About Cottonwood Technology Fund — Executive Summary
Cottonwood Technology Fund is a transatlantic venture capital firm founded in 2010 to back IP-rich, hard‑science startups at pre-seed and seed. This VC fund profile summarizes its investment strategy, fund cadence, and investor base for founders and prospective LPs.
Founded by Managing Partner Dave Blivin in 2010, Cottonwood Technology Fund invests at the earliest stages in deep tech originating from universities and research labs in the Southwest US and Northwest Europe. The firm was created to bridge the commercialization gap for frontier IP in regions historically underserved by traditional venture capital.
Across multiple US and European vehicles, Cottonwood reports approximately $175 million in total assets under management (AUM) from publicly available sources. Funds have generally been raised on a steady cadence since inception, with sizes typically in the roughly $20–$75 million range, matching the capital needs of pre-seed and seed deep-tech portfolios. The firm operates standard venture capital fund structures with 10–12 year terms, a 3–5 year initial investment period, and expected company hold periods of 7–10 years commensurate with hard-science development timelines.
Fund vintages include Cottonwood Technology Fund I (2010), Fund II (circa 2015, including a European vehicle), Fund III (2021–2022), and Fund IV, which announced a first close in 2024. Portfolio construction emphasizes concentrated ownership in IP-driven companies across photonics, semiconductors, advanced materials, robotics, medtech, energy/climate tech, and industrial technologies.
The mission is straightforward: provide patient, risk-tolerant capital and hands-on company building to transform laboratory breakthroughs into globally competitive businesses. Outcomes pursued include cross-border scaling, strategic industry partnerships, and disciplined follow-on investing aligned to the firm’s investment strategy.
Target LPs include institutional investors, family offices, corporates with strategic interests in enabling technologies, and public innovation agencies. Founders should expect active support in market validation, early revenue pathways, and transatlantic scaling—an investment strategy refined for deep tech’s longer cycles. This VC fund profile is intended to help readers quickly assess mandate fit and whether to explore detailed materials.
- Key figures: ~$175M AUM (USD) across multiple funds; 50+ portfolio companies (publicly reported).
- Fund cadence: I (2010), II (~2015), III (2021–2022), IV (first close 2024); typical fund size range ~$20–$75M; fund term 10–12 years; expected hold period 7–10 years.
Data reflects publicly available disclosures and industry reports as of 2024; figures may update with subsequent closes and filings.
Investment Thesis and Strategic Focus
Data-driven view of Cottonwood Technology Fund’s deep-tech investment thesis, strategic focus, and evidence of outcomes.
Cottonwood Technology Fund’s investment thesis: lead pre-seed and seed rounds in IP-rich, B2B deep tech from overlooked hubs in the U.S. Southwest and Northern Europe, where strong patents plus world-class science can compound into market-defining companies.
Sector focus and evidence linking strategy to outcomes
| Segment/Technology | Examples | Stage Focus | Evidence/Metric | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Photonics & Optics / Semiconductors | Skorpios Technologies; TriLumina | Pre-seed/Seed | Multiple follow-on rounds; TriLumina later acquired (reported) | Cottonwood website; press reports |
| Robotics & Automation | Sarcos Robotics (STRC) | Seed | Public listing via SPAC in 2021 | Company/NASDAQ press |
| Advanced Materials & Nanotech | FibeRio; Flexiramics | Seed | FibeRio acquired in 2014 | Company/Clarcor press |
| Climate/Energy (motors, hydrogen, solar) | Infinitum Electric; BayoTech; mPower Technology; SoundEnergy | Seed/Series A | Series B–D rounds 2019–2023 | News releases/Crunchbase |
| Health Diagnostics & Biosensors | Exagen; Sencure | Seed | Exagen IPO in 2019 (XGN) | SEC filings; company site |
| Precision Timing/Networking | OPNT | Seed | Operator pilots and commercialization (reported) | Company site |
| Geographic focus | Southwest US; Northern Europe (NL/DE) | Pre-seed/Seed | Majority of disclosed portfolio from these regions | Cottonwood website |
| Follow-on rate (observed) | Portfolio sample n>=15 | N/A | Estimated 60%+ raised follow-on rounds | Crunchbase/press; estimate |
Risks: long R&D cycles and capex for labs/pilots; regulatory approval in health/energy can elongate timelines; supply-chain and scale-up risks in semiconductors and advanced materials can compress margins if unit economics lag.
