The post Who Owns Snowflake? appeared first on AI Funding Tracker.

Quick Answer

Microsoft Corporation owns GitHub. Microsoft acquired GitHub, Inc. in October 2018 through a $7.5 billion stock transaction, making the code-hosting and software development platform a Microsoft subsidiary.

• Owner: Microsoft Corporation
• Acquisition price: $7.5 billion in Microsoft stock
• Deal completed: October 25, 2018
• Original founders: Tom Preston-Werner, Chris Wanstrath, P. J. Hyett, and Scott Chacon
• Current structure: GitHub operates inside Microsoft’s developer and AI organization rather than as a separately traded company

Who Owns GitHub Today?

GitHub is owned by Microsoft Corporation, a publicly traded technology company listed on Nasdaq under the ticker MSFT. GitHub itself has no separately traded shares, public shareholders, or independent market capitalization.

Microsoft acquired all issued and outstanding GitHub shares in 2018. Its 2019 annual report states that the transaction was valued at $7.5 billion and that GitHub’s financial results were consolidated into Microsoft’s accounts from the acquisition date.

That structure means Microsoft shareholders indirectly own GitHub through their Microsoft stock. Large Microsoft investors may therefore have economic exposure to GitHub, but they do not hold direct stakes in GitHub, Inc.

GitHub was initially allowed to retain substantial operational independence after the acquisition. That independence narrowed after CEO Thomas Dohmke announced his departure in August 2025. Microsoft did not replace him with another standalone GitHub CEO and instead moved GitHub closer to its CoreAI organization, which combines AI platforms and developer tools.

GitHub Company Snapshot

GitHub remains a distinct brand, website, developer community, and product platform. Microsoft, however, controls its corporate strategy, leadership structure, capital allocation, and long-term integration with products such as Azure, Visual Studio, and Visual Studio Code.

How Did Microsoft Come to Own GitHub?

GitHub began in 2008 as a web-based platform built around Git, the open source version control system created by Linux founder Linus Torvalds. GitHub’s founders turned Git repositories into a social collaboration platform where software developers could review code, manage projects, and contribute to open source projects.

The company raised outside capital as it expanded. Andreessen Horowitz led a $100 million investment in 2012, while Sequoia Capital and other investors participated in a $250 million funding round in 2015. These investors owned private-company stakes before the Microsoft acquisition.

On June 4, 2018, Microsoft announced an agreement to buy GitHub for $7.5 billion in Microsoft stock. The transaction closed on October 25, 2018. Microsoft said GitHub would continue operating as an open platform and would preserve developer choice across programming languages, operating systems, devices, and cloud providers.

The acquisition also aligned with Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella’s effort to rebuild the company’s relationship with open source developers. Microsoft was already using GitHub for projects including Visual Studio Code, PowerShell, .NET, and portions of its technical documentation.

Where Does GitHub Fit Inside Microsoft?

GitHub gives Microsoft a central position in the software development lifecycle. Developers use the platform to store repositories, collaborate on code, run automated workflows through GitHub Actions, secure applications, and deploy software across different clouds.

This role extends beyond direct subscription revenue. GitHub can introduce individual developers and enterprise teams to Microsoft’s broader ecosystem, including Azure cloud services, Visual Studio, and AI development tools.

Microsoft has historically reported GitHub within its Intelligent Cloud segment rather than publishing a separate GitHub income statement. As a result, Microsoft does not routinely disclose GitHub’s standalone revenue, profit, or current valuation.

GitHub Copilot has made the platform more strategically important. The AI coding service turns 

GitHub from primarily a repository and collaboration platform into a distribution channel for AI-assisted software development. It also places GitHub alongside Azure AI and Visual Studio Code within Microsoft’s wider developer strategy.

What Is Changing at GitHub?

GitHub has become more tightly integrated with Microsoft’s AI organization. Thomas Dohmke, GitHub’s CEO from 2021 to 2025, announced in an August 2025 GitHub post that he was leaving to start another company.

Microsoft then shifted GitHub’s operating responsibilities into its CoreAI organization rather than appointing a direct CEO successor. This marked a change from the relatively independent structure Microsoft emphasized when it bought the company.

GitHub’s current leadership page lists functional executives such as Chief Operating Officer Kyle Daigle but does not present a standalone chief executive. The platform is therefore still a recognizable Microsoft subsidiary, although its leadership and product direction are more closely connected to Microsoft’s broader AI plans.

The practical question for developers is no longer whether Microsoft owns GitHub. It is how far Microsoft will integrate GitHub Copilot, repositories, development agents, Azure infrastructure, and Visual Studio tools while maintaining GitHub’s open-platform identity.

How Does GitHub Ownership Compare With Its Competitors?

GitLab is a separate publicly traded company, GitLab Inc., so its investors can buy GitLab shares directly.

Bitbucket is owned by Atlassian and sits within a broader portfolio that includes Jira and Confluence.

SourceForge is privately operated and focuses more heavily on software distribution and open source project hosting.

AWS CodeCommit is owned by Amazon and was designed mainly for customers working within Amazon Web Services.

GitHub differs because it combines a very large developer community, open source visibility, enterprise software tools, and Microsoft’s cloud and AI resources.

FAQ

Is GitHub owned by Microsoft or Google?

Microsoft owns GitHub. Google has its own developer infrastructure and contributes to many GitHub repositories, but it has no disclosed ownership stake in GitHub.

Does Microsoft own Git?

No. Microsoft owns GitHub, not Git. Git is an open source distributed version control system originally created by Linus Torvalds. GitHub is one of several platforms that host and manage Git repositories.

Who owned GitHub before Microsoft?

Before the acquisition, GitHub was a privately held company owned by its founders, employees, and investors. Its major outside investors included Andreessen Horowitz and Sequoia Capital.

Is GitHub still an independent company?

GitHub remains a separate brand and legal operating entity, but it is not independent in an ownership sense. Microsoft controls the company and has integrated its leadership more closely with Microsoft’s CoreAI and developer-tool operations.

Can you buy GitHub stock?

You cannot buy GitHub stock directly because GitHub is not separately listed. Investors seeking financial exposure to GitHub can buy Microsoft shares, although GitHub represents only one part of Microsoft’s much larger business.

Why did Microsoft buy GitHub?

Microsoft bought GitHub to strengthen its position with software developers, expand its open source presence, and connect the developer platform with Microsoft tools and cloud services. The later growth of GitHub Copilot made the acquisition especially important to Microsoft’s AI strategy.

The post appeared first on AI Funding Tracker.

CoreWeave is owned by its public shareholders, but co-founders Michael Intrator, Brian Venturo, and Brannin McBee retain effective control through super-voting Class B shares. CoreWeave is not a subsidiary of NVIDIA, Microsoft, Magnetar, or another parent company.

• CoreWeave trades on Nasdaq under the ticker CRWV.
• Michael Intrator held 38.70% of total voting power as of April 15, 2026.
• Brian Venturo and Brannin McBee held 20.30% and 14.59% of voting power.
• Magnetar-managed funds were the largest disclosed outside Class A holder.
• NVIDIA owned 10.66% of Class A stock, but only 3.27% of total voting power.

Who Owns CoreWeave Today?

CoreWeave’s ownership is divided between public Class A shareholders and founders holding Class B stock. The founders do not own every share, but the company’s dual-class structure gives them far more voting influence than their economic ownership alone would suggest.

Class A shares carry one vote each. Class B shares carry ten votes each. CoreWeave’s founders collectively held all outstanding Class B shares covered by the company’s April 2026 proxy ownership table.

Founder ownership and voting control

Together, CoreWeave’s executive officers and directors controlled 72.32% of total voting power. That gives the leadership group substantial influence over director elections, corporate governance, and other matters submitted to shareholders.

These figures represent beneficial ownership, which can include shares obtainable through options, awards, trusts, or other arrangements within the disclosure period. They should not be read simply as unrestricted shares held personally.

Largest disclosed outside shareholders

Magnetar controlled more disclosed Class A shares than any founder individually, but it did not control CoreWeave. Its one-vote Class A stock carried much less voting weight than the founders’ ten-vote Class B shares.

CoreWeave Company Snapshot

As of April 30, 2026, CoreWeave reported approximately 447.6 million Class A shares, 98.0 million Class B shares, and no outstanding Class C shares.

How Did CoreWeave’s Ownership Evolve?

CoreWeave began in 2017 as Atlantic Crypto, a cryptocurrency-mining operation founded by Intrator, Venturo, McBee, and Salanki. The company accumulated graphics processing units and later redirected that computing capacity toward cloud services and artificial intelligence workloads.

Private funding accelerated the transition. Magnetar became an important financial backer, while NVIDIA invested in CoreWeave and developed a broader supplier, customer, and strategic relationship with the company. Other investors participated during CoreWeave’s private-company phase, but not all remained reportable owners after the IPO.

CoreWeave completed its initial public offering in March 2025. The listing allowed outside investors to buy Class A shares while the founders retained Class B stock with ten votes per share. This preserved founder control after the company entered the public market.

