We've been in hundreds of biotech fundraising conversations over the years. Not just as the investor evaluating a pitch, but in the months after — when founders come back and say "we got passed on by eight funds and we're not sure why." Sometimes the answer is simple (the science isn't ready). Often it's not. Often the science is fine and the fundraising approach itself is working against them.
These are five patterns we see repeatedly. None of them are fatal in isolation, but all of them slow things down or kill deals that didn't have to die.
1. Building the financial model before building the milestone map
Biotech founders, especially those coming from academic research, often treat the financial model as the primary deliverable of fundraising prep. They spend weeks building a 5-year DCF with detailed program cost assumptions and revenue projections tied to peak sales estimates that are essentially fabricated. Investors look at these models, appreciate the effort, and generally ignore them for the early-stage decision.
What matters far more is the milestone map. What are the 4-6 key proof points that this capital will achieve? What does success look like at each? What does the data package look like going into the next round? The milestone map tells an investor what they're buying — a clear, de-risked set of outcomes that justify the next step. The financial model tells them nothing they can't model themselves in 20 minutes.
Build the milestone map first. Then build the budget from the milestones. Then build the financial model if you must. In that order.
2. Treating scientific presentation as a proxy for company pitch
Founders from research backgrounds default to seminar mode when pitching. They spend 40 minutes on mechanism of action, validation data, and competitive landscape analysis, and then 5 minutes on team, go-to-market, and financing strategy. This is backwards for a VC pitch.
A biotech investor who's interested will read your papers. They'll talk to your scientific advisors. They'll dig into the data with their own scientific diligence process. They don't need you to teach them the biology in the pitch meeting — they need you to tell them why this company, with this team, at this moment, is the right bet. The science is the foundation, not the pitch.
Lead with the investment thesis. Why is this disease or indication underserved? Why is your mechanism uniquely positioned to address it? Why now — what has changed technically or clinically that makes this possible today that wasn't possible five years ago? Then go into the science. Keep the pitch under 30 minutes. Save time for the real conversation.
3. Misjudging how long biotech diligence actually takes
Enterprise software diligence can move quickly — 4-6 weeks from first meeting to term sheet is not unheard of for a hot deal. Biotech is different. A typical Series A biotech diligence process at a serious healthcare-focused fund takes 8-16 weeks. If the scientific question is novel or the mechanism is complex, it can take longer. Founders frequently start their fundraise with 6 months of runway and expect to close in 8 weeks. The math rarely works out.
Start fundraising with 12-18 months of runway. This gives you the ability to run a real process — to be selective about lead investor, to negotiate terms, to walk away from a deal that isn't right. The founders who have closed the best rounds in our portfolio started talking to us 6-12 months before they needed capital. Not because we asked them to, but because they understood that relationship-building precedes term sheets in biotech.
4. Not knowing who at the fund actually makes decisions
Healthcare VC firms vary enormously in how decisions get made. Some operate by consensus, some by partnership vote, some effectively by a single decision-maker with veto power. A lot of founder energy goes into the partner they first connect with, sometimes without understanding whether that partner has the scientific thesis alignment and internal credibility to champion a deal through the fund's process.
Ask directly. "Who else will be involved in evaluating this?" and "How does the fund typically make investment decisions?" are reasonable questions. The answer tells you whether to invest more time in the relationship you've started or to request introductions to other partners. A partner who's genuinely enthusiastic will usually introduce you to the person whose opinion matters most for the decision. If they don't, that tells you something.
5. Pitching the wrong milestone as the value inflection
This one is subtle and probably the most consequential. Every biotech program has multiple milestones, and not all of them move valuation the same amount. Founders sometimes pitch the milestone they're most confident they can achieve rather than the one that most de-risks the investment thesis. These are different things.
The milestone investors are pricing in at a biotech Series A is typically: can this thing work in humans? Everything before Phase I data is pre-clinical confidence. The question is whether the pre-clinical confidence is sufficient to justify the next step, and the milestone that answers that question most directly is usually IND clearance or Phase I initiation — not preclinical biomarker data, even impressive preclinical biomarker data.
We pass on more biotech deals because of execution risk than because of scientific risk. A strong mechanism with an uncertain CMC path or a weak manufacturing team worries us more than a slightly harder-to-explain target with a world-class development team behind it.
When you're describing your near-term milestones, make sure you're describing the ones that answer the investor's actual risk question, not just the ones you're most likely to hit. They're related but not identical, and sophisticated investors notice the difference.