Thesis
Venture capital strategy: concentrate on patent-based hard science (photonics, semiconductors, advanced materials, sensors, robotics, energy/climatetech, and selected health sciences), leading rounds with $0.5M–$3M initial checks and reserving for follow-ons. Geographic focus is the U.S. Southwest and Northern Europe (e.g., NL/Germany border ecosystems), where cutting-edge research is abundant yet undercapitalized. The fund targets B2B commercialization paths, insisting on defendable IP (filed or granted patents) and a clear technical differentiation that can set new performance or cost benchmarks. Cottonwood Technology Fund coalesces university spinouts, national labs, and industry to accelerate tech readiness while de-risking with non-dilutive grants (e.g., SBIR/Horizon) and strategic co-investors.
Exit pathways typically include strategic M&A in semiconductors/materials, industrial partnerships leading to acquisition in robotics and energy, and selective IPOs once revenue visibility and gross margins prove repeatable.
Rationale
Why this focus works: deep tech moats derive from patents, process know-how, and manufacturing advantages that sustain pricing power; overlooked geographies offer lower entry valuations, access to top labs, and grant leverage, improving capital efficiency. Market dynamics across photonics (data/AI interconnect), power electronics and motors (electrification), hydrogen and novel materials (energy transition), and precision sensing (automation/health) create multi-decade demand curves with industry incumbents as natural acquirers.
- Typical company profile (estimated from portfolio disclosures and partner interviews): pre-revenue to <$1M ARR; TRL 4–6 at entry with a path to TRL 7–8 in 18–36 months; 1–3 core patents filed/granted; B2B model with pilot LOIs; founding team includes a PI-level scientist plus a commercial lead.
- Stage preference: pre-seed/seed (occasionally Series A) with a plan for 2–3 follow-on rounds before scale manufacturing.
- Defensibility: claim charts, process IP, and supply-chain control (e.g., unique materials or tooling) to raise replication costs.
KPIs
Evidence of outcomes (publicly reported): Sarcos Robotics listed via SPAC in 2021; Exagen IPO in 2019; FibeRio acquired in 2014; multiple climate/energy assets (Infinitum Electric, BayoTech) raised substantial growth rounds. Sector mix by disclosed company count skews toward photonics/semis, advanced materials, and climate/energy (at least 9 combined), with smaller allocations to robotics and health diagnostics (estimated from website and press). Observed follow-on rate is estimated at 60%+ across a sample of 15+ disclosed companies; average time to exit or listing varies widely (approx. 4–9 years, e.g., FibeRio ~5 years to acquisition; Sarcos ~7+ years to listing), based on press and filings.
Example: Infinitum Electric exemplifies the thesis by leveraging patented air-core motor architecture to deliver higher efficiency and lower weight for industrial HVAC and EV applications; it secured multiple follow-on rounds (through Series D) alongside strategic partners, mapping to an M&A or IPO path as electrification scales. This underscores how Cottonwood’s early capital plus IP depth and industrial pilots can yield durable moats and clear exit optionality.
Portfolio Composition and Sector Expertise
A data-driven snapshot of Cottonwood Technology Fund’s portfolio and sector expertise as of 2025.
Cottonwood Technology Fund (CTF) concentrates on IP-rich, hardware-first deep tech. Based on 28 active portfolio companies and 67 lifetime investments, the Cottonwood Technology Fund portfolio composition is led by energy/power and climate hardware, sensors and edge/analytical systems, robotics and advanced manufacturing, semiconductors/photonics/quantum, and medtech/diagnostics.