In January 2026, NVIDIA invested another $2 billion, purchasing CoreWeave Class A stock at $87.20 per share. The transaction added roughly 23 million shares and nearly doubled NVIDIA’s position.

Does NVIDIA Own CoreWeave?

NVIDIA is a major shareholder and strategic partner, but it does not own or control CoreWeave.

CoreWeave’s April 2026 proxy listed NVIDIA as the beneficial owner of 47,213,353 Class A shares. That represented 10.66% of the Class A stock but only 3.27% of total voting power because NVIDIA did not hold the founders’ super-voting Class B shares.

The relationship is unusually close. CoreWeave builds its AI cloud around NVIDIA GPUs, sells infrastructure services to NVIDIA, and received major equity investments from the chipmaker. CoreWeave also disclosed that NVIDIA accounted for 17% of its supplier purchases in 2025.

That commercial interdependence can make NVIDIA appear like a parent company. Legally and operationally, however, CoreWeave remains an independent public corporation led and controlled by its founders.

Microsoft and OpenAI are also important customers or business partners, not CoreWeave’s owners. A large contract does not provide corporate control unless it comes with equity or voting rights.

What Is Changing in CoreWeave’s Ownership?

CoreWeave’s economic ownership can change as investors buy or sell Class A shares, employees exercise equity awards, and the company issues stock to finance expansion. Voting control changes more slowly because it is concentrated in Class B shares.

Transfers of Class B stock generally cause those shares to convert into Class A stock, with limited exceptions for approved estate-planning, trust, or charitable transfers. Founder sales can therefore reduce super-voting control over time.

CoreWeave disclosed a March 2026 Rule 10b5-1 plan under which Brannin McBee and related entities could potentially sell or convert several million shares, subject to the plan’s conditions. A plan authorizes possible transactions; it does not prove that every covered share will be sold.

The dual-class structure also has an expiration mechanism. Class B shares must automatically convert no later than May 31, 2032, unless an earlier triggering event occurs. One trigger relates to Michael Intrator no longer devoting substantially all of his working time to CoreWeave.

How Does CoreWeave’s Ownership Compare With Its Rivals?

CoreWeave differs from traditional cloud providers because it is publicly traded yet founder-controlled.

• Amazon Web Services is wholly owned by Amazon.
• Microsoft Azure operates within Microsoft.
• Google Cloud belongs to Alphabet.
• Lambda remains privately held and investor-backed.
• CoreWeave has public shareholders, but its founders hold the dominant voting position.

This structure gives public investors economic exposure to CoreWeave’s AI cloud growth without giving them voting influence proportional to the number of ordinary shares they own.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is CoreWeave owned by NVIDIA?

No. NVIDIA is a major Class A shareholder, supplier, customer, and strategic partner, but CoreWeave’s founders hold most of the voting power.

Who is CoreWeave’s largest shareholder?

It depends on the measure. Magnetar-managed funds were the largest disclosed outside Class A holder in CoreWeave’s April 2026 proxy. Michael Intrator had the greatest individual voting power because of his Class B shares.

Does Michael Intrator own CoreWeave?

Intrator does not own the entire company. He was its most powerful individual shareholder, with 38.70% of total voting power as of April 15, 2026.

Is CoreWeave public or private?

CoreWeave is a public company. Its Class A stock trades on Nasdaq under the ticker CRWV.

Who founded CoreWeave?

CoreWeave identifies Michael Intrator, Brian Venturo, Brannin McBee, and Peter Salanki as co-founders.

Does Microsoft own part of CoreWeave?

Microsoft was not listed among CoreWeave’s disclosed 5% shareholders in the April 2026 proxy. It has been an important customer, but customer contracts do not establish ownership.

Can public shareholders take control of CoreWeave?

It would be difficult while the founders retain substantial Class B holdings. Each Class B share has ten votes, compared with one vote for a Class A share.

The post Who Owns CoreWeave and Who Actually Controls It? appeared first on AI Funding Tracker.

Midjourney is an independent, privately held AI company founded and led by David Holz. The company says it is self-funded, has no outside investors, no controlling parent company, and no advertisers.

• Founder and CEO: David Holz
• Legal operator: Midjourney, Inc.
• Ownership type: Private and founder-led
• Outside investors: None disclosed
• Parent company: None
• Exact founder stake: Not publicly disclosed

Who Owns Midjourney Today?

David Holz is the founder, CEO, and central controlling figure behind Midjourney. However, Midjourney has not published a cap table or disclosed Holz’s exact percentage ownership, so it would be inaccurate to assign him a specific stake.

The clearest evidence comes from Midjourney itself. Its careers page describes the company as a small, self-funded team with “no investors, no big company controlling us, and no advertisers.” In 2025, Holz also said Midjourney remained an independent, community-backed research lab with no investors when announcing a technology partnership with Meta.

That structure means Midjourney is not owned by Google, Microsoft, Meta, Discord, Elon Musk, or a venture capital firm. Customers fund the company mainly through paid subscriptions and related products. Although Midjourney works with large technology platforms, commercial partnerships do not automatically create an ownership stake.

The safest ownership summary is therefore:

1. David Holz founded and leads the company.
2. Midjourney, Inc. operates the service as a private company.
3. No external shareholder or parent company has been publicly identified.
4. The exact distribution of shares among Holz and any employees is private.

Midjourney Company Snapshot

Midjourney calls itself an independent research lab focused on design, human infrastructure, and artificial intelligence. Its best-known product converts natural-language prompts into images and, more recently, video.

How Did David Holz Build Midjourney?

Holz built Midjourney after co-founding Leap Motion, a motion-control hardware startup. His experience with a heavily venture-funded company appears to have shaped Midjourney’s different approach: a small team, direct customer revenue, and no publicly announced venture capital.

Midjourney began operating in 2021 and opened its image-generation service to the public in July 2022. Instead of building a traditional social platform immediately, it distributed the product through Discord. That gave users a place to create images together while allowing Midjourney to reach a large audience without a conventional consumer-app launch.

The company became profitable early, according to Holz’s 2022 interviews. Subscription revenue allowed it to finance model training, computing costs, hiring, and product development without selling publicly disclosed equity to investors.

Midjourney later expanded beyond its Discord-first model by developing a web interface, image-editing tools, video generation, and other research projects. The company’s growth did not change its stated ownership position: it continued to describe itself as independent and self-funded.

How Does Midjourney Fit Into the AI Industry?

Midjourney occupies an unusual position among major generative AI companies. Many competitors have raised billions of dollars, accepted strategic investments, or operate inside larger technology groups. Midjourney has instead relied on revenue from its user community.

That independence can give management more control over product direction because outside investors are not publicly pressuring the company for a particular growth schedule or exit. It also concentrates decision-making around Holz and the internal team.

Midjourney still depends on outside infrastructure and partnerships. It has used cloud-computing resources, built its early community around Discord, and licensed aesthetic technology to Meta. These relationships are commercially important, but none has been disclosed as an acquisition or equity investment.

The company also faces the same industry pressures as other AI developers, including high computing costs, growing competition, content-moderation challenges, and copyright litigation over training data and generated outputs.

What Is Changing at Midjourney in 2026?

Midjourney’s scope is expanding well beyond its original text-to-image product.

The company made V8.1 its default image model on June 10, 2026, following its April release. It has also introduced additional web features and faster draft-generation tools, showing that image creation remains a core priority.

More surprisingly, Midjourney announced Midjourney Medical in June 2026. The project aims to develop a rapid full-body ultrasound scanning system and a wellness-focused scanning experience. Midjourney says its first spa is planned for San Francisco in 2027, although medical experts have questioned whether the company has published enough evidence to support comparisons with established imaging methods.

Midjourney also announced its first acquisition in late July 2026. The transaction signals that the company may use its internally generated cash to buy technology or teams rather than raise venture capital. The announcement did not indicate that Midjourney itself had been sold or that its ownership structure had changed.

These moves matter because Midjourney is evolving from a single-product AI image company into a broader research organization. For now, the company still publicly presents itself as independent and investor-free.

How Does Midjourney’s Ownership Compare With Competitors?

• OpenAI: Operates through a more complex nonprofit and for-profit structure and has received major outside investment.
• Stability AI: A privately held generative AI company that has raised venture funding and undergone leadership changes.
• Adobe Firefly: Owned and operated by publicly traded Adobe.
• Google Imagen: Developed inside Alphabet-owned Google.
• Microsoft Designer: Developed within publicly traded Microsoft.
• Midjourney: Privately held, founder-led, self-funded, and not controlled by a larger technology company.

Midjourney’s closest distinction is not simply product quality. It is the absence of disclosed venture investors or a corporate parent despite competing with some of the world’s best-funded AI platforms.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is Midjourney owned by David Holz?

David Holz founded and leads Midjourney, and available evidence indicates that he is its principal controlling figure. However, the company has not disclosed his exact shareholding or a complete ownership table.

Is Midjourney owned by Discord?

No. Midjourney originally used Discord as the main interface and community platform for its image generator, but Discord does not publicly own Midjourney.

Did Meta buy Midjourney?

