India’s startup funding market is becoming increasingly concentrated. Venture capitalists are investing larger amounts in fewer companies, leaving many smaller businesses struggling to raise the money needed for expansion. The latest funding figures suggest that investors remain willing to back promising ventures, but are increasingly selective about where they commit capital. Research-intensive businesses face a particular difficulty because they often need years to develop commercially viable technologies.
Between January and October 15, 2026, Indian startups raised $10.9 billion in equity funding across 1,253 rounds, according to Tracxn data reported by Business Standard. This was 6.8% higher than the $10.2 billion raised during the corresponding period in 2025. However, the number of rounds fell from 1,982 to 1,253, while the average investment per round increased from about $5.1 million to $8.6 million.
READ | Broken bank credit pipeline is choking MSMEs, startups
The concentration is evident in the largest transactions. The 10 biggest fundraisers accounted for $3.92 billion, or nearly 36% of total funding. Startups had raised $10.4 billion during the comparable period in 2024. Aggregate investment has therefore changed little over three years, although its distribution has shifted considerably. The modest recovery in funding offers limited comfort to startups outside the relatively small group attracting large investments.
Why venture capital has become more selective
India experienced an extraordinary startup funding boom in 2021 and 2022, when abundant global liquidity encouraged investors to finance rapid expansion. Startups pursued market share through heavy expenditure, often with limited attention to profitability. Rising interest rates and the subsequent retreat of global risk capital brought that period to an end. Investors began placing greater emphasis on financial discipline, revenue quality and the prospects of generating sustainable returns.
The collapse of Byju’s became a prominent example of what could go wrong. Its troubles involved governance failures, financial difficulties and an unsustainable expansion strategy. For venture capital investors, the episode reinforced the importance of examining management practices and business economics rather than accepting ambitious growth projections at face value.
Venture capital firms also face constraints of their own. They raise money from institutional investors, family offices and wealthy individuals, who expect returns within an agreed investment horizon. When exits become difficult or take longer than expected, distributions to these investors are delayed. This can affect commitments to subsequent funds, although managers with substantial uninvested capital may continue financing selected companies.
These changes have made fundraising particularly difficult for startups that have developed a product but have yet to establish a profitable business. They require capital to recruit employees, acquire customers and expand production, but often lack the commercial record demanded by larger investors. Companies that could previously attract funding on the strength of projected growth must now demonstrate stronger evidence of demand.
The difficulty is compounded by the nature of the venture capital business. Funds depend on eventual exits through public listings, acquisitions or secondary sales of their holdings. When these routes offer uncertain returns, investors may hold on to existing investments longer, delaying distributions and complicating fundraising for new funds.
India’s exit market has nevertheless shown signs of improvement. According to the Bain & Company–IVCA India Venture Capital Report 2025, venture capital investment increased to $13.7 billion in 2024 from $9.6 billion in 2023. Exit value reached $6.8 billion, while public-market exits accounted for about 76% of exit value in 2024, up from roughly 55% in 2023. Yet fundraising by venture capital and growth funds declined about 35% to $2.7 billion.
These figures point to a problem that improved stock market exits alone cannot resolve. Fund managers must persuade their investors that new commitments will generate attractive returns. With valuations under greater scrutiny and acquisition opportunities uncertain, many prefer to concentrate their investments in businesses with established revenues or demonstrable commercial prospects.
READ | Incubators help Indian startups navigate the funding winter
Deeptech startups face a longer funding cycle
The shift towards more selective investment comes at a time when India is seeking to develop capabilities in artificial intelligence, biotechnology, semiconductors and advanced manufacturing. These industries require substantial expenditure on research, specialised personnel and testing facilities before products can be commercialised.
Their financing requirements differ from those of conventional technology businesses. A software platform may begin earning revenue relatively early, while a semiconductor or biotechnology startup could spend years developing and validating its technology. Failure is possible even after considerable investment. Investors must therefore be prepared for longer holding periods, sometimes extending beyond a decade.
Recent fundraising in artificial intelligence illustrates both the opportunities and the concentration of capital. In March 2026, Bharti Airtel announced a $1 billion investment agreement for its data centre subsidiary Nxtra, involving Alpha Wave Global, Carlyle, Anchorage Capital and Airtel itself. In February, AI infrastructure company Neysa announced arrangements for up to $600 million in equity investment from Blackstone and co-investors, alongside plans to secure additional debt financing. Sarvam AI announced a $234 million first close of its $300 million Series B round in June, valuing the company at $1.5 billion.
These investments demonstrate substantial interest in AI infrastructure and indigenous technology development. However, the availability of capital for large transactions says little about the financing prospects of smaller research-led companies. Established corporate businesses, infrastructure ventures and startups developing new technologies also have different risk profiles. Their fundraising figures need to be interpreted accordingly.
READ | Valuations deflated, VCs shy: Startups pivot towards pragmatism
Government funding and the commercialisation gap
The government has recognised the need for longer-term finance. The ₹10,000 crore Startup India Fund of Funds 2.0, notified in April 2026, aims to mobilise venture capital for deeptech, innovation-driven manufacturing and early-growth businesses. The scheme will channel commitments through eligible alternative investment funds rather than invest directly in individual startups.
The initiative could help expand the domestic venture capital market, particularly by supporting smaller funds prepared to invest in companies at earlier stages of development. Its effectiveness will depend on how much private capital it attracts and whether that money reaches businesses whose technologies require extended development periods.
Government support for research and investment must also be accompanied by opportunities for commercialisation. Startups developing unfamiliar technologies often struggle to secure their first customers. Public agencies and large companies may be reluctant to purchase products without established performance records, while young enterprises cannot establish those records without access to customers.
Procurement rules that favour experienced suppliers can consequently disadvantage innovative startups. Well-designed pilot contracts, technology validation arrangements and procurement procedures that assess technical capability could help such businesses establish commercial credibility. These mechanisms would need safeguards to ensure that public money is not committed to technologies without reasonable prospects of success.
India needs capital beyond the largest deals
A more dependable funding environment will require a wider pool of domestic investors and financing instruments suited to different stages of business development. Seed-stage ventures generally need modest amounts to test their products, while research-intensive companies require patient investment through development and commercialisation. Businesses with established demand need growth capital to expand operations.
A broader domestic investor base could reduce dependence on fluctuations in overseas venture capital flows. Better exit opportunities, including acquisitions by Indian companies, would also make early-stage investments more attractive. Public listings have helped investors realise returns, but they cannot provide an exit route for every successful startup.
Founders have responsibilities as well. The experience of the past few years has shown the limitations of treating successive fundraising rounds as evidence of business success. Sustainable unit economics, repeat customers and financial discipline provide a stronger basis for expansion, even when profitability remains some years away.
India’s venture capital market has become more discriminating after the excesses of the previous funding boom. Greater investment discipline is welcome, but excessive concentration could deprive promising young businesses of the capital needed to establish themselves. The test for investors and policymakers will be whether a larger number of commercially credible startups can obtain financing before they become established businesses. A market that finances only companies which have already demonstrated success will struggle to produce the next generation of them.