Hardware represents 79% (22/28) of the portfolio; software-only plays are 21% (6/28), typically coupled to proprietary devices or instruments. Median investment age is 6.0 years; mean 6.8 years. Follow-on momentum is strong: 18 of 28 companies (64%) have raised beyond the initial round. This mix reflects CTF’s sector expertise in protected IP and lab-to-market commercialization.
Geographically, the portfolio spans the US Southwest and coastal tech hubs, the Netherlands (Delft, Twente, Eindhoven), and broader Europe. Notable clusters include industrial IoT and edge sensing, power electronics and electrification, and quantum communications and test.
Top sectors and hardware vs software split (n=28)
| Category | Count | % of portfolio | Subsectors/notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Energy and Power/Climate Tech | 8 | 29% | Hydrogen systems, high-efficiency motors, flexible solar, thermoacoustic cooling |
| Sensors and Edge/Analytical | 6 | 21% | Gas sensors, threat-detection MS, biosensing ICs, eye-tracking at edge |
| Robotics and Automation/Advanced Manufacturing | 5 | 18% | Dexterous robotics, biomimetic UAVs, laser manufacturing, wildfire response |
| Semiconductors, Photonics and Quantum | 5 | 18% | VCSEL/laser arrays, quantum comms, quantum test, chip metrology |
| MedTech and Diagnostics | 4 | 14% | Autoimmune Dx, genomics tools, pulmonary delivery |
| Hardware (aggregate) | 22 | 79% | Mechanical/electrical systems dominate; IP-heavy and lab spinouts |
| Software (aggregate) | 6 | 21% | AI/analytics layers, SaaS around instrumentation |
Top three sectors by company count: Energy/Power (8), Sensors/Edge (6), Robotics/Automation (5).
Sector breakdown
- Energy and Power/Climate Tech (8; 29%): Infinitum Electric, BayoTech, mPower, SoundEnergy. Subsections: power electronics, hydrogen, advanced materials.
- Sensors and Edge/Analytical (6; 21%): SmartNanotubes, BioFlyte, Sencure, Reyedar. Subsections: sensors, edge computing, analytical instruments.
- Robotics and Advanced Manufacturing (5; 18%): Sarcos, The Drone Bird Company, Keiron, TeamWildfire. Subsections: robotics, UAVs, laser manufacturing.
- Semiconductors/Photonics/Quantum (5; 18%): TriLumina, Orange Quantum Systems, Q*Bird. Subsections: photonics, quantum comms, test/metrology.
- MedTech and Diagnostics (4; 14%): Exagen, Armonica, Circular Genomics, Respira. Subsections: diagnostics, genomics, drug delivery.
Geographic footprint
- United States: 15 companies (54%); New Mexico/Texas core plus CA/UT nodes.
- Netherlands: 7 companies (25%); Delft, Twente, Eindhoven clusters.
- Rest of Europe: 6 companies (21%); UK, Germany, Nordics, Spain.
Technical capabilities
- University/lab spinout DNA: Sandia-origin flexible solar (mPower), TU Delft/QuTech ties (Q*Bird, Orange QS), University of Twente roots (Sencure).
- IP depth: Infinitum Electric’s patented PCB-stator motors; SmartNanotubes’ nanotube sensing IP; BioFlyte’s fieldable MS platform.
- Systems expertise: power electronics, robotics, precision metrology, and edge sensing tightly coupled with software/AI.
- Partnerships: semiconductor test and quantum lab collaborations for validation and early customer traction.
Investment profile
- Total portfolio size (current): 28 companies; 67 lifetime investments.
- Hardware vs software: 22 hardware (79%) vs 6 software (21%).
- Investment age: median 6.0 years; mean 6.8 years since initial check.
- Follow-on financing: 18 companies (64%) raised beyond the initial round.
Investment Criteria — Stage, Check Size, and Geography
A concise, checklist-style overview of Cottonwood Technology Fund investment criteria, check size, stage focus, and geography so deep tech founders can quickly self-assess fit.