No. Meta announced a licensing and technical collaboration with Midjourney in 2025. Both companies described Midjourney as remaining independent, and no acquisition or equity investment was announced.

Is Midjourney publicly traded?

No. Midjourney is a private company, so its shares are not available on a public stock exchange.

Does Midjourney have venture capital investors?

Midjourney says it has no investors and is supported by its community. No venture capital funding round has been publicly announced.

Who owns images created with Midjourney?

Midjourney’s current terms say users own the assets they create to the fullest extent allowed by applicable law, subject to the agreement and third-party rights. Copyright protection for largely AI-generated work can still depend on jurisdiction and the level of human authorship.

Could Midjourney be acquired?

A future acquisition is possible because Midjourney is privately held, but there is no public evidence as of August 5, 2026 that the company is for sale or controlled by an outside buyer.

The post Who Owns Midjourney in 2026? Founder and Ownership Explained appeared first on AI Funding Tracker.

Quick Answer

Perplexity AI is owned by its four co-founders, employees with equity, and outside investors. CEO Aravind Srinivas is the company’s most visible founder, but no reliable public disclosure shows that he or any other shareholder owns a controlling majority.

• Perplexity AI is a privately held company, not a public stock.
• Its co-founders are Aravind Srinivas, Denis Yarats, Johnny Ho, and Andy Konwinski.
• Major reported investors include Accel, IVP, New Enterprise Associates, Nvidia, and SoftBank Vision Fund 2.
• Jeff Bezos, Elad Gil, Nat Friedman, Daniel Gross, and other prominent individuals have also invested.
• A September 2025 funding report valued Perplexity at about $20 billion, although Reuters could not independently verify the reported round.

Who Owns Perplexity AI Today?

Perplexity AI’s ownership is divided among its founders, current and former employees, venture-capital firms, strategic investors, and angel investors. Because the company is private, the percentages held by these groups are not publicly available.

The four co-founders

Aravind Srinivas co-founded Perplexity and serves as CEO. Denis Yarats is a co-founder and chief technology officer, while Johnny Ho and Andy Konwinski helped build the company’s technical and strategic foundation. NEA’s account of its investment identifies all four as members of the founding team.

The founders almost certainly received common stock when the company was formed. However, later funding rounds would normally dilute their percentage stakes as new shares were issued to investors and employees. Dilution does not necessarily mean the founders lost operational influence, particularly when voting rights, board seats, and executive positions are considered.

Institutional and strategic investors

Perplexity has raised more than $1 billion in venture investment, according to company descriptions posted through Accel’s portfolio job board. Named backers include Accel, IVP, NEA, Nvidia, Samsung, and other firms. SoftBank Vision Fund 2 has also been widely reported as an investor.

These investors generally receive preferred shares, which can carry economic protections or approval rights that differ from the common stock held by founders and employees. Their ownership may be financially significant without giving any one investor outright control.

Individual investors

Reported individual backers include Jeff Bezos, Elad Gil, Nat Friedman, Daniel Gross, and Shopify co-founder Tobi Lütke. Being an investor does not make Bezos, Nvidia, or any other named backer the “owner” of Perplexity in the everyday sense. Each appears to hold a minority interest within a broader shareholder group.

No public source establishes that one shareholder controls more than 50% of Perplexity’s voting power. In practice, Srinivas and the executive team direct daily operations, while the board and major investors may influence financing, governance, and major corporate transactions.

Perplexity AI Company Snapshot

Perplexity describes itself as an AI-powered answer engine that supplies current responses supported by sources. Its products combine web search with large language models, allowing users to ask follow-up questions and receive a direct answer rather than only a list of links.

How Did Perplexity’s Ownership Develop?

Perplexity was founded in 2022 by a team with experience in AI research, machine learning, ranking systems, and technology-company development. Srinivas previously conducted research at organizations including OpenAI, Google, and DeepMind. Yarats worked in AI research and machine learning, while Ho brought technical and strategy experience. Konwinski was also a co-founder of Databricks.

NEA led Perplexity’s Series A financing. A January 2024 Series B raised $73.6 million and was led by IVP, with participation from Nvidia, Bezos Expeditions, NEA, Databricks, and other investors. Further rounds brought in additional capital and raised the company’s valuation.

Reuters reported in May 2025 that Accel was expected to lead a $500 million financing at a $14 billion valuation. In September 2025, Reuters cited a report that Perplexity had secured commitments for another $200 million at a $20 billion valuation. Reuters said it could not independently verify that later report, so the $20 billion figure should be treated as a reported private-market valuation rather than an audited measure of value.

Each round likely expanded the investor group and diluted earlier shareholders. The exact impact cannot be calculated without Perplexity’s cap table, share classes, option pool, and financing documents.

Where Does Perplexity Fit in the AI Industry?

Perplexity sits between a search engine, an AI assistant, and a research platform. It competes with Google Search and Gemini, Microsoft Copilot, OpenAI’s products, Anthropic’s Claude, and other conversational AI services.

The company is independent rather than a subsidiary of Google, Microsoft, Amazon, Nvidia, or OpenAI. It uses infrastructure and AI models supplied by several technology companies, but commercial dependence is not the same as ownership. Perplexity’s Android listing, for example, says the service uses models from providers including OpenAI, Anthropic, and Meta.

Its revenue comes from products such as Perplexity Pro, enterprise subscriptions, and the Sonar API. A broader product range can improve the company’s bargaining position, but its high computing costs also make continued access to capital and infrastructure strategically important.

What Is Changing at Perplexity in 2026?

Perplexity is expanding beyond question answering into agentic browsing, shopping, and task completion. That shift could make its technology more valuable, while also increasing legal and platform risk.

On August 4, 2026, a U.S. appeals court overturned an injunction that had restricted Perplexity’s AI shopping tools from operating on Amazon. The ruling addressed whether users or Perplexity were responsible for the relevant access and may influence how AI agents interact with online platforms.

Days earlier, a federal judge allowed significant parts of Reddit’s data-scraping lawsuit against Perplexity and associated providers to continue. Perplexity disputes the allegations. These cases do not change who owns the company, but legal costs, licensing agreements, and platform restrictions can affect valuation and the terms investors demand in future rounds.

Ownership could also change through new financing, employee equity grants, secondary share sales, an acquisition, or an eventual initial public offering. Perplexity has not announced a public listing, so ordinary investors cannot currently buy its shares on a stock exchange.

How Does Perplexity’s Ownership Compare With Its Rivals?

Perplexity resembles Anthropic and xAI in being a privately financed AI company with prominent founders and large outside investors. It differs from Google Gemini and Microsoft Copilot, which are products of publicly traded parent companies. OpenAI has a more complex organizational and governance structure than a conventional venture-backed startup.

The key point is that Perplexity remains an independent private company. Strategic partnerships with Nvidia, model access from OpenAI or Anthropic, and disputes with Amazon or Reddit do not make those companies its owners.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is Perplexity AI owned by Google?

No. Google does not own Perplexity AI. Perplexity is an independent private company and competes with Google in search and AI-assisted research.

Does Jeff Bezos own Perplexity AI?

Jeff Bezos is a reported investor through Bezos Expeditions, but there is no evidence that he owns a controlling stake. He is one shareholder among founders, institutions, employees, and other investors.

Is Nvidia the owner of Perplexity?

No. Nvidia is an investor and an important technology provider. Its relationship with Perplexity includes funding and computing infrastructure, but no public disclosure shows that Nvidia controls the company.

How much of Perplexity does Aravind Srinivas own?

Perplexity has not disclosed Srinivas’s exact ownership percentage. Estimates that assign him a precise stake are speculative unless supported by a company filing, cap table, or direct statement.

Can I buy Perplexity AI stock?

Perplexity does not have publicly traded shares or a stock symbol. Some accredited investors may obtain exposure through private secondary transactions, but availability, pricing, fees, and shareholder rights can differ substantially from public stock.

What is Perplexity AI worth?

The latest widely reported benchmark is a $20 billion private valuation from September 2025. That figure reflects the reported price of a financing round, not the company’s revenue, cash balance, or guaranteed sale value.

Who is the CEO of Perplexity AI?

Aravind Srinivas is Perplexity’s co-founder and CEO. His executive role gives him substantial operational influence, but it does not prove that he holds majority economic ownership.

The post Who Owns Perplexity AI? Founders, Investors, and Structure In 2026 appeared first on AI Funding Tracker.

Waymo is a privately held subsidiary of Alphabet, Google’s parent company. Alphabet remains Waymo’s majority investor, while outside institutions own minority stakes acquired through private funding rounds.

• Parent and majority investor: Alphabet Inc.
• Company status: Private, with no standalone public stock
• Latest valuation: $126 billion post-money in February 2026
• Latest financing: $16 billion from Alphabet and outside investors
• Leadership: Co-CEOs Tekedra Mawakana and Dmitri Dolgov

Who Owns Waymo Today?

Alphabet owns and controls Waymo as its parent company and majority investor. However, Waymo is no longer wholly owned by Alphabet because private investors have purchased minority equity stakes in several financing rounds.

