Executive Summary

Between 2024 and 2025, cell therapy financing underwent more than a funding contraction. It underwent a structural transformation. The 28 significant financings tracked in this analysis span at least 10 distinct therapeutic modalities and two enabling technology categories: autologous and allogeneic CAR-T, in vivo reprogramming, gamma-delta T cells, TCR-T, natural killer cells, regulatory T cells, tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes, iPSC-derived neurons, and hematopoietic stem cells, alongside AI-enabled development and manufacturing automation platforms. That breadth, invisible in the top-line funding figures, is the real story. Cell therapy has a long history stretching back decades, from bone marrow transplantation (the original cell therapy, though it does not use engineered cells) through regenerative medicine’s extensive work with stem cells. The CAR-T approvals beginning in 2017 marked a commercial inflection point rather than an origin story, and the concentrated venture capital that followed created an investment perception of cell therapy as almost synonymous with CAR-T. What the current financing data reveal is a return to the field’s broader roots: an ecosystem where different cell types and engineering approaches address different biological problems.

Key Findings
  • The investment focus has diversified well beyond CAR-T. Twenty-eight financings span 10+ modalities including iPSC-derived therapies, in vivo reprogramming, gamma-delta T cells, and manufacturing AI.
  • Clinical reality drove the correction. CAR-T's challenges in solid tumors, manufacturing costs exceeding $450,000 per patient, and parallel setbacks in regenerative medicine corrected first-generation expectations and produced a more discriminating market.
  • Capital is selective, not absent. $2.3 billion raised across 52 rounds (2024 - Q2 2025), with Series D+ funding surging from $14 million to $832 million in a single quarter.
  • Pharma is paying $1 billion or more for preclinical platforms. Five in vivo acquisitions totaling $7.3 billion in 12 months, with returns of approximately 6x (Capstan) and 4.7x (Orna).
  • Reimbursement remains the structural constraint. Total cost of care reaches $450,000 - $500,000 per patient and can exceed $1 million with severe complications.

The capital that flowed into this ecosystem was substantial but highly selective. Cell therapy ventures raised approximately $2.3 billion across 52 rounds from 2024 through Q2 2025, averaging $47 million per round, well below the $8.2 billion peak across 121 deals in 2021.¹ But the framing of this as a simple contraction misses what changed in how capital was allocated. Investors did not merely shift from early-stage to late-stage; they shifted from single-product asset risk to platform-enabled conviction. Arsenal Biosciences ($325M Series C), Outpace Bio ($144M Series B), and Umoja Biopharma ($100M Series C) are not late-stage companies with Phase 3 data. They are early- and mid-stage companies with platform stories that attracted premium valuations. The capital allocation pattern now rewards proprietary technology applicable across multiple indications, not just clinical advancement. That said, exceptional clinical differentiation in underserved indications can also command large rounds, as Neurona ($102M for iPSC-derived neural cells in epilepsy), Aspen Neuroscience ($115M for iPSC neurons in Parkinson’s), and Obsidian Therapeutics ($160.5M for engineered TIL in solid tumors) demonstrated.

Meanwhile, pharma acquirers confirmed the thesis from the buy side with historic force: five acquisitions of in vivo cell therapy companies between March 2025 and February 2026 totaled over $7.3 billion in deal value. Eli Lilly acquired Orna Therapeutics for up to $2.4 billion (circular RNA-LNP platform), AbbVie acquired Capstan Therapeutics for $2.1 billion (targeted LNP platform, yielding roughly 6x on $340 million in private venture capital raised), BMS acquired Orbital Therapeutics for $1.5 billion (circular RNA-LNP), AstraZeneca acquired EsoBiotec for up to $1 billion (lentiviral), and Gilead acquired Interius for $350 million (lentiviral).² AstraZeneca also closed its $1.2 billion acquisition of Gracell Biotechnologies (autologous manufacturing) and Roche acquired Poseida Therapeutics for up to $1.5 billion (allogeneic CAR-T). These transactions established pricing benchmarks for platform companies across modalities. The message for investors and operators is the same: understand which modality addresses which biological problem, and build or back the platform that best solves the manufacturing equation for that modality.