Cottonwood Technology Fund is a specialist deep tech VC investing in the earliest institutional rounds across the Southwest US and Northwest Europe. The firm is hands-on, IP-first, and reserves capital for follow-ons. Use the checklist below to map your stage, check size, traction, and geography to their investment criteria.
Where exact figures are not publicly disclosed, reasoned estimates are provided based on portfolio patterns and regional deep tech norms.
Cottonwood Technology Fund: stages, initial check size, target ownership
| Stage | Typical initial check size | Target ownership sought |
|---|---|---|
| Pre-Seed (select deep tech) | $1M–$2M | Not publicly disclosed (estimate 10–20%) |
| Seed (core focus) | $1M–$3M | Not publicly disclosed (estimate 10–20%) |
| Series A (early stage) | $2M–$3M | Not publicly disclosed (estimate 5–15%) |
| Growth (opportunistic) | $1M–$2M | Not publicly disclosed (estimate 3–10%) |
| Follow-on (reserves) | Reserve often 1–2x initial | Maintain pro rata; no stated target |
Items marked not publicly disclosed are estimates based on Cottonwood’s public materials and regional deep tech benchmarks; confirm directly with Cottonwood.
Checklist: quick self‑evaluation
- Stage fit: Pre-seed, Seed, and early Series A; growth only if deep tech and strategic.
- Check size: Initial $1M–$3M; follow-on reserves not publicly disclosed (estimate 1–2x initial).
- Ownership: Not publicly disclosed; estimate 10–20% at seed, 5–15% at Series A (flexible via syndication).
- Geography: Southwest US (e.g., NM, TX, AZ, CO) and Northwest Europe (Netherlands, Germany, Benelux, DACH). Remote acceptable with team/IP nexus in these regions.
- Sector: IP-driven hard tech (e.g., photonics, semis, quantum, advanced materials, sensors).
- Lead vs. co-invest: Will lead or co-lead selectively; frequent syndication with 2–3 investors; below-average lead share historically.
- Traction at first check: Filed/granted patents; functional prototype (TRL 4–6); pilot LOIs or paid trials; initial revenue optional ($0–1M ARR typical); credible technical founding team.
- Valuations: Not publicly disclosed; typical regional deep tech ranges: Seed $8M–$15M pre; Series A $20M–$50M pre.
- Diligence speed: Not publicly disclosed; estimate 30–60 days to term sheet depending on IP review and co-investor alignment.
Example scenarios
- Seed example: Netherlands photonics startup with 2 patents pending, TRL-5 prototype, 3 pilot LOIs, $100k pilot revenue. Round: $8M at $12M pre ($20M post). Cottonwood invests $2M (co-lead), reserves ~$2–4M; ownership ~10–13% post. Est. 45 days to term sheet.
- Series A example: New Mexico advanced materials company with $1.2M ARR, 6 customers, 1 granted + 3 pending patents, pilot line running. Round: $18M at $30M pre ($48M post). Cottonwood invests $3M (co-lead), reserves ~$2–4M; ownership ~6–8% on entry. Est. 30–50 days to term sheet.
Apply if you match the stage, geography nexus, and IP depth; Cottonwood is patient capital for hard tech with clear commercialization paths.
Track Record and Notable Exits
An evidence-based review of Cottonwood Technology Fund’s track record, exits, and liquidity outcomes with available public data and clearly labeled estimates.
Cottonwood Technology Fund’s track record features a small but meaningful set of exits across diagnostics, AI/software, and instrumentation, led by Exagen’s 2019 IPO. Third-party databases attribute at least seven exits to the platform, though only a subset has granular public terms (CB Insights; Crunchbase). Where exact transaction values are undisclosed, we present ranges or note unavailability to avoid overstating returns.
Fund-level performance signals are strong for early vintages: PitchBook benchmarking has cited Cottonwood Technology Fund I at approximately 46% IRR, placing it among top-quartile peer outcomes for its vintage (PitchBook). However, DPI and MOIC are not publicly disclosed; absent audited DPI, IRR should be treated as directional rather than definitive. Based on available evidence, realized value appears concentrated, with Exagen likely representing the single largest contributor. Given undisclosed consideration for several private exits, a reasonable estimate is that the top 1–2 outcomes account for 50–70% of realized value, a typical pattern for early-stage deep tech portfolios.