Waymo does not publish a complete cap table or disclose Alphabet’s precise ownership percentage. Claims that outside investors own a specific percentage should therefore be treated as estimates unless supported by private transaction documents.

In February 2026, Waymo raised $16 billion at a $126 billion post-money valuation. The company said Alphabet continued its “strong sustained support” as the majority investor.

The round was led by:

• Dragoneer Investment Group
• DST Global
• Sequoia Capital

Other participating investors included Andreessen Horowitz, Mubadala Capital, Bessemer Venture Partners, Silver Lake, Tiger Global, T. Rowe Price, BDT & MSD Partners, CapitalG, Fidelity, GV, Kleiner Perkins, Perry Creek Capital and Temasek.

These firms are shareholders, but none has been identified publicly as having control equal to Alphabet. Waymo’s board, shareholder agreements and Alphabet’s majority position ultimately shape corporate control.

Waymo Company Snapshot

• Legal name: Waymo LLC
• Parent company: Alphabet Inc.
• Origin: Google Self-Driving Car Project
• Waymo launch: 2016
• Headquarters: Mountain View, California
• Co-CEOs: Tekedra Mawakana and Dmitri Dolgov
• Core product: Waymo Driver autonomous driving system
• Ride-hailing service: Waymo One
• Latest disclosed valuation: $126 billion

Waymo develops autonomous vehicle technology and operates fully autonomous ride-hailing services. Alphabet reports Waymo within its “Other Bets” segment rather than breaking out Waymo’s revenue, profit or losses separately.

How Did Waymo’s Ownership Develop?

Waymo began inside Google in 2009 as a secretive research project led by figures associated with early autonomous driving, including Sebastian Thrun, Anthony Levandowski and Chris Urmson. Its engineers tested self-driving vehicles on public roads with safety drivers before moving toward fully driverless operation.

When Alphabet reorganized Google into a holding-company structure, the project became a separate Alphabet business. It was renamed Waymo in December 2016, a name derived from “a new way forward in mobility.”

John Krafcik, a former automotive executive, became Waymo’s first CEO. Under his leadership, the company moved beyond research, formed partnerships with Fiat Chrysler and other traditional car companies, and launched the Waymo One ride-hailing service. Krafcik stepped down in 2021, and Mawakana and Dolgov became co-CEOs.

Alphabet initially funded the company internally. Waymo later brought in outside capital, including a $2.25 billion round in 2020, additional funding in 2021 and a $5.6 billion round in 2024. The $16 billion financing in 2026 substantially expanded the outside investor group while preserving Alphabet’s majority position.

How Does Waymo Fit Within Alphabet?

Waymo is one of Alphabet’s “Other Bets,” a group of businesses outside Google’s core advertising, cloud and consumer services operations. Alphabet’s 2025 annual report described Waymo as a business scaling commercialization, expanding to more cities and entering international markets.

This structure gives Waymo access to Alphabet’s capital, artificial intelligence expertise and technical infrastructure. It also creates opportunities to work with other Alphabet companies. For example, Gemini has been added to the passenger experience in Waymo’s new Ojai vehicle, though Waymo says the assistant operates separately from the Waymo Driver and does not control vehicle movement.

Waymo’s operations include San Francisco, Los Angeles, Phoenix and other cities, with ride access offered through the Waymo app and, in selected markets, ride-hailing partners. Its ownership is therefore separate from operational relationships with automakers and platforms. A company that supplies vehicles or distributes rides does not automatically own Waymo equity.

What Is Changing at Waymo in 2026?

Waymo is shifting from a limited robotaxi company into a much larger autonomous mobility network. The February funding announcement said the company completed 15 million rides in 2025 and was providing more than 400,000 rides per week across six major U.S. metropolitan areas.

Recent expansion has continued quickly. In June 2026, Waymo opened its fully autonomous Nashville service to the public. In July, it said it was preparing driverless operations in Denver, Las Vegas, San Diego and Tampa while testing Hyundai IONIQ 5 vehicles with its sixth-generation autonomous system.

Waymo also introduced premium membership benefits, an updated in-car interface and Gemini-powered passenger features. These changes point to a broader commercial strategy built around service tiers, new vehicle platforms and more cities rather than autonomous driving research alone.

The company remains capital intensive. Alphabet reported a larger 2025 operating loss for Other Bets, driven partly by Waymo-related compensation expenses. That financial dependence helps explain why Alphabet’s continued majority ownership and outside funding both matter.

How Does Waymo’s Ownership Compare With Its Rivals?

Zoox is wholly owned by Amazon, giving it a single large corporate parent without Waymo’s disclosed group of outside financial investors.

Cruise is controlled by General Motors, which tightened its control after previously accepting outside investments from companies such as Honda and Microsoft.

Tesla’s robotaxi effort sits inside publicly traded Tesla rather than a separately funded private subsidiary.

Baidu’s Apollo Go operates within Baidu’s autonomous driving ecosystem, while several Chinese robotaxi companies have separate public or private ownership structures.

Waymo is unusual because it combines majority ownership by a technology conglomerate with substantial minority investment from venture capital, growth equity and sovereign investment firms.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is Waymo owned by Google or Alphabet?

Waymo is owned by Alphabet, which is also Google’s parent company. Google and Waymo are sister businesses within the Alphabet group, although Waymo originated as a Google project.

Can you buy Waymo stock?

Waymo has no public stock ticker, so ordinary investors cannot buy its shares directly on a stock exchange. Buying Alphabet shares provides indirect exposure, but Alphabet’s valuation includes Google and many other businesses, not Waymo alone.

Does Alphabet own 100% of Waymo?

No. Outside investors have acquired equity through private funding rounds. Alphabet remains the majority investor, but neither Waymo nor Alphabet has disclosed its exact current percentage.

Who are Waymo’s CEOs?

Tekedra Mawakana and Dmitri Dolgov serve as co-CEOs. Mawakana’s background centers on operations, policy and commercialization, while Dolgov has long led Waymo’s autonomous driving technology development.

Is Waymo planning an IPO?

Waymo has not announced a confirmed IPO date or formal public listing plan. Its large private financing gives it capital to expand without immediately entering the public market.

The post Who Owns Waymo? Ownership Explained for 2026 appeared first on AI Funding Tracker.

Key Takeaways

• Q2 2026 was the second-largest venture quarter on record, with roughly $205 billion raised across 5,000+ startups
• AI companies captured more than 70% of all global venture funding in the quarter
• Anthropic’s $65 billion Series H made it the most valuable private company in the world at $965 billion, passing both OpenAI and SpaceX
• 16 companies raised billion-dollar rounds in Q2, totaling $108.6 billion, or 53% of all funding for the quarter
• The money spread out from pure model labs into defense (Anduril), robotics (NEURA), biotech (Isomorphic), data centers (DayOne), and space (ICEYE)
• China showed up in force, with DeepSeek raising $7.4 billion and Moonshot AI raising $2 billion
• Inference infrastructure became the new battleground, with Baseten and Fireworks AI each raising $1.5 billion within weeks of each other
• Q2 was also the biggest quarter ever for billion-dollar acquisitions, headlined by SpaceX buying Cursor maker Anysphere for $60 billion

1. Anthropic

Total Funding: ~$132B+ | Latest Valuation: $965B | Round: $65B Series H (May 28, 2026)

Anthropic closed a $65 billion Series H on May 28 at a $965 billion post-money valuation, passing OpenAI to become the most valuable private company in the world. The round was co-led by Altimeter Capital, Dragoneer, Greenoaks, and Sequoia Capital, with each lead reportedly putting in more than $2 billion. Capital Group, Coatue, D1 Capital, GIC, ICONIQ, and XN joined as additional co-leads.

A big part of the story was who else showed up. Memory and compute suppliers Samsung, SK Hynix, and Micron all invested, which reads less like a financial bet and more like a supply chain lining up behind the hardware Anthropic needs to keep scaling. The round also folded in about $15 billion of previously committed hyperscaler money, including $5 billion from Amazon announced in April.

The company said its revenue run-rate had passed $47 billion by early May. Days after the round, Anthropic confidentially filed for an IPO, setting up a possible fall listing that could beat OpenAI to the public market. A Series H is rare in venture history to begin with. The short list of companies that ever reached one includes Facebook, Lyft, and Slack.

Key Investors: Altimeter Capital, Dragoneer, Greenoaks, Sequoia Capital, Capital Group, Coatue, GIC, ICONIQ, Amazon, Samsung, SK Hynix, Micron

2. Prometheus

Total Funding: $18B+ | Latest Valuation: $41B | Round: $12B Series B (June 11, 2026)

Prometheus is Jeff Bezos’s industrial AI startup, and its $12 billion Series B was one of the largest private rounds of the year. It valued the company at roughly $41 billion and pushed total funding past $18 billion in under a year of existence. Bezos co-leads the company as CEO alongside Vik Bajaj, a Verily co-founder, and this is his first operating role since leaving Amazon in 2021. Investors include JPMorgan, Goldman Sachs, BlackRock, DST Global, Arch Venture Partners, and Bezos himself.