Funding Environment Overview

Key Takeaways
  • Cell therapy venture funding fell from $8.2 billion (121 deals) in 2021 to $1.8 billion (40 rounds) in 2024, driven primarily by clinical disappointments in CAR-T solid tumor programs and regenerative medicine rather than by macroeconomic conditions alone.
  • The contraction masked a structural shift: capital concentrated in platform companies with manufacturing solutions and multi-indication potential.
  • Deal count recovered from 40 rounds (2024) to 52 (2025 YTD), even as average round size stayed well below peak, indicating capital is spreading across more companies at smaller amounts.
  • Series D+ funding surged from $14 million to $832 million in a single quarter (Q3 2025), signaling selective re-entry by later-stage investors into de-risked assets.
Figure 1. Cell therapy venture funding trajectory, 2021 - 2025 YTD
 
Sources: DealForma, ASGCT Landscape Reports, Pharmaceutical Technology

Selected Cell Therapy Financings: 2024 - 2025

Table 1. Twenty-eight significant cell therapy financings from January 2024 through December 2025. Click column headers to sort.

Company Amount Type Date Focus / Description
Tr1X $75M Series A Jan 2024 Allogeneic Treg/CAR-Treg for autoimmune diseases
Kyverna Therapeutics $319M IPO Feb 2024 CD19 CAR-T for autoimmune diseases (KYV-101)
Kenai Therapeutics $82M Series A Feb 2024 iPSC-derived dopamine neurons for Parkinson’s
Capstan Therapeutics $175M Series B Mar 2024 In vivo tLNP CAR-T for autoimmune diseases (CPTX2309)
Obsidian Therapeutics $160.5M Series C Apr 2024 Engineered TIL with cytoDRiVE platform for solid tumors
Cellectis $140M Equity/Alliance May 2024 Allogeneic CAR-T with TALEN gene editing (AZ partnership)
CARGO Therapeutics* $110M PIPE May 2024 CD22 CAR-T for R/R LBCL (*ceased operations Mar 2025)
Outpace Bio $144M Series B Aug 2024 AI-powered CAR-T for solid tumors (OPB-101, ovarian)
Arsenal Biosciences $325M Series C Sep 2024 CRISPR-based integrated circuit CAR-T for solid tumors
GC Therapeutics $65M Series A Sep 2024 iPSC-derived cell therapies (TFome platform)
Vittoria Biotherapeutics $10M Extension Nov 2024 Gene-edited dual-population CAR-T (VIPER-101) for T-cell lymphoma
Indapta Therapeutics $22.5M Venture Dec 2024 Allogeneic g-NK cell therapy for myeloma, NHL, MS
Umoja Biopharma $100M Series C Jan 2025 In vivo CAR-T via VivoVec lentiviral platform
A2 Biotherapeutics $80M Series C Jan 2025 Logic-gated CAR-T (Tmod platform) for solid tumors
Innovacell ~$52M Series D Jan 2025 Autologous myoblast therapy (ICEF15) for fecal incontinence
Garuda Therapeutics $50M Series A-1 Mar 2025 Off-the-shelf HSC therapies for blood disorders
Neurona Therapeutics $102M Private Apr 2025 iPSC-derived neural cell therapy (NRTX-1001) for epilepsy
Somite AI $47M Series A May 2025 AI foundation models (DeltaStem) for cell differentiation
TreeFrog Therapeutics €30M EIB Debt May 2025 iPSC cell therapy (C-Stem) for Parkinson’s disease
Laverock Therapeutics £20M+ Seed ext. Jun 2025 Gene-silenced T cells and macrophages for oncology
Dispatch Bio $216M Launch Jul 2025 Viral vector + CAR-T (Flare platform) for solid tumors
Wugen $115M Series C Aug 2025 Allogeneic CD7 CAR-T (WU-CART-007) for T-ALL/LBL
Anocca ~$46M Financing Aug 2025 Non-viral gene-edited TCR-T for KRAS+ pancreatic cancer
Gameto $44M Series C Aug 2025 iPSC-derived ovarian support cells for fertility/menopause
Aspen Neuroscience $115M Series C Nov 2025 Autologous iPSC neurons (ANPD001) for Parkinson’s
Link Cell Therapies $60M Series A Dec 2025 Logic-gated CAR-T (LNK001) for solid tumors
IN8bio $40.2M PIPE Dec 2025 γδ T cell therapies for GBM, AML, autoimmune
Cellular Origins £15.5M Series A 2025 Robotic automation (Constellation) for cell therapy mfg.

Adjacent transactions: Roche acquired Poseida Therapeutics (allogeneic CAR-T, $1.0B upfront / up to $1.5B total, November 2024) and AstraZeneca acquired Gracell Biotechnologies (FasTCAR manufacturing platform, up to $1.2B, agreed December 2023). Both preceded the in vivo wave but informed its valuation benchmarks.