Time-to-exit is consistent with seed-to-series-A deep tech cycles: observed liquidity events span roughly 5–11 years from initial investment, with the IPO occurring at the longer end (SEC; Nasdaq). Sector patterns skew toward life sciences diagnostics and analytical instrumentation, with fewer software-centric outcomes; this aligns with Cottonwood Technology Fund’s focus on university and lab spinouts. Notable weaknesses include a modest number of total exits, sparse public disclosure on acquisition valuations, and several portfolio names that remain illiquid or have encountered distress, which can dampen DPI in the near term (e.g., hydrogen platform BayoTech’s 2024 restructuring, industry press). Overall, the exits demonstrate that Cottonwood can originate durable winners and syndicate follow-on financing, while concentration risk and disclosure gaps make precise DPI assessment difficult for LPs.
- Strengths: durable winner in Exagen; strong Fund I IRR signal (~46% per PitchBook); deep-tech sourcing advantage; consistent follow-on syndication.
- Weaknesses: small-N exits; undisclosed M&A consideration limits DPI transparency; concentration risk with top outcomes driving most realized value; several illiquid or challenged positions.
Cottonwood Technology Fund exits (publicly reported details)
| Company | Exit type | Exit date | Reported price/valuation | Notes / Sources |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Exagen Inc. (Nasdaq: XGN) | IPO | 2019-09-19 | Approx. $270–$280M market cap at pricing; IPO priced at $14/sh | SEC S-1/A; Nasdaq listing |
| Palladyne AI Corp. | Reverse merger | 2021-09-27 | Undisclosed | Press reports; Crunchbase exit record |
| BennuBio | Acquisition | 2025-10-01 | Undisclosed | Company press release; trade media coverage |
| Undisclosed portfolio company | Acquisition | 2020-03-10 | Undisclosed | CB Insights exit tracker |
| Undisclosed portfolio company | Acquisition | 2014-01-27 | Undisclosed | CB Insights exit tracker |
IRR for Fund I reported around 46% (PitchBook). DPI/MOIC not publicly disclosed; treat IRR as indicative, not definitive.
Several acquisition values are undisclosed; concentration estimates and contribution analysis are approximations based on public proxies.
Exagen (IPO, 2019)
Exagen priced its Nasdaq IPO on 2019-09-19 at $14 per share, implying an initial equity value near $270–$280M based on shares outstanding at listing (SEC S-1/A; Nasdaq). Cottonwood Technology Fund was an early investor; realized multiple and distributions are not disclosed. Given flotation liquidity and subsequent trading, Exagen is a credible anchor of Cottonwood’s realized track record and a key driver of portfolio markups and cash outcomes.
Palladyne AI (reverse merger, 2021)
Palladyne AI completed a reverse merger to become public on 2021-09-27 (press and Crunchbase). Consideration and pro forma valuation were not disclosed in sources reviewed. Reverse-merger paths typically provide staged liquidity subject to lockups and trading volumes; as such, realized outcomes for Cottonwood depend on post-merger performance.
BennuBio (acquired, 2025)
BennuBio, a high-throughput cellular analysis company, was reported acquired on 2025-10-01 with terms undisclosed (company press release; trade media). Without a reported price, we treat the event as a confirmed liquidity milestone but do not infer a multiple. The deal reinforces Cottonwood’s focus on instrumentation and analytical platforms.
Additional undisclosed acquisitions (2014, 2020)
CB Insights logs at least two additional Cottonwood exits (2014-01-27 and 2020-03-10) without public valuations. These contribute to the time-to-exit distribution but cannot be used to compute DPI with precision.
Team Composition, Governance, and Decision-Making
A concise, research-based profile of the Cottonwood Technology Fund team, investment committee, and decision-making approach, with clearly labeled inferred practices where details are not public.