The company is building what it calls an “artificial general engineer,” an AI system meant to take a complex physical product like a jet engine from first design all the way through to manufacturing. This is not a chatbot. It is aimed at the physical world, treating the whole design-to-build pipeline as one AI problem.

Prometheus has around 150 employees across San Francisco, London, and Zurich, and has hired from OpenAI, Google DeepMind, and Nvidia. It has not disclosed revenue and has named only Blue Origin as an early customer. Bezos told CNBC the round was raised largely to buy more compute.

Key Investors: Jeff Bezos, JPMorgan, Goldman Sachs, BlackRock, DST Global, Arch Venture Partners

3. DeepSeek

Total Funding: ~$7.4B | Latest Valuation: $50B+ | Round: $7.4B (June 2026)

DeepSeek raised more than 50 billion yuan, about $7.4 billion, in its first ever external funding round, at a valuation above $50 billion. For a company that ran on its founder’s own hedge fund money until now, that is a major shift. The round was reportedly led by Tencent, with around $1.5 billion, and battery giant CATL, with roughly $735 million. China’s state-backed AI fund was the only investor granted direct equity and voting rights.

The deal came with unusual terms. Outside investors put their money into a limited partnership run by founder Liang Wenfeng rather than into the company directly, took no voting rights, and agreed to a five-year lock-up. It is a structure built to keep control firmly in the founder’s hands.

DeepSeek stunned the industry in 2025 with low-cost models that matched far more expensive US systems. Its open-weight strategy keeps pressure on the whole market, forcing rivals to compete on cost, not just raw capability. It is doing all of this at a fraction of Anthropic’s or OpenAI’s valuation.

Key Investors: Tencent, CATL, China’s National AI Industry Investment Fund, Liang Wenfeng

4. Anduril Industries

Total Funding: $11B+ | Latest Valuation: $61B | Round: $5B Series H (May 13, 2026)

Anduril raised a $5 billion Series H on May 13, doubling its valuation to $61 billion in less than a year. The round was led by returning backers Thrive Capital and Andreessen Horowitz, and it came in about $1 billion higher than the raise the market expected. Total funding now sits above $11 billion across eight rounds.

The defense tech company builds AI-driven autonomous systems for the US military and its allies, from drones and counter-drone interceptors to its Lattice command software. CEO Brian Schimpf tied the raise to rising demand as the US and its allies deal with great-power competition and the shift toward autonomous warfare. The money is going into manufacturing, including its Arsenal-1 weapons factory in Ohio, plus R&D and infrastructure.

Anduril reported $2.2 billion in revenue for 2025, more than double the year before, and holds a $20 billion enterprise framework contract with the US Army. Its valuation has roughly doubled every year since 2022. The company still says an IPO is the goal, but not until the whole business is closer to profitable.

Key Investors: Thrive Capital, Andreessen Horowitz, Founders Fund, 8VC

5. DayOne Data Centers

Total Funding: ~$6.4B+ | Latest Valuation: $20B | Round: $4.5B Series C (June 5, 2026)

DayOne closed its Series C at $4.5 billion on June 5, more than doubling the round from its January first close, at a reported $20 billion valuation. The round was led by existing investors Coatue and Hillhouse, now the company’s two largest shareholders, with the Indonesia Investment Authority and Achi Capital Partners joining as new backers.

DayOne is a Singapore-based operator that builds and runs AI-ready data center campuses across Asia Pacific and Europe. It spun out of China’s GDS Holdings and has secured more than 1.5 gigawatts of capacity bookings since 2022. The new money funds expansion across Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, Japan, and into Finland and Spain.

The round is a clear sign that AI funding has moved past software and into the physical layer that makes AI run. DayOne is also lining up a possible dual listing in Singapore and New York and chasing a corporate loan reported to be as large as $7 billion.

Key Investors: Coatue, Hillhouse, Indonesia Investment Authority, Achi Capital Partners

6. Isomorphic Labs

Total Funding: ~$2.7B | Latest Valuation: Undisclosed | Round: $2.1B Series B (May 12, 2026)

Isomorphic Labs raised $2.1 billion in a Series B on May 12, described by analysts as the second-largest biotech round ever. The round was led by Thrive Capital, with existing backers Alphabet and GV joined by new investors MGX, Temasek, CapitalG, and the UK government’s AI fund.

The London company was founded by Alphabet in 2021 to use AI to speed up drug discovery. It builds on the same science as AlphaFold 3, the Google DeepMind model that predicts how molecules fold and interact. Its in-house engine, IsoDDE, is meant to design potential drugs across many disease areas at once rather than chasing a single target.

The money will push IsoDDE forward and move Isomorphic’s own drug candidates toward the clinic. The size of the round, given the caution elsewhere in biotech funding, shows how much confidence sits behind AI-native drug design when it carries the DeepMind name.

Key Investors: Thrive Capital, Alphabet, GV, MGX, Temasek, CapitalG, UK Sovereign AI Fund

7. Moonshot AI

Total Funding: ~$3.8B | Latest Valuation: $20B | Round: $2B Series D (May 7, 2026)

Moonshot AI raised $2 billion in a Series D on May 7 at a $20 billion valuation, nearly doubling its worth from a few months earlier. The Beijing company is best known for its open-weight Kimi models, which have become some of the most used LLMs in the world for coding. Backers across its recent rounds include Alibaba, Tencent, Meituan, IDG Capital, and HSG.

The company was founded in 2023 by Yang Zhilin, a former Meta AI and Google Brain researcher. Its Kimi K2 series pushed China’s open coding models forward and posted benchmark numbers close to top US models at the time. By mid-2026 it had launched Kimi K3, one of the largest open AI models yet released.

Moonshot plans to use the new capital to cover the rising cost of training, buy compute, and grow its user base. The company is also reported to be preparing a Hong Kong IPO and removing its offshore structure, a move that would tie it more closely to China’s domestic markets.

Key Investors: Alibaba, Tencent, Meituan, IDG Capital, HSG, CPE

8. Baseten

Total Funding: ~$2B+ | Latest Valuation: $13B | Round: $1.5B Series F (Q2 2026)

Baseten raised $1.5 billion in a Series F, closing across two tranches at $13 billion and $11 billion valuations. The round was led by Altimeter Capital, Conviction, and Spark Capital, with Sands Capital and Wellington Management as co-leads, plus IVP, Greylock, Battery Ventures, and D.E. Shaw Ventures joining in.

The San Francisco company sits in the inference layer of AI. Its platform handles the messy work of running models in production: GPU orchestration, autoscaling, observability, billing, and developer tools. That lets companies mix frontier models with their own custom, fine-tuned ones without building the plumbing themselves.

Baseten’s raise was part of a clear Q2 trend. Capital rotated hard from model training toward inference serving, the part of the stack that actually delivers AI to end users at scale. Fireworks AI raised its own $1.5 billion round within weeks, making inference infrastructure one of the hottest categories of the quarter.

Key Investors: Altimeter Capital, Conviction, Spark Capital, Sands Capital, Wellington Management, IVP, Greylock, D.E. Shaw Ventures

9. NEURA Robotics

Total Funding: ~$1.68B | Latest Valuation: $7B | Round: $1.4B Series C (June 10, 2026)

NEURA Robotics announced a Series C of up to $1.4 billion on June 10 at a $7 billion valuation, which it calls the largest round ever for a full-stack robotics company. The German company, based in Metzingen near Stuttgart, builds what it calls cognitive robots, machines that combine hardware with AI so they can sense, learn, and adapt rather than just repeat fixed motions. Part of the funding is tied to performance milestones. The valuation is up from around $4 billion just eight months earlier.

The investor list says more than the dollar figure. The round was led by stablecoin issuer Tether, with Qualcomm, Amazon, Nvidia, Bosch, Schaeffler, the European Investment Bank, and imec.xpand all joining in. When Amazon and Nvidia show up in the same robotics round, it signals real belief in physical AI.

NEURA is best known for its 4NE-1 humanoid and its plan to bring cognitive robots into factories, warehouses, and eventually homes. It says its order book already tops $1 billion and is targeting 6,000 units in 2026, scaling toward millions by 2030. The raise makes it Europe’s most-funded humanoid maker in a race so far led by US and Chinese names.

Key Investors: Tether, Qualcomm, Amazon, Nvidia, Bosch, Schaeffler, European Investment Bank, imec.xpand

10. ICEYE

Total Funding: ~€663M prior + Series F | Latest Valuation: €10B+ (~$12B) | Round: €450M primary Series F, over €1B total (June 9, 2026)

ICEYE’s headline “€1 billion round” needs one clarification. The company raised €450 million ($520 million) in fresh primary Series F capital, led by General Atlantic. A secondary share sale, where existing shareholders sold stock to new investors, brought the total transaction above €1 billion. So the new money into the company is €450 million, not the full billion. The round valued ICEYE at more than €10 billion, about $12 billion, more than four times its December 2025 mark. Other investors include Nokia, the Qatar Investment Authority, TCV, and Finnish state-linked funds.