* CARGO Therapeutics halted its FIRCE-1 trial in January 2025 and ceased operations in March 2025. See case study below.

The capital correction that reshaped cell therapy financing was not primarily a macroeconomic phenomenon. It was driven by clinical reality catching up to investment expectations. On the CAR-T side, the approvals of Kymriah and Yescarta in 2017 triggered a gold rush, but the years that followed exposed hard limits: durable response rates in solid tumors remained elusive, manufacturing complexity kept costs above $450,000 per patient, cytokine release syndrome and neurotoxicity created safety overhangs, and single-asset companies like CARGO Therapeutics demonstrated how quickly a binary clinical readout could destroy an entire investment. In the parallel regenerative medicine sector, a similar correction unfolded as first-generation stem cell and mesenchymal stromal cell programs accumulated regulatory setbacks, most visibly at Athersys (bankruptcy, 2023) and Mesoblast (repeated Complete Response Letters from FDA). The combined effect was not a rejection of cell therapy as a modality but a recalibration of what investors required to underwrite risk: proprietary platform technology, manufacturing economics, and clinical differentiation beyond incremental improvements on existing approaches. That recalibration is the mechanism that produced the diversification the rest of this analysis documents.

Capital Contraction and the Platform Shift

Venture funding decline, 2021 - 2024 (78% from peak)
$8.2B ↓ $1.8B

The cell therapy sector entered 2024 still absorbing the post-pandemic valuation correction. According to DealForma data, cell therapy developers raised approximately $1.8 billion across 40 venture rounds in 2024, averaging $47 million per round.³ This continued the downward trajectory from 2023, when funding totaled approximately $3.5 billion across 65 deals.⁴ The decline was not uniform: capital concentrated in companies with differentiated platforms or credible commercialization pathways, while preclinical and early-stage companies without clear differentiation struggled to secure financing.

By 2025, the funding environment stabilized at this lower baseline while showing increased selectivity. Through Q2 2025, cell therapy ventures secured approximately $2.3 billion across 52 rounds.¹ Series D and later rounds surged in Q3 2025, reaching $832 million (up from approximately $14 million in the comparable prior period), signaling renewed confidence in companies approaching commercialization.⁵ However, the late-stage versus early-stage framing overstates what actually happened. Several of the largest 2024–2025 rounds went to early- and mid-stage platform companies: Arsenal’s $325 million Series C for a CRISPR-based programmable CAR-T platform, Outpace Bio’s $144 million Series B for AI-powered engineered T cells, and Dispatch Bio’s $216 million launch round for a viral vector and CAR-T combination platform. What these companies share is not late-stage clinical data but proprietary, multi-indication platform technology. The funding filter increasingly selects for platforms over products, though it is worth noting that platform companies also tend to require more capital given the breadth of their programs.

A related shift has occurred in investor priorities around manufacturing. Cellular Origins, a UK-based company developing robotic automation for cell therapy production via its Constellation platform, raised £15.5 million in Series A funding.⁶ Investors increasingly recognize that therapeutic innovation alone is insufficient without cost-effective, scalable production capabilities. Current autologous CAR-T manufacturing costs remain in the range of $100,000 to $200,000 per dose at commercial scale; allogeneic and in vivo approaches are targeting costs an order of magnitude lower. This gap is why manufacturing-enabling platforms attract strategic capital, while traditional single-asset therapeutic developers face heightened scrutiny.

Geographic Capital Distribution

Key Takeaways
  • The United States continues to attract the largest individual rounds, driven by deep specialist VC networks and proximity to FDA regulatory infrastructure.
  • Europe is pioneering public-private instruments, including EIB venture debt and the MHRA's point-of-care manufacturing framework, creating viable non-dilutive pathways.
  • Japan's AMED is underwriting early-stage in vivo cell therapy research, signaling government commitment to next-generation platforms in Asia-Pacific.

United States

TreeFrog EIB venture debt, a non-dilutive instrument for European cell therapy companies
€30M

The United States continues to dominate cell therapy financing, hosting most of the largest rounds tracked in this analysis. Major U.S. financings include Arsenal Biosciences’ $325 million Series C (September 2024) for programmable CRISPR-based CAR-T, Dispatch Bio’s $216 million launch round (July 2025) for a viral vector and CAR-T combination platform, Wugen’s $115 million Series C (August 2025) for allogeneic CD7-targeted CAR-T, Neurona Therapeutics’ $102 million private placement (April 2025) for neural cell therapy in epilepsy, and Umoja Biopharma’s $100 million Series C (January 2025) for in vivo CAR-T platforms.⁷ The U.S. ecosystem benefits from deep venture capital networks, government support through mechanisms like ARPA-H grants (e.g., Luminary Therapeutics’ $5.8 million award²⁶), and a mature commercial infrastructure.

