leaves $5.95m. Over 24 months, that supports about $248,000 of average monthly net cash spending, before financing fees.
With a $1m seed raise, the same reserve leaves $850,000, or about $47,000 a month over 18 months. These are budgeting examples, not spending targets. If your necessary validation cannot fit, change the scope, funding amount or financing approach.
Your next step: write down the next funding milestone, the evidence it requires, its full cash cost and the plan if the following raise takes longer. Use the base case for the budget and preserve a workable downside. Let an improving market create options rather than rescue the plan.
Background / Why the market feels different
Funding for farms, food production and related systems grew from $2.5bn in 2016 to $18.4bn in 2022, then fell to $9bn in 2025. Investors still fund the sector, but the peak is a poor reference for how much capital is available.
AgFunder calls this group “upstream.” It includes food science, biomaterials and agricultural finance, not just farm technology. Its share of broader agrifoodtech investment rose from 31% in 2021 to 56% in 2025 because other categories, including delivery, fell further. [1]
Annual investment, 2016–2025
AgFunder’s revised historical series. [1–2] “All agrifoodtech” also includes grocery delivery and restaurant technology.
| Year | Upstream funding | All agrifoodtech funding | All agrifoodtech rounds |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2016 | $2.5bn | $9.2bn | 1,981 |
| 2017 | $4.2bn | $12.9bn | 2,259 |
| 2018 | $6.7bn | $21.4bn | 2,700 |
| 2019 | $7.6bn | $21.9bn | 3,269 |
| 2020 | $9.6bn | $27.3bn | 3,330 |
| 2021 | $17.0bn | $54.6bn | 4,222 |
| 2022 | $18.4bn | $34.9bn | 3,725 |
| 2023 | $10.6bn | $17.1bn | 2,799 |
| 2024 | $8.3bn | $16.7bn | 2,312 |
| 2025 | $9.0bn | $16.2bn | 2,031 |
US dollars, without adjusting for inflation. Rounds are financing events, not unique companies. Broad agrifoodtech funding fell from $54.6bn in 2021 to $16.2bn in 2025, about 70%; upstream’s own peak-to-2025 decline was 51%.
Appendix / Definitions and limits
AgFunder tracks the full food system. Its upstream group includes agriculture, food science, biomaterials and finance. PitchBook’s agtech category is narrower, but includes some companies that also serve other industries.
The report uses AgFunder to explain the decade and PitchBook to assess the current pace. A difference between their totals is not a measured change in the market. Dollar amounts are not adjusted for inflation unless stated.
Each annual range is four times an assumed quarterly amount: $0.75–1bn in the downside case, $1–1.375bn in the base case and $1.375–1.75bn in the upside case.
The assumptions reflect new investment funds, cash returned from exits, financing costs and farm purchasing power. The 30% / 50% / 20% probabilities express subjective planning judgments. They are not measured historical frequencies, and the range boundaries are approximate.
No market-wide median round size, numerical deal count or US-only capital total is forecast. The available evidence does not support those estimates.
The original nine-month 2025 PitchBook deal count has not been checked. Other gaps include a verified US-only 2026 funding total, a complete review of companies serving non-agricultural markets and a complete total for money raised by ag-focused funds in 2026.
The fund closes and acquisitions cited are examples, not a complete market tally. Acquisition prices and cash returned to investors are often undisclosed. US farm-income averages also hide large differences between customers.
DigitalFoodLab reported $3.5bn of broad agrifoodtech funding in Q1 2026 and $3bn in Q2. That implies a $13bn annual pace in its own dataset. It is not used in the main forecast. [15]
Its September commentary described improving seed activity and a 64% funding share for agtech plus food science. Those observations come from one provider and cannot be compared directly with the other datasets. They do not establish a sector-wide recovery in seed funding. [16]
Sources
The research cutoff remains 30 October 2026. This edition rewrites the text; it does not update the market data. Linked notes distinguish reported figures, company announcements and the report’s calculations.
March 2026. Revised global funding history. The 2025 dataset contains 2,031 rounds; 575 have no disclosed amount. AgFunder invests in the sector it measures.
The full AgFunder report, hosted on Scribd. Used for historical totals, categories, round-size medians and US funding. The medians cover global agrifoodtech, not US agtech alone.
18 March 2026. Explains funding composition and the deeptech round-size premium. AgFunderNews is owned by AgFunder.
October 2025 original release, read on 30 October 2026. The page shows 108 Q3 agtech deals and $1.3bn. It does not show the original nine-month deal count. The page is dated 3 October; the report listing says 2 October.
6 October 2026. Original PitchBook release: $4.6bn and 378 deals through Q3; $2.2bn and 101 deals in Q3; $974.3m in Q2. Recent figures can change as more deals are reported.
2 July 2026. Quantum Systems describes its $1.2bn financing as support for defence autonomy and expansion. The report removes this round when estimating the pace relevant to agricultural founders.
3 September 2026 forecast. US farm income, costs and government payments. These are national estimates; results differ across commodities and farms.
28 October 2026. The Federal Reserve held its policy target at 3.75–4.00%. Actual farm and company borrowing rates differ.
12 May 2026. Manager announcement of a $1bn growth fund covering agriculture, energy and oceans. This is not $1bn reserved for agtech or seed companies. S2G markets investment services.
2 June 2026. DIAL announces an initial close for Fund II without stating the amount. It builds companies through a venture studio; its capital is not necessarily available to outside founders.
23 May 2025. Deere announces its Sentera acquisition. The price and returns to investors are not disclosed.
27 August 2025. Deere announces the full acquisition of GUSS, following its earlier joint venture. The price and investor distributions are not disclosed.
13 July 2026. Secondary summary reporting 263 H1 deals. The later PitchBook figures imply 277. That difference illustrates reporting updates; it is not a general correction factor.
7 July 2026. DigitalFoodLab quarterly chart, used only in the appendix. The firm sells advisory services to the food sector.
22 September 2026. DigitalFoodLab commentary on seed activity and category shares. These observations are not used to forecast the main report’s market.