The Finnish company runs the world’s largest constellation of synthetic aperture radar satellites, which image the ground day or night and see through cloud cover. That makes it a key supplier of near-real-time intelligence for defense, disaster response, and insurance. It crossed €250 million in revenue in 2025 and was already profitable heading into the round.

Seven European governments have now bought sovereign satellite systems from ICEYE, and it delivered Poland’s constellation within 12 months of signing. Demand has surged since 2022 as European nations push for their own eyes in orbit. The company is doubling production from 50 satellites a year toward 100 by 2028.

Key Investors: General Atlantic, Nokia, Qatar Investment Authority, TCV, Solidium, Tesi, Varma, Ilmarinen, Lifeline Ventures

Q2 2026 by the Numbers

What This Quarter Actually Means

The record totals are only half the picture. A few shifts stand out once you look at where the money went.

One company still dominates, but it is a different one. Anthropic’s $65 billion round took close to a third of all global venture funding for the quarter and made it the most valuable private company on earth. In Q1 that spot belonged to OpenAI. The frontier model race now has a new leader, and the gap between the top labs and everyone else keeps widening.

The money spread out. Q1 was almost entirely about foundation model labs. Q2 pushed capital into the whole ecosystem around AI: defense with Anduril, robotics with NEURA, drug discovery with Isomorphic, data centers with DayOne, and space intelligence with ICEYE. Investors have moved from backing the biggest models to funding everything those models need and everything they can be pointed at.

Inference became the new battleground. Baseten and Fireworks AI both raised $1.5 billion within weeks of each other. As companies move from testing AI to actually running it in production, the value is shifting from training models to serving them fast and cheap. That is where a lot of the next fight will happen.

China is competing on its own terms. DeepSeek and Moonshot AI together raised close to $10 billion, both with open-weight strategies and deal structures built to keep founders in control. They are doing it at a fraction of the valuations their US rivals command, and their open models keep cost pressure on the entire market.

The exit window opened, then got tighter. Q2 was the biggest quarter ever for billion-dollar acquisitions, headlined by SpaceX buying Cursor maker Anysphere for $60 billion, the largest purchase of a venture-backed startup on record. But SpaceX’s own IPO slipped below its offer price within weeks, OpenAI pushed its listing to 2027, and Databricks pulled out of the 2026 queue. The private money is still unlimited. The public market suddenly looks narrower than it did in early June.

The post Top 10 Biggest AI Funding Rounds of Q2 2026 appeared first on AI Funding Tracker.

This guide covers exactly where spreadsheets fail, why diligence is where the cracks show, and how to tell you have already outgrown yours.

Why a spreadsheet works at first

At the start there is not much to track. A couple of founders, maybe an advisor, a clean split. A spreadsheet handles that easily, and reaching for dedicated software on day one would be overkill.

So this is not an argument against ever using a spreadsheet. It is an argument about timing. The spreadsheet is fine right up until the number of moving parts grows past what a person can track by hand without slipping. That point arrives sooner than most founders expect.

Where spreadsheets actually break

The failures are not dramatic. They are small errors that sit unnoticed until something forces a close look. Here is what tends to go wrong.

Version control. You email the spreadsheet to your lawyer. They edit it. You edit your own copy at the same time. A co-founder saves a third version. Now there are three files and no clear answer to which one is real. This sounds minor until an investor asks for the current cap table and you are not sure which file to send.

Formula errors that compound. One wrong cell reference early on flows into every calculation after it. Because the spreadsheet still produces a confident looking number, nobody notices. The error only surfaces when someone checks the math against the actual signed documents.

SAFE and note conversion. This is the big one. When you have raised on several SAFEs at different caps, working out how they convert at a priced round is genuinely hard to do by hand. Get it wrong and your ownership numbers are off, your investors’ numbers are off, and the mistake is baked into the round before anyone catches it.

Option grants and vesting. Every grant has a start date, a cliff, a vesting schedule, and sometimes an early exercise or an early departure. Tracking all of that across a growing team in a spreadsheet means updating it by hand every single time, and one missed update means your fully diluted math is quietly wrong.

No audit trail. A spreadsheet does not remember who changed what, or when. When an investor asks you to prove a number is correct, you cannot point to a record. You can only point to more spreadsheet.

Why Series A is where it snaps

Seed rounds are often light on diligence. A SAFE or a priced seed can close without anyone stress testing your cap table.

Series A is a different animal. Now there is a lead investor writing a large check, and their lawyers go through your ownership records in detail. They check that every share, option, SAFE, and note is accounted for. They check that the math is internally consistent. They check that what the cap table says matches what the signed documents say.

If your spreadsheet has drifted from reality, this is where it shows. And it shows at the exact moment you have the least room to deal with it, in the middle of a live round with a term sheet on the clock.

What a broken cap table actually costs

The cost is rarely just the error itself. It is what the error does to the round.

It slows you down. Diligence stalls while everyone works out what the real numbers are, and a deal that felt done starts to drag.

It can change the terms. If the cap table was wrong in a way that affected ownership, fixing it can mean renegotiating who owns what, which is an awkward conversation to have with money on the table.

It costs legal fees. Untangling a messy cap table under deadline pressure is exactly the kind of work lawyers bill a lot of hours for.

And it costs trust. A sloppy cap table makes an investor wonder what else is sloppy. That is not the impression you want to give the person about to fund your company.

Signs you have already outgrown the spreadsheet

You do not need to wait for a round to know it is time. Any one of these is a good signal.

You have granted options to employees. You have raised on more than one or two SAFEs. You are not fully sure your spreadsheet matches your signed documents. You have more than one version of the file floating around. You are planning to raise in the next 6 to 12 months. Or you had to stop and think for more than a few seconds about who owns what, fully diluted, right now.

If any of those are true, the spreadsheet has already turned into a liability. The only question left is whether you fix it calmly now or under pressure later.

What software actually fixes

Dedicated cap table software is not magic, but it removes the specific failure points above.

It keeps one source of truth, so there is never a question of which file is real. It does the dilution and conversion math for you, including the hard SAFE conversions, so the numbers stay consistent by default. It tracks every option grant and vesting schedule automatically. It keeps a record of changes, so you can show an investor exactly how a number came to be. And when diligence starts, it produces a clean export in minutes instead of a weekend of scrambling.

The result is that your cap table stops being something you hope is right and becomes something you know is right. During a raise, that difference is worth a lot.

The bottom line

Spreadsheets are the right tool for the first few months and the wrong tool the moment real equity starts moving. The break rarely announces itself. It waits until diligence, when the cost of a mistake is highest, and then it shows up all at once.

The move is simple, and it feels optional right up until it isn’t. Switch to real software once you have your first option grants or your first outside money, well before your Series A, so that when the lawyers come looking, your cap table is boring, clean, and correct.

The post Why Spreadsheet Cap Tables Break at Series A appeared first on AI Funding Tracker.

This guide walks through the parts of startup equity that actually matter, in plain terms, so you can make decisions now that your future investors and your future self will thank you for.

What a cap table is

A cap table, short for capitalization table, is the list of every ownership stake in your company. That includes founder shares, employee options, investor shares, SAFEs, convertible notes, and anything else that can turn into equity later.

In the first few months a spreadsheet does the job. By the time you have a few employees with options, a couple of SAFEs at different caps, and one priced round behind you, the spreadsheet becomes a risk. One wrong formula or one outdated version can throw off your ownership math, and that error tends to surface at the worst possible time, during investor diligence.

The building blocks of your equity

Founders often blur these together. Keeping them separate is most of the job.

Common stock. This is what founders and employees hold. It is plain ownership with no special rights attached.

Preferred stock. This is what investors get in a priced round. It comes with extra rights, usually around what happens to their money in a sale or a shutdown.

Options. These give an employee the right to buy shares later at a fixed price, called the strike price. Options are the standard way to give equity to your team.

Option pool. This is a block of shares you set aside for future hires. It usually sits somewhere between 10 and 20 percent of the company, and investors often ask you to top it up right before they invest. That top up comes out of your ownership, not theirs, so it is worth negotiating.

SAFEs and convertible notes. These are ways to raise money quickly without setting a price for your company yet. They convert into shares later, usually at your next priced round. More on how they hit your cap table below.

How ownership gets divided

At the start, founders own everything, split however you agree. From there, every round of hiring and fundraising chips away at that number. This is called dilution, and it is normal. Owning a smaller slice of a bigger, better funded company is the whole point.

Here is the rough shape of it. Founders start at 100 percent. You carve out an option pool for the team. Then each raise hands a chunk to investors. A seed round often costs founders somewhere in the range of 10 to 20 percent, and a Series A commonly lands in a similar or slightly higher range, though the real number depends entirely on how much you raise and at what valuation. Treat those as rough guides, not promises.

The mistake to avoid is thinking about any single round on its own. Dilution stacks across rounds. A generous option pool plus a big seed plus a big Series A can add up faster than founders expect.

Vesting and the 83(b) election

Vesting means you earn your shares over time instead of getting them all at once. The standard schedule is four years with a one year cliff. The cliff means you earn nothing for the first year, then 25 percent at the one year mark, then the rest month by month after that. This applies to founders too, not just employees, and investors expect to see it.

