Strategics in Life Sciences Index
Strategics in Life Sciences Index
For healthcare startups seeking private investment, there are more sources than ever. But there is also more peril. Traditional routes, like venture capital and angel investors, are joined by corporate venture capital, a broader array of grant opportunities, venture philanthropy, crowdfunding and beyond.
Corporate venture capital has become particularly popular. But there isn’t as much critical information about corporate investors and their strategies. Which is the most trustworthy? Which is the best to partner with? Which one would you never do a deal with again? We believe that the answers to these questions can be critical to the success of a growing business; the right partner can provide synergies and non-cash resources to catapult the business to success, while the wrong partner might swipe critical IP that entangles a company in litigation.
That’s why Lake Whillans partnered with MedCity News for independent research about corporates and their practices. MedCityNews.com reached out to its 400,000 monthly readers, and more than 450 healthcare innovators familiar with corporate firms shared their insights. Some of the details from that survey are below, and we also share our analysis of the findings. We hope this information empowers investors, entrepreneurs, and their allies to make better decisions to grow their businesses.
How important are these categories of financing?
- 1Venture Capital – 2.97
- 2Angels – 2.86
- 3Corporate Venture Capital – 2.83
- 4Grants 2.63
- 5Private Equity 2.60
- 6Venture Philanthropy 2.27
(rank – score)
What strategics provide:
“In addition to capital, they typically offer commercial insight, sometimes possible strategic partners and industry recognition/credibility.”
“It is great, not only for the funds but for the rest of the resources you get”
“Highly professional, laser focused, know what they want”
Future of Strategics
Generally speaking, innovators view individual corporate venture capital groups positively. But there are patterns emerging of organizations developing best-in-class approaches to dealing with startups while others are getting bad reputations.
Who should you partner with? We asked 450 readers who they should partner with, and here’s our results:
|Company Name||How would you characterize your experience working with the fund(s) below? Satisfied 0-4 Scale||Would you choose to partner with this investor again in the future? % Yes|
|Johnson and Johnson Development Corporation||3.82||92.94%|
|Novartis Venture Fund||3.6||92.00%|
|Pfizer Venture Investments||3.5||100.00%|
|Mayo Clinic Ventures||3.38||90.00%|
|Boehringer Ingelheim Ventures||3.33||74.00%|
|Medtronic Ventures and New Therapies||3.33||85.71%|
|AbbVie Biotech Ventures||3.2||74.00%|
|BlueCross BlueShield Venture Partners||3.2||84.00%|
|IBM Venture Capital Group||3.14||88.57%|
|Cleveland Clinic Innovations||2.85||76.92%|
Below is a list of corporate venture capital investment funds. Please select the response that best characterizes your perception of these funds as a potential investment partner. Please limit your responses to funds with which you are familiar.
|Johnson and Johnson Development Corporation||2.53|
|Novartis Venture Fund||2.48|
|Roche Venture Fund||2.46|
|St Jude Medical||2.46|
|Pfizer Venture Investments||2.4|
|Siemens Venture Capital||2.4|
|MS Ventures (Merck KGaA)||2.37|
|MedImmune Ventures (AstraZeneca)||2.37|
|BlueCross BlueShield Venture Partners||2.31|
|Medtronic Ventures and New Therapies||2.31|
|Sanofi-Genzyme BioVentures (SGBV)||2.26|
|AbbVie Biotech Ventures||2.24|
|Teva Innovative Ventures||2.2|
|Astellas Venture Management||2.18|
|Strategic Investment Group (Shire)||2.15|