Europe

European cell therapy companies have demonstrated resilience through targeted financing strategies, though aggregate funding remains below U.S. levels. TreeFrog Therapeutics secured €30 million in debt and dilutive financing from the European Investment Bank for its iPSC-based Parkinson’s cell therapy program, with first-in-human trials targeted for 2027.⁸ Sweden-based Anocca raised approximately $46 million for the first non-viral gene-edited TCR-T cell therapy to enter clinical trials in Europe, targeting mutant KRAS in pancreatic cancer.⁹ UK-based Laverock Therapeutics expanded its seed round to over £20 million for programmable gene-silenced T cell and macrophage therapies.¹⁰ Austria-based Innovacell raised approximately $52 million in Series D funding for its autologous myoblast cell therapy (ICEF15) for fecal incontinence, a non-oncology regenerative application funded partly through Japan’s AMED program.¹¹ The European model increasingly relies on public-private partnerships, EIB financing instruments, and specialized life science investors rather than broad venture syndicates, an approach that may prove instructive as reimbursement challenges constrain traditional venture models.

Asia-Pacific

Asia represents a growing presence in cell therapy investment, particularly in manufacturing innovation and in vivo platforms. Japan’s AMED program provided a $40 million grant to AvenCell, reflecting government commitment to cell therapy infrastructure.²⁷ China’s in vivo CAR-T ecosystem has attracted substantial investment. While precise figures are difficult to verify from public Western sources, industry analyses suggest billions of dollars in combined venture and strategic capital flowing into Chinese cell therapy companies between 2020 and 2025.¹² Geopolitical considerations continue to influence Western investor participation, limiting LP allocation decisions despite the scientific momentum.

M&A Transactions and Investor Returns

Key Takeaways
  • Five pharma acquisitions totaling $7.3 billion in 12 months (March 2025 - February 2026) established the first return benchmarks for in vivo cell therapy platforms.
  • Capstan returned approximately 6x ($340 million raised, $2.1 billion exit) and Orna returned approximately 4.7x ($321 million raised, $1.5 billion upfront), spanning two distinct delivery platforms.
  • Three of five acquisitions target CD19-directed autoimmune disease as their lead indication, converging on a single therapeutic thesis from three different delivery technologies.
Table 2. In vivo cell therapy acquisitions, March 2025 - February 2026
Acquirer Target Deal Value Platform Lead Indication Capital Raised Return
AstraZeneca EsoBiotec Up to $1.0B Lentiviral (ENaBL) BCMA / Myeloma Undisclosed -
AbbVie Capstan $2.1B Targeted LNP-mRNA CD19 / Autoimmune $340M ~6x
Gilead (Kite) Interius $350M Lentiviral B-cell Malignancies Undisclosed -
BMS Orbital $1.5B Circular RNA-LNP CD19 / Autoimmune $270M -
Eli Lilly Orna Up to $2.4B Circular RNA-LNP CD19 / Autoimmune $321M ~4.7x
Five acquisitions in 12 months, Mar 2025 - Feb 2026
$7.3B

The M&A landscape did more than reinforce pharma’s conviction in cell therapy platforms. It revealed a full-scale race to secure in vivo CAR-T capabilities. Five acquisitions of in vivo cell therapy companies closed or were announced between March 2025 and February 2026, totaling over $7.3 billion in deal value. This concentration of capital in a single modality category, within roughly 12 months, echoes the original CAR-T acquisition wave, when Novartis licensed the Penn CAR-T technology in 2012, Gilead acquired Kite for $11.9 billion (October 2017), and Celgene acquired Juno for $9 billion (January 2018), an aggregate of approximately $21 billion that established the commercial cell therapy industry. The current in vivo wave is smaller in absolute dollars but arguably more significant in its breadth of delivery platform bets.

The wave began with AstraZeneca’s acquisition of Belgium-based EsoBiotec for up to $1 billion ($425M upfront, $575M in milestones) in March 2025.²⁸ EsoBiotec’s Engineered NanoBody Lentiviral (ENaBL) platform uses targeted lentiviral vectors to deliver genetic instructions to T cells in vivo, a distinct delivery mechanism from the LNP-based approaches. Early clinical data from a Phase 1 trial in multiple myeloma showed all four patients responding, with two achieving complete responses. This expanded AstraZeneca’s cell therapy portfolio beyond the earlier Gracell manufacturing deal.

AbbVie followed in June 2025, acquiring Capstan Therapeutics for $2.1 billion in cash, securing CPTX2309, a first-in-class in vivo tLNP anti-CD19 CAR-T therapy for autoimmune diseases, and its proprietary targeted lipid nanoparticle platform.²² Capstan had raised $340 million across three private rounds from pharma venture arms including Pfizer, Bayer, Eli Lilly, BMS, Novartis, and J&J, implying approximately 6x return on private capital invested. Founded as a corporate entity in 2021 (building on lipid nanoparticle and CAR-T research at Penn), Capstan’s trajectory from incorporation to $2.1 billion exit in four years established the return benchmark for the category.

Gilead’s Kite Pharma followed in August 2025 with a $350 million acquisition of Interius BioTherapeutics, adding another lentiviral in vivo platform.²⁹

BMS, already the largest commercial seller of CAR-T products through Breyanzi and Abecma (having inherited those programs through the 2019 Celgene acquisition, which itself brought in Juno’s pipeline), moved into in vivo with its $1.5 billion cash acquisition of Orbital Therapeutics (October 2025).³⁰ Orbital’s lead program, OTX-201, uses circular RNA delivered via lipid nanoparticles to encode a CD19-targeted CAR for B cell-driven autoimmune diseases. The company had raised $270 million in a single Series A from Arch Venture Partners and other backers. Preclinical data showed full B cell depletion in non-human primates across blood, spleen, and lymph nodes.

The most recent and largest in vivo deal came in February 2026, when Eli Lilly agreed to acquire Orna Therapeutics for up to $2.4 billion ($1.5B upfront valuation per MPM, remainder in clinical milestones).³¹ Orna’s engineered circular RNA platform (oRNA), paired with proprietary lipid nanoparticles, represents yet another delivery approach. Its lead program, ORN-252, is a clinical trial-ready CD19-targeted in vivo CAR-T for autoimmune diseases. Orna had raised approximately $321 million in private venture from investors including Merck, MPM BioImpact, and Taiho Ventures, and had previously secured a partnership with Merck valued at up to $3.5 billion ($150M upfront). The implied return to private investors, at the $1.5 billion upfront valuation on $321 million raised, is approximately 4.7x.

Two patterns in this M&A wave deserve attention. First, three of five acquisitions target CD19-directed autoimmune disease as their lead indication (Capstan, Orna, Orbital), while the other two target oncology (EsoBiotec for BCMA in myeloma, Interius for B-cell malignancies), though both also have autoimmune disease in their broader pipelines. The convergence on autoimmune disease reflects pharma’s collective assessment that in vivo CAR-T’s strongest commercial case lies in conditions where large patient populations and the logistical complexity of current ex vivo approaches create demand for a simpler alternative. Second, acquirers are hedging across delivery platforms: lentiviral vectors (EsoBiotec, Interius), targeted LNPs (Capstan), and circular RNA-LNP systems (Orna, Orbital). This diversity suggests pharma views the delivery question as unresolved and is purchasing optionality across approaches.

Gilead-Kite + Celgene-Juno aggregate (2017-2018), establishing the commercial CGT industry
$21B

Separately, AstraZeneca’s earlier acquisition of Gracell Biotechnologies for up to $1.2 billion (agreed December 2023, closed February 2024) secured the FasTCAR autologous manufacturing platform.²⁰ Roche’s November 2024 acquisition of Poseida Therapeutics for approximately $1.0 billion upfront (up to $1.5 billion total) gained a non-viral allogeneic CAR-T platform with FDA RMAT designation.²¹ Poseida had raised approximately $324 million in private venture, though total capital including public equity was substantially higher. Bristol Myers Squibb’s $286 million acquisition of 2seventy bio (March 2025) consolidated full control of the already-approved Abecma.²³ These transactions represent distinct strategic purposes: manufacturing optimization, allogeneic platform access, and commercial consolidation, respectively.

Case Study: CARGO Therapeutics and the Single-Asset Trap

Key Takeaways
  • CARGO raised $110 million in a PIPE (May 2024), halted its sole clinical program 9 months later, and ceased operations entirely by March 2025.
  • The trajectory illustrates why investors have shifted toward platform companies: a single clinical readout eliminated an entire company with no fallback pipeline.
From PIPE to cessation in 9 months
$110M ↓ $0

CARGO Therapeutics warrants separate attention as a case study in what the current funding environment selects against. The company raised $110 million in a PIPE in May 2024 for firi-cel, an autologous CD22-targeted CAR-T for relapsed/refractory large B-cell lymphoma. Nine months later, in January 2025, CARGO halted its FIRCE-1 Phase 2 trial after disappointing efficacy data. By March 2025, the company had ceased operations entirely.

The CARGO experience illustrates a pattern that repeated across cell therapy in 2024: capital raised on the strength of a single clinical asset, in a competitive indication (LBCL already served by Yescarta, Breyanzi, and Kymriah), without a differentiated platform or manufacturing advantage. Compare this to the companies that attracted the largest financings in the same period: Arsenal, Wugen, and Umoja each brought a proprietary technology platform applicable beyond a single program. The market is not punishing all cell therapy companies equally; it is selecting against single-asset stories in crowded indications while rewarding platform diversification.

Strategic Implications

Key Takeaways
  • Investors are now prioritizing three dimensions: manufacturing scalability, clinical differentiation beyond incremental CAR-T improvements, and platform breadth that insulates against binary trial risk.
  • Alternative financing sources, including strategic partnerships (19% of CGT deals in 2023), government grants (ARPA-H, AMED, EIB), and venture debt, are creating viable non-dilutive pathways outside traditional VC.
  • Policy risk is real and underappreciated: proposed cuts to NIH and ARPA-H funding threaten the early-stage pipeline that feeds commercial development, while reimbursement challenges remain unresolved at $450,000 - $500,000 per patient.

Investor Priorities and Platform Differentiation

Investors have recalibrated how they evaluate cell therapy companies, now prioritizing three critical dimensions. First, manufacturing scalability: companies must demonstrate credible pathways to industrial-scale production, and automation platforms like Cellular Origins have become essential infrastructure investments. Second, clinical differentiation: incremental improvements over existing CAR-T products are insufficient. Successful fundraisers like Wugen have demonstrated 91% ORR efficacy in underserved indications like T-cell malignancies. Third, platform versatility: single-asset companies face extreme funding challenges, as the CARGO experience demonstrates, while platforms enabling multiple therapeutic applications, such as Umoja’s in vivo engineering technology or Somite AI’s DeltaStem foundation model, attract the strongest investor conviction and strategic partnership interest.

Alternative Financing and Early-Stage Pathways

With traditional venture capital constrained, cell therapy companies have increasingly pursued alternative funding sources. Strategic partnerships and licensing agreements accounted for 19% of CGT deals in 2023 despite representing only 10% of investment volume, indicating pharma’s willingness to provide nondilutive capital for validated platforms.²⁴ Government support has proven critical: U.S. companies have accessed ARPA-H grants (Luminary Therapeutics, $5.8 million²⁶), while Japan’s AMED program provided $40 million to AvenCell.²⁷ European companies have pioneered debt instruments, with TreeFrog Therapeutics’ €30 million EIB facility demonstrating the viability of quasi-public financing for clinical advancement.⁸ However, the current U.S. administration’s proposed budget cuts to NIH (approximately 37%) and ARPA-H (approximately 37%, from $1.5 billion to $945 million) introduce uncertainty for companies reliant on federal grants, particularly those working with mRNA-based platforms, given the administration’s broader skepticism toward mRNA technology. While Congress has thus far largely rejected the proposed cuts, the policy environment adds a layer of risk to nondilutive funding strategies that companies should factor into their financing plans. Several early-stage companies also secured funding in this environment: Laverock (£20M+ seed), Vittoria ($10M extension), and Somite AI ($47M Series A), each with a differentiated platform story.

The Reimbursement Challenge

Total cost of care per patient; can exceed $1M
$450K - $500K

These financing dynamics are compounded by unresolved reimbursement challenges. Current CAR-T list prices range from $373,000 to $475,000 per treatment for the drug product alone. Total cost of care, including hospitalization, lymphodepletion, adverse event management (particularly ICU stays for cytokine release syndrome), and post-treatment monitoring, has been estimated at $450,000 to $500,000 in studies of Medicare claims, though analyses accounting for severe complications suggest total episodes of care can exceed $1 million.²⁵ Payers increasingly demand value-based contracts and long-term outcome data. Companies require substantial funding to generate post-market evidence, yet struggle to secure financing without demonstrated commercial traction. The European model of government-backed financing instruments may offer a partial template for bridging this gap.

Outlook and Implications

Key Takeaways
  • The funding contraction forced a sorting mechanism that produced a cell therapy sector no longer centered on a single modality, returning to the field's deeper roots in bone marrow transplant and regenerative medicine.
  • Pharma's willingness to pay $1 billion or more for preclinical platforms signals the acquisition window for differentiated delivery technology remains wide open.
  • Two paths to early-stage funding have emerged: differentiated platform mechanisms (Laverock, Somite AI, Vittoria at seed/Series A) or exceptional clinical differentiation in underserved indications (Neurona, Aspen in neurology).
  • The contrarian opportunity may lie in early-stage platform companies addressing underserved modalities where the field is still pre-consensus on winners.
Series D+ surge in a single quarter, Q3 2025
$14M ↑ $832M

The 28 financings tracked in this analysis reveal something more interesting than a funding cycle. The capital contraction forced a sorting mechanism, and what came through the sort is a cell therapy sector that no longer centers on a single modality. In a sense, the field has gone back to the future: the post-2017 investment concentration on CAR-T was an anomaly in a discipline with far deeper roots in bone marrow transplantation, regenerative medicine, and diverse stem cell applications. What has returned is a broader range of cell therapy technologies and applications, now augmented by engineering capabilities that did not exist a decade ago. The companies that passed through the filter share common attributes: proprietary platform technology applicable across multiple indications, clinical data demonstrating meaningful differentiation, and credible manufacturing strategies. Those that failed, or, like CARGO Therapeutics, raised capital only to see programs collapse, lacked one or more of these elements.

For emerging companies, the implications are practical. Platform technology is now table stakes for large venture rounds, but early-stage companies can still secure funding through two paths: differentiated platform mechanisms (as Laverock, Somite AI, and Vittoria demonstrated at seed or Series A scale) or exceptional clinical differentiation in underserved indications (as Neurona and Aspen demonstrated with $102M and $115M rounds respectively). Strategic partnerships and government instruments offer alternative capital paths while traditional venture remains constrained. Companies that lack both platform breadth and standout clinical data should consider nondilutive funding to de-risk before approaching venture markets: generating IND-enabling data through ARPA-H or SBIR grants, securing a strategic partnership that validates the platform, or publishing differentiated preclinical or clinical data in a peer-reviewed setting.

For established players and pharma, balance sheet strength has already driven a historic M&A wave. The five in vivo acquisitions alone total over $7.3 billion, with return profiles ranging from approximately 4.7x (Orna, $321M raised, $1.5B upfront valuation) to approximately 6x (Capstan, $340M raised, $2.1B exit). These benchmarks, alongside the Roche-Poseida deal ($1.5B total for $324M in private venture), will shape how the next vintage of cell therapy funds is raised and deployed. Pharma’s willingness to pay $1 billion or more for preclinical platforms (EsoBiotec, Orbital, Orna) signals that the acquisition window for platform companies with differentiated delivery technology remains wide open.

For investors evaluating the sector, the surge in Series D funding (from approximately $14 million to $832 million in a single quarter) signals compelling opportunities in de-risked later-stage assets. But the more contrarian opportunity may lie in early-stage platform companies addressing underserved modalities: gamma-delta T cells, TCR-T, in vivo approaches, manufacturing automation, where the funding environment has depressed valuations below what the underlying biological promise warrants. The current environment is less a crisis than a filter. The investors who understand which modality solves which biological problem, and which platforms have the manufacturing economics to deliver at scale, will define the next generation of cell therapy returns.

References

1. DealForma. “Biopharma Therapeutics and Platform Deals by Modality 2024–Q2 2025.” DealForma. September 2025.

2. Company press releases: Lilly/Orna (Feb 9, 2026), AbbVie/Capstan (Jun 30, 2025), BMS/Orbital (Oct 10, 2025), AZ/EsoBiotec (Mar 17, 2025), Gilead/Interius (Aug 2025), Roche/Poseida (Nov 26, 2024), AstraZeneca/Gracell (Dec 2023/Feb 2024). Return calculations based on Tracxn, PitchBook, and company press release venture funding data.

3. DealForma. “Biopharma Therapeutics and Platforms Venture Funding in 2024.” DealForma. March 2025.

4. ASGCT. “Landscape Report 2024.” American Society of Gene & Cell Therapy. 2024. 2023 funding totals.

5. “Biotech recovery: Q3 2025 venture funding.” Pharmaceutical Technology. September 2025.

6. BGF. “Cellular Origins Funding Announcement.” BGF Insights. 2025.

7. Company press releases: Arsenal Biosciences (Sep 4, 2024), Wugen (Aug 27, 2025), Neurona Therapeutics (Apr 3, 2025), Umoja Biopharma (Jan 14, 2025), Dispatch Bio (Jul 2025).

8. European Investment Bank. “TreeFrog Therapeutics secures €30 million from EIB.” EIB Press Release. May 27, 2025.

9. Anocca AB. “Anocca Raises SEK 440 Million to Advance Clinical Trial Targeting Pancreatic Cancer.” Company Press Release. August 18, 2025.

10. Laverock Therapeutics. “Laverock Therapeutics expands seed funding and announces key milestone progress.” Company Press Release. June 30, 2025.

11. Innovacell Inc. “Series D Capital Raise Complete.” Company Press Release. 2025.

12. Industry analyses (multiple sources). China cell therapy venture and strategic deal estimates, 2020–2025. Precise figures are approximate; comprehensive public data from Western sources is limited.

13. Wugen. “Wugen Secures $115 Million to Advance Pivotal Study of First-in-Class Allogeneic CAR-T Therapy WU-CART-007.” Company Press Release. August 27, 2025.

14. AbbVie. “AbbVie to Acquire Capstan Therapeutics.” Company Press Release. June 30, 2025. Umoja Biopharma. Series C Press Release. January 14, 2025.

15. IN8bio. “IN8bio Presents Updated Phase I/II Data Demonstrating Meaningful and Durable Survival Improvements in Newly Diagnosed Glioblastoma.” GlobeNewswire. January 12, 2026.

16. Somite AI. “Somite AI Announces Series A Led by Khosla Ventures.” PRNewswire. May 13, 2025.

17. Precedence Research. “Natural Killer Cell Therapeutics Market.” 2024. Note: Market projections represent analyst estimates, not verified demand data.

18. “CAR-T developer Kyverna latest clue biotech IPOs are back in 2024.” Fierce Biotech. February 2024. CG Oncology IPO data: BioPharma Dive, January 24, 2024.

19. “LB Pharmaceuticals tops 2025 biotech IPO list with $285M Nasdaq debut.” Pharmaceutical Technology. 2025.

20. AstraZeneca. Gracell Biotechnologies Acquisition Press Release. December 2023/February 2024.

21. Roche. “Roche enters into a definitive agreement to acquire Poseida Therapeutics.” Company Press Release. November 26, 2024. Tracxn: Poseida raised $324M in private venture over 6 rounds; PitchBook total including public equity: $573M.

22. AbbVie. “AbbVie to Acquire Capstan Therapeutics.” Company Press Release. June 30, 2025. Tracxn/PitchBook: Capstan raised $340M over 3 private rounds. STAT News, BioPharma Dive, June 30, 2025.

23. Bristol Myers Squibb/2seventy bio. “2seventy bio Enters into Definitive Agreement to be Acquired by Bristol Myers Squibb.” Company Press Release. March 10, 2025.

24. ASGCT. “Landscape Report 2025 Q3.” American Society of Gene & Cell Therapy. 2025.

25. NCBI Bookshelf/EBMT-EHA CAR-T Cell Handbook. “The Value of CAR-T-cell Immunotherapy in Cancer.” Current list pricing: $373,000–$475,000 per infusion. Total treatment costs per KFF Health News and Medicare claims analyses.

26. Luminary Therapeutics. ARPA-H grant announcement. 2025.

27. AvenCell Therapeutics. AMED Grant Press Release. Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development. 2025.

28. AstraZeneca. “AstraZeneca to Acquire EsoBiotec to Advance Cell Therapy Ambition.” Company Press Release. March 17, 2025. $425M upfront, up to $575M in milestones. Closed May 2025.

29. Fierce Biotech. “BMS inks $1.5B in vivo CAR-T buyout to pull Orbital into its sphere of influence.” October 10, 2025. Gilead/Kite acquisition of Interius BioTherapeutics for $350M: August 2025.

30. Bristol Myers Squibb. “Bristol Myers Squibb Strengthens and Diversifies Cell Therapy Portfolio with Acquisition of Orbital Therapeutics.” Company Press Release. October 10, 2025. $1.5B in cash at closing. Orbital raised $270M Series A (2023).

31. Eli Lilly. “Lilly to Acquire Orna Therapeutics to Advance Cell Therapies.” Company Press Release. February 9, 2026. Up to $2.4B in cash (upfront + clinical milestones). Orna raised $321M in private venture per PitchBook. MPM valued Orna at $1.5B per Boston Globe.