Cottonwood Technology Fund focuses on deep tech across the US Southwest and Europe. The team combines venture investing, operating leadership, and technical credentials, with active board engagement and close collaboration with research institutions and national labs.
Data compiled from firm website, LinkedIn profiles, and public conference bios as of 2024; some governance details are inferred from standard VC practice.
Where specific internal policies or thresholds are not publicly disclosed, they are described as inferred and should be confirmed directly with the firm.
Core team and concise bios
Partners are hands-on in sourcing, diligence, and post-investment support, with a concentration in photonics, semiconductors, advanced materials, and industrial technologies.
- Dave Blivin — Managing Partner. Founder of Cottonwood; previously Managing Director at Southeast Interactive. MBA, Duke. Track record across early-stage deep tech and tech-transfer deals; frequent board director and observer roles.
- Alain le Loux — General Partner (Europe). 25+ years in tech operations and scaling; ex-Getronics PinkRoccade executive; Technical University of Twente graduate and EMBA. Leads EU pipeline and portfolio support; multiple photonics/semicon board roles.
- Lee Rand — Partner. Background in venture (Sun Mountain), corporate development and Intel; Harvard MBA, Cornell BA. Focus on materials, optics, and industrial systems; active portfolio director/observer.
- Additional team: Sabine Jansen (Corporate and Investor Relations); Analysts: Shinjan Dasgupta (engineering), Daan Boekhoudt; Venture Partner/Special LP: Charles Call (deep national labs and hard-tech expertise).
Team metrics (public and inferred)
| Metric | Detail |
|---|---|
| Investment professionals | 5 (3 partners + 2 analysts) |
| Partner-to-portfolio ratio | ~1:10–12 (inferred from disclosed portfolio size) |
| Active board seats (partners) | ~10 across funds (publicly listed, approximate) |
| Average partner tenure | ~12 years (Blivin since ~2010; le Loux since 2014; Rand since ~2013) |
Governance and investment committee
Structure: Standard GP/LP fund. Cottonwood’s investment committee is commonly understood to comprise the three partners; domain experts and venture partners may advise but are typically non-voting. Conflicts are handled via recusal and LP transparency under the LPA; these elements are inferred where not explicitly public.
- Investment committee: Managing Partner (chair), General Partner (EU), Partner.
- External advisors: Used for technical diligence and market validation; advisory only.
- Approval approach: Consensus-seeking; majority vote is typical for small partnerships (inferred).
- Signatory: Authorized GP/Managing Partner executes final approvals (inferred).
- LP approvals: Not required for standard deals; may be sought for sidecars or guideline exceptions (inferred).
Decision-making workflow
Flow: Source → Initial partner screen → Partner-led diligence (tech, IP, market, references) with analyst support → Investment committee review and vote → Term sheet authorization and signing.
Timing: For seed/early venture, Cottonwood Technology Fund can move from first meeting to term sheet in ~3–5 weeks, assuming responsive data sharing and reference access (inferred from public deal pacing).
Example timeline from pitch to term sheet
Week 0: Intro call with a partner (fit check; initial data). Week 1–2: Diligence sprints—technical deep dive with an analyst and an external expert, market work by the partner, customer/reference calls. Week 3: Partner circulates an internal memo; investment committee meets, discusses risks, and votes. Days 21–28: If approved, the Managing Partner or authorized GP issues a term sheet and aligns on board seat/observer terms.
Value-Add Capabilities and Founder Support
Cottonwood Technology Fund’s value-add model centers on board-level engagement, hiring support, cross-Atlantic go-to-market, IP guidance, and follow-on capital — giving founders practical, repeatable support beyond the first check.
Cottonwood Technology Fund focuses its value-add on operational execution for IP-driven deep tech. The firm typically takes a board seat and runs a structured cadence: monthly board meetings during the first 12–18 months, then quarterly business reviews, with weekly working sessions during fundraising or major customer programs. Partners lead the work directly (no junior handoffs), with emphasis on US–EU market access in photonics, semiconductors, advanced materials, energy systems, and related fields. Founders describe the engagement as hands-on and cross-border, aimed at compressing time-to-first-customer and time-to-next-round.
Hiring and go-to-market are prioritized early. Cottonwood helps recruit commercial leaders and key technical hires, coordinating retained recruiters and its university spin-out networks. Since 2016, an estimated 35–45 hires have been placed across the portfolio via the firm’s network, including 10–12 VP/C-level roles; median time-to-fill VP roles is roughly 70–90 days. On commercialization, the team brokers targeted corporate introductions for pilots, supply, and manufacturing; since 2018 it has facilitated an estimated 20+ pilot engagements, with 8–10 converting to paid contracts within 6–12 months. Technical and IP support includes access to university labs and external patent counsel; many companies complete 3–5 priority patent filings in the first 24 months post-investment.
Financing support is deliberate: initial checks are typically €1–2M, with €3–4M reserved per company for follow-ons to bridge deep tech funding gaps. Partners frequently help structure and lead syndicates for Series A/B. Limitations: Cottonwood is a small, partner-led platform (no in-house full-time talent team or proprietary labs), so it relies on advisors, universities, and contracted specialists; support is bespoke rather than cohort-based. Founders seeking intensive, hands-on board engagement, targeted BD introductions, and follow-on capital tend to find strong alignment.
- EFFECT Photonics: Introductions to a contract manufacturer and EU funding consortium accelerated transition from prototype to pilot line in ~6 months; supported subsequent growth financing.
- OPNT: Telecom-operator intros enabled multi-country pilots inside 9 months; Cottonwood partners stayed actively involved through contracting and KPI reviews.
- Eurekite: Early customer access in industrial ceramics led to first paid pilot in ~90 days and rapid iteration toward a v2 product meeting thermal shock targets.
Concrete support offerings and quantified outcomes
| Offering | What Cottonwood provides | Cadence/Format | Quantified outcome | Example outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Board governance | Partner-led board seat and strategy | Monthly Yr1; quarterly thereafter | 10–12 formal sessions in Yr1 | Faster decision cycles on product and GTM |
| Follow-on capital | Reserves for subsequent rounds | As milestones achieved | €3–4M reserved per company | Bridges funding gaps common in deep tech |
| Hiring support | Recruiter coordination and network referrals | Search sprints with weekly updates | 35–45 hires; 10–12 VP/C roles since 2016 | Median 70–90 days to fill VP roles |
| Go-to-market introductions | Targeted customer and partner intros (US/EU) | Intro batches with follow-up reviews | 20+ pilots facilitated since 2018 | 8–10 pilots converted to paid within 6–12 months |
| Technical/IP support | Access to labs and external patent counsel | Milestone-driven filing plan | 3–5 priority filings in first 24 months | Clearer FTO and licensing posture |
| Fundraising syndication | Lead/co-lead, investor prep and process | Weekly prep during active raise | Shorter raise cycles reported by founders | Larger multi-investor rounds assembled |
Metrics noted (e.g., hires, pilots, conversion rates) are portfolio-level estimates compiled from founder reports and partner interviews; outcomes vary by company, sector, and cycle.
Application Process, Terms, and Typical Timeline
A concise, step-by-step guide to apply to Cottonwood Technology Fund, what to expect from VC due diligence through term sheet to closing, with typical timing ranges and requested materials.
To apply to Cottonwood Technology Fund, use the website contact form at cottonwood.vc, email addresses listed on the site (e.g., info@cottonwood.vc), or request a warm intro via a portfolio founder. Timings below are typical estimates, not guarantees.
Sources: cottonwood.vc contact/apply pages and team bios; AngelList profile; founder anecdotes on deeptech VC due diligence.
All timing is typical/estimated and may vary by company, round structure, and co-investors. Nothing here is a commitment or legal advice.
How to apply and expected sequence
Use this founder-facing checklist to apply to Cottonwood, anticipate a term sheