Eddie Eltoukhy’s Post

View profile for Eddie Eltoukhy, graphic

Partner at Pear VC | Life Sciences Venture Investing

What were the 50 most successful life sciences startups of the past 15 years? 🧬🚀 In this installment of our Pear VC Biotech: Bench to Business series, we conducted an in-depth review of these companies that we dubbed the “biotech behemoths.” 🦍 With a minimum exit value of >$2.7B, these companies represented the top 0.2% of life sciences startups founded in the US, Europe, and Canada between 2009-2023. 📈 Some key findings: 1️⃣ Product Focus 46 of 50 were therapeutics companies, 3 were diagnostics companies, and 1 was a tools company. Oncology was the most common lead therapeutic area (16/46), followed by rare diseases (13/46) and immunology (8/46). 💉 Key platform themes included: cell therapy (Juno Therapeutics, Inc., Kite Pharma, Sana Biotechnology, Inc., Lyell Immunopharma, Arcellx); gene therapy (AveXis, Spark Therapeutics, Inc., Krystal Biotech, Inc., Audentes); CRISPR technology (CRISPR Therapeutics, Intellia Therapeutics, Inc.), and computationally-driven drug discovery (Nimbus Therapeutics, Recursion). 🧑🔬 All three diagnostics companies (GRAIL, Foundation Medicine, and Guardant Health) focus on genomic tests for cancer screening, monitoring, or therapy selection. The sole tools company (10x Genomics) develops instruments and reagents for single-cell omics characterization. 🛠 2️⃣ Founding Profiles The average age of the founding CEO at company formation was ~46 +/- ~10 years. In contrast, for the founding CEOs of the top 50 tech startups (the “tech titans” 🤖) over the same period, the average age at founding was significantly younger at ~36 +/- ~8 years. A little more than half (~53%) of the founding CEOs of these biotechs were first-time CEOs. The PhD was the most commonly held degree (21/49), followed by the MD (15/49), and the MBA (13/49). 🎓 30/50 behemoths had a founder affiliated with at least one academic institution, most commonly Harvard University (7 companies), Stanford University (4), and UCLA (3). The most common founding location was the SF Bay Area (30%), followed by Boston (20%) and Southern California (14%). Although we included Canada and Europe in our survey, only 3/50 behemoths were founded outside of the US. 🌎 3️⃣ Financial Characteristics The behemoths achieved an aggregate value of ~$322B with a total of ~$43B raised (unadjusted dollars), for a rough multiple on invested capital (here simply defined as valuation/total investment) of ~7.5x. 💰 The companies with the highest individual MOICs were Kite (~52.5x), Receptos (~46.2x), Loxo (~30.8x), AveXis (~27.6x), and Foundation Medicine (~26.8x). 💸 The mean time to an initial exit (here defined as a public financing event or an acquisition) was 4.7 +/- 2.7 years. This was considerably faster than it was for the tech titans (8.2 +/-2.1 years)! ⏱ For the full rankings, lots more data and charts, our methods, and our commentary and predictions, please check out the link! 👇 https://lnkd.in/gkfx-mVG

Biotech Behemoths in Review - Pear VC

Biotech Behemoths in Review - Pear VC

https://pear.vc

Eddie Eltoukhy

Partner at Pear VC | Life Sciences Venture Investing

4w

Big thanks to Pear PhD fellows Alan S.H. Tung, Ami Thakrar, and Gary Li for helping to collate the data and write the piece. Thank you also to Mar Hershenson, Sarah Jones, Daniel Simon, Elliot Hershberg, and Curt Herberts for valuable feedback, as well as Joanna Shan for help with the graphics.

Puya Yazdi

Physician-Scientist & Co-Founder ➤I lead AI/ML Scientists, Bioinformaticians, and Engineers to deliver breakthrough technology to accelerate healthcare, drug discovery, clinical diagnostics, and precision medicine

4w

The Most surprising finding is that the mean time to initial exit is about half the time compared to tech titans. You would think the regulatory framework in life sciences would make the time to exit longer and not shorter compared to tech but this might also be mainly due to the numerous therapeutic companies here, and how many of them just get acquired by big pharma after successfully navigating the FDA path. Great stuff and thank you.

Björn Schimmöller

dad / husband / co-founder & CEO of iuvantium / Decoding the Immune System / Treat, Cure, And Protect Humanity from Disease/ Believer in the Infinite Game

4w

Brilliant piece Eddie Eltoukhy and colleagues. So rich in data and insights, thank you for compiling it. Two omissions though? BioNTech SE and Vaxcyte curious if just a miss or reason for not including in your analysis?

Amanda Guisbond

Communications for brands + leaders at the intersection of healthcare, science + technology | Ex-Recursion, Amwell, Moderna

4w

Having worked with three of these behemoths, Moderna, Spark and Recursion, I'm impressed with how much you covered, but I also know branding and growth strategies played a big role for many of these. Would be interested in a part 2 looking at when/how they came out of stealth, pivotal stages of financing/growth, key hires, partner strategy, etc.

Becky Pferdehirt, PhD

Investment Partner at Andreessen Horowitz

4w

This is a really great analysis, thanks Eddie Eltoukhy and team!

Thank you to you and your team for the interesting data. Agree with the comment that the timing to exit was something for a surprise, given the shorter product lifecycle in tech. Maybe the heady early 2020s and earlier phase IPOs?

Sally (Yuanheng) Wang Liang JD MPH

Life Sciences Venture Investor I Board Director I Dealmaker l ex Co-Founder CEO —Help Biotechs Thrive to bring New Drugs to Patients

4w

Thank you Eddie Eltoukhy Super helpful!

Elena Itskovich, PhD

By scientists, for scientists. Founding GP, Nest Catalyst Ventures.

4w

Great report Eddie Eltoukhy, thank you for sharing! I liked how you compared the top biotech companies to top tech companies. However, since there were many many more companies in tech than in biotech, I wonder how does the more general MOIC compare between the two industries.

Sharif Vakili

CEO at UpDoc, Primary Care Physician, Investor

4w

Love this Eddie!

Pavel Ryzhov, PhD

I help you Build Better Biologics

1w

It's not surprising to see only 1 tools company in the mix, however, the question is whether it's hard to develop transformative tech than Tx? Or does tools company need a seriously large revenue for a great exit?

Like
Reply
See more comments

To view or add a comment, sign in

Explore topics