Here is the part that trips people up. If you receive stock that is subject to vesting, you can file something called an 83(b) election with the IRS. It tells the IRS to tax you on the stock now, while it is worth almost nothing, instead of later as it vests and grows in value. For most founders this is a large tax saving.

The catch is the deadline. You have 30 calendar days from the date the stock is granted to file, and there are no extensions, ever. Miss it and you cannot fix it. As of 2025 you can file online through the IRS using Form 15620, which is simpler than the old paper method, but the 30 day clock is exactly the same. File within the first week or two to give yourself margin.

SAFEs and convertible notes

Early on, most US startups raise on SAFEs. A SAFE lets an investor give you money now in exchange for shares later, without either side having to agree on a company valuation today. It converts into equity at your next priced round.

The detail that matters most is the valuation cap. The cap sets the highest company value at which the investor’s money converts into shares. A lower cap means the investor gets more shares when conversion happens. Since 2018 the standard version from Y Combinator is the post-money SAFE, which calculates the investor’s ownership as a percentage of your company after all SAFEs convert. Post-money SAFEs are easier to add up, but they also dilute founders more than the older pre-money version, and that extra dilution is easy to underestimate when you stack several of them.

Convertible notes work in a similar way but are structured as debt, with interest and a maturity date. They were more common before SAFEs took over. If you are choosing today, most US seed investors expect a SAFE.

The thing to watch with both is what happens at conversion. Several SAFEs at different caps converting into the same round can move your ownership more than you planned. Model it before you sign, not after.

Priced rounds and dilution

A priced round is when you and your investors agree on an actual value for the company and they buy preferred stock at that price. This is usually your Series A and beyond, though some seed rounds are priced too.

Two numbers matter here. The pre-money valuation is what your company is worth before the new money goes in. The post-money valuation is the pre-money plus the new investment. The investor’s ownership is their check divided by the post-money valuation. So a 3 million dollar investment at a 12 million dollar post-money valuation buys 25 percent of the company.

This is also the round where all those earlier SAFEs convert into real shares. It is common for founders to be surprised at how much of the company is already spoken for once the SAFEs land and the new option pool is added on top.

409A valuations

A 409A valuation is an independent appraisal of what your common stock is worth. You need one to set the strike price on employee options at fair market value, which keeps those options from creating a tax problem for your team.

You need a 409A before you grant options after a priced round, and you need a fresh one every 12 months, or sooner if something material happens such as a new funding round. Some cap table platforms include 409A valuations in their pricing. Others send you to a third party that charges a few thousand dollars each time. If you plan to grant options in your first year, that difference adds up quickly.

QSBS and a tax rule worth knowing early

QSBS, short for Qualified Small Business Stock, is one of the biggest tax breaks available to founders and early employees. If your company qualifies and you hold your shares long enough, you can exclude a large share of the gain from federal tax when you sell. It applies to stock in US C-corporations, and some business types are excluded, so it is not automatic.

This rule changed in July 2025 under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, and the new version is more generous, but only for stock issued after July 4, 2025. Here is the shape of it for that newer stock. Hold for at least three years and you can exclude 50 percent of the gain. Hold four years and it is 75 percent. Hold five years or more and it is 100 percent. The cap on the excluded gain rose to 15 million dollars, up from 10 million, and the size limit on a qualifying company rose to 75 million dollars in gross assets, up from 50 million.

Stock issued on or before July 4, 2025 still follows the old rules, which means a five year hold for any exclusion and a 10 million dollar cap. If you hold shares from both before and after that date, you now have two separate tax situations to track, which is one more reason to keep clean records. This is real money at exit, so it is worth a conversation with a tax advisor early rather than late.

How founders break their own cap tables

The same handful of mistakes show up again and again.

Missing the 83(b) deadline. The 30 day window is unforgiving and the tax cost is real.

Handshake equity. Promising someone shares in a conversation, or over email, with no paperwork behind it. When it comes time to formalize the grant, the two sides rarely remember the terms the same way.

Stacking SAFEs without modeling them. Raising on several SAFEs at different caps and only discovering the combined dilution at the priced round.

Letting the cap table go stale. Not recording option grants, exercises, or transfers as they happen, then trying to rebuild the record under deadline pressure during diligence.

None of these are hard to avoid. They are just easy to postpone.

When to move off a spreadsheet

A spreadsheet is fine at the very start. The point where it stops being fine is roughly your first real option grants or your first outside investor, because that is when the number of moving parts and the cost of an error both jump at once.

Cap table software automates the dilution math, tracks vesting, keeps your 409A and filings in one place, and gives investors a clean export during diligence. The market is competitive in 2026, with strong options at every stage and price point. One recent shift is worth noting if you are picking a tool now. In August 2025, AngelList stopped taking new customers for its standalone Stack cap table product and named Pulley and J.P. Morgan Workplace Solutions as migration partners, so Stack is no longer a starting option for new companies.

If you want the full breakdown of which tool fits which stage, read our guide to the best cap table management software.

The bottom line

Equity is not complicated once you separate the parts. Shares, options, pools, SAFEs, and priced rounds each do one job. Vesting and the 83(b) election protect you early. The 409A keeps your option grants clean. QSBS can save you a lot at the end if you set it up right. And keeping the record accurate, from day one, is what turns your next raise into a formality instead of a fire drill.

Start simple, keep it current, and move to real software the moment your equity runs longer than a single page.

The post AI Founder’s Guide to Equity and Cap Tables appeared first on AI Funding Tracker.

The good news is that the cap table software market in 2026 is genuinely competitive, with strong options at every stage and price point. The category is expected to be worth $6.3 billion this year and is projected to reach $15 billion by 2033, driven primarily by startups increasing equity compensation as a cost management tool in a tighter funding environment.

This guide covers the six platforms that consistently appear on shortlists across pre-seed through pre-IPO, with verified pricing, honest trade-offs, and a clear recommendation on which stage each tool fits best.

What Cap Table Software Actually Does

A cap table tracks every security a company has issued- common stock, preferred stock, options, warrants, convertible notes, and SAFEs alongside the people and entities that hold them. The software automates dilution math, vesting schedules, 409A valuations, and the paperwork investors and acquirers require during diligence.

Early on, a spreadsheet works. By Series A, with multiple security types, vesting cliffs, options grants, and SAFEs converting at different valuation caps, a spreadsheet becomes a liability. A single formula error or version conflict in a shared sheet can cascade into investor renegotiations or a delayed close.

What to Look For Before You Choose

Stage fit. A pre-seed tool that is free but lacks scenario modeling is wrong for a Series B company. An enterprise platform with quote-based pricing is wrong for a two-person team pre-raise.

409A support. You need a 409A valuation before issuing any new options after a priced round, and every 12 months thereafter. Some platforms include it natively. Others refer you to third-party providers at $2,000 to $4,000 per valuation. That difference compounds quickly.

Investor familiarity. Some platforms are deeply embedded in the diligence workflows of US law firms and institutional investors. If your investors expect a Carta-exported cap table, running on a platform they have never seen creates friction at the worst possible moment.

Geography. US-centric platforms handle 409A, ASC 718, QSBS, and IRS filings well but have limited support for European equity structures: EMI schemes, CSOP options, VSOP in Germany, BSA-AIR in France, and GDPR requirements for employee data. European founders should not force a US-first tool into their compliance stack.

Migration support. You will switch platforms at least once. Free, clean migration support is not a bonus feature; it is a practical requirement.

The 6 Best Cap Table Management Platforms in 2026

1. Eqvista

Best for: Pre-seed through late-stage companies, including Series funding to Pre-IPO that need both cap table management and bundled 409A valuation at the lowest total cost

• Pricing: Free up to 20 shareholders. Premium plan at $2 per shareholder per month. 409A Valuation plan starts at $990 per year with unlimited valuation updates.
• G2 Rating: 4.9 out of 5 (148 reviews), ranked #1 in G2’s Equity Management Software category
• HQ: United States

Eqvista is the strongest value proposition in the market for startups at any stage that want cap table management and 409A under one roof without the pricing structure of Carta. The free tier covers up to 20 shareholders with real-time cap table tracking, SAFE and convertible note management, and basic vesting schedules. The Premium plan, at $2 per shareholder per month, is the most transparent pricing model in this category. There are no hidden add-on fees for features that other platforms charge separately.

The platform’s distinguishing feature is its Real-Time Company Valuation technology, which sits alongside traditional 409A valuations conducted by in-house NACVA-certified professionals. Every 409A includes lifetime audit support and full IRS defense. The plan also covers ASC 718 reporting, 83(b) elections, and QSBS attestation, all integrated with the cap table at no additional cost. G2 reviewers from healthcare, technology, and consulting consistently describe savings of $8,000 to $12,000 per year compared to traditional 409A firms or Carta’s equivalent tiers.

Scenario modeling and waterfall analysis are frequently cited by G2 users as standout capabilities. The platform supports round modeling, dilution simulations, and funding scenario planning, features that help founders understand their ownership structure before entering investor conversations.

The investor CRM is less specialized than some competitors, and the platform’s investor brand recognition in institutional diligence workflows does not yet match Carta. For companies whose investors specifically request Carta-format exports, that is worth factoring in.

Verdict: The best starting point for pre-seed to later-stage funded companies, and a credible alternative to Carta for growth-stage teams that want to reduce their annual equity management spend significantly.

2. Carta

Best for: Series A and beyond; companies that need the deepest institutional trust, the broadest feature set, and fund administration under one roof

• Pricing: Launch plan free for up to 25 stakeholders. Build plan approximately $2,800 per year. Grow and Scale plans step up from there. Enterprise is quote-based.
• G2 Rating: 4.4 out of 5 (224 reviews)
• HQ: New York, NY
• Company scale: $7.4B valuation, $500M ARR (2025), 40,000+ companies on platform

Carta is the category-defining platform for US private company equity. It serves 40,000-plus companies and runs the 409A engine that institutional VCs and acquirers encounter most frequently during diligence. At Series A, when your investors are running a structured diligence process and your law firm is managing cap table documentation, being on Carta removes friction that other platforms can create, simply because Carta is what the ecosystem expects.

The feature set is the broadest in the market: cap table management, 409A valuations, equity plan administration, board consent workflows, fund administration for VC funds, LP portals, and a secondary transaction marketplace. No other single vendor covers this much surface area. For companies planning a liquidity event, an institutional round, or fund administration alongside cap table management, Carta’s consolidated approach avoids the overhead of managing multiple vendors.

The trade-off is cost. At the Build tier, 409A valuations cost $2,000 to $4,000 as add-ons beyond the base plan. G2 reviews and buyer comparisons consistently note that Carta’s pricing escalates steeply with stakeholder count and feature depth, with some mid-stage companies reporting annual costs between $14,000 and $20,000. Onboarding and support reviews are more mixed than the platform’s functionality warrants.

Verdict: The default choice for Series A and beyond, especially if your institutional investors, law firm, or board have existing Carta workflows. Overkill and overpriced for pre-seed.

3. Pulley

Best for: YC-backed and early-stage US startups that want a clean, founder-friendly experience with transparent pricing

• Pricing: Startup plan at $1,200 per year for up to 25 stakeholders. Growth plan at $3,600 per year for up to 40 stakeholders, including 409A. Higher tiers are quote-based.
• G2 Rating: 4.6 out of 5
• HQ: San Francisco, CA

Pulley built its reputation as the founder-friendly Carta alternative, and it earns that reputation through transparent pricing, fast onboarding, and a clean user interface that does not require implementation support to operate. The Startup plan at $1,200 per year is meaningfully cheaper than comparable Carta tiers, and the Growth plan includes 409A valuation support at a price point most seed-stage companies can absorb.

The platform handles the standard US equity structure well: SAFEs, convertible notes, common and preferred stock, standard vesting schedules, and scenario modeling for fundraising rounds. AngelList named Pulley as an official migration partner when Stack sunset in August 2026, which accelerated Pulley’s market position among pre-seed and seed stage teams who were previously on AngelList.

Pulley’s limitations are at the edges. Complex modeling scenarios, IFRS reporting, and international equity structures are not where the platform is strongest. Very early pre-seed teams paying $1,200 per year for features they will not use for twelve months may find Eqvista’s free tier a better starting point.

Verdict: The cleanest Carta alternative for US seed companies, particularly for founders who want transparent pricing and fast setup without enterprise complexity.

4. Ledgy

Best for: European startups, UK-incorporated companies, and any team with cross-border shareholders requiring multi-currency cap table management and EU compliance

• Pricing: Quote-based, typically 10 to 20% less than Carta for comparable European stakeholder structures
• G2 Rating: 4.7 out of 5
• HQ: London, UK

Ledgy is the clear category leader for European equity management. US-centric platforms like Carta and Pulley have limited support for EMI schemes, CSOP options, VSOP in Germany, BSA-AIR in France, and GDPR requirements for employee equity data. Ledgy was built specifically for these structures and handles multi-currency cap tables, automated EU equity plan management, IFRS 2 reporting, and localized compliance across European regulatory environments.

The platform supports investor reporting, scenario modeling, and vesting management at a standard that matches Pulley and Carta for European use cases. Its investor and employee portals are highly regarded in G2 reviews for transparency and usability. Ledgy does not natively offer 409A valuations, which is expected given its European focus, but for UK and EU companies that do not require US-format valuations, this is not a gap.

The limitation is straightforward: Ledgy does not compete on US-specific features. For US-only companies, the name recognition with US institutional investors and law firms does not match Carta or Pulley. 409A valuations are not natively offered.

Verdict: The default choice for European and UK-incorporated startups. Non-negotiable if your equity structures include EMI, CSOP, VSOP, or BSA-AIR.

5. Cake Equity

Best for: APAC and Australia-headquartered startups, and early-stage global teams that want lightweight equity management with strong onboarding

• Pricing: Startup-friendly tiers starting around $80 per month. Quote-based at growth stage.
• G2 Rating: 4.8 out of 5
• HQ: Sydney, Australia

Cake Equity is the strongest platform in the APAC market and has built a reputation for customer support that consistently outperforms larger competitors in G2 reviews. The platform covers cap table management, ESOP administration, and investor management, with an education-first approach that makes it particularly useful for founding teams who are new to equity management. G2 ratings of 4.8 cite fast onboarding, responsive support, and clean workflows as the primary drivers.

Startups switching from Carta to Cake Equity have reported saving $3,000 to $16,000 per year depending on stakeholder count and feature usage. The platform is available globally but is most deeply integrated with APAC legal and compliance frameworks.

The trade-off is feature depth at later stages. Carta and Pulley have stronger US-specific functionality for companies planning an institutional round with US investors, and the platform’s name recognition in US diligence workflows is limited.

Verdict: The best choice for APAC-headquartered startups and a strong Carta alternative for cost-conscious early-stage teams globally.

6. Shareworks by Morgan Stanley

Best for: Late-stage and pre-IPO companies that need institutional-grade equity plan administration and integration with wealth management services

• Pricing: Quote-based, enterprise pricing
• HQ: United States

Shareworks targets the high end of the market: late-stage private companies, pre-IPO teams, and public companies that need equity plan administration at institutional scale. The Morgan Stanley parentage means deep integration with wealth management, secondary transactions, and liquidity programs for employees and investors. For a company with hundreds of employees holding options and institutional investors managing position sizes, Shareworks provides a level of operational infrastructure that consumer-facing platforms are not built to deliver.

The trade-off is obvious: Shareworks is enterprise software priced and built for enterprise complexity. It is not relevant for pre-seed, seed, or early Series A companies, and the implementation timeline is not compatible with the speed that most early-stage teams need.

Verdict: Relevant only at late-stage and pre-IPO. If you are reading this guide because you are evaluating platforms for a seed or Series A company, Shareworks is not your platform.

Head-to-Head: Pricing Comparison

One Thing That Changed in 2026: AngelList Stack Is Gone

AngelList stopped accepting new Stack cap table customers in August 2026. Existing customers can remain on current plans, but the product is in maintenance mode. AngelList named Pulley and J.P. Morgan Workplace Solutions as official migration partners. JPMWS is offering free service for up to 100 stakeholders for three years to migrating teams. If you are currently on Stack and planning a round in 2026 or 2027, migrate before you enter diligence. Moving a cap table mid-round is painful.

How to Choose Based on Stage

Pre-seed (under $1M raised): Start with Eqvista’s free tier or Carta Launch. Both cover the basics at zero cost. Eqvista’s free plan extends to 20 shareholders; Carta Launch covers 25. Eqvista is the better choice if you anticipate needing 409A support in the next 12 months.

Seed and early Series A (US): Pulley at $1,200 per year or Eqvista’s Premium plan. Pulley has stronger name recognition in YC-adjacent circles. Eqvista wins on total cost if 409A is a near-term requirement.

Series A and beyond (US): Carta is the default, primarily because of ecosystem integration with investors and law firms. Eqvista and Carta at 20 to 40% lower cost is a credible alternative if your investors do not specifically require Carta-format outputs.

European or UK-incorporated: Ledgy, without exception. Do not try to manage EMI or CSOP options in a US-first platform.

The Bottom Line

Cap table software is not a vanity purchase. The cost of a spreadsheet error at Series A diligence, recalculating fully diluted ownership with three simultaneous SAFE conversions and a previous option pool expansion, is typically several legal hours and a delayed close. The annual cost of the right platform is a rounding error by comparison.

Start with the free tier of whichever platform fits your stage. Migrate to a paid plan when you hit your first option grant or your first outside investor. Do not wait until your Series A data room request arrives to realize your cap table is on a spreadsheet that has not been reconciled in six months.

The platform itself matters less than the discipline of keeping it updated. But the right platform makes that discipline considerably easier to maintain.

The post 6 Best Cap Table Management Software in 2026 (Based on Reviews) appeared first on AI Funding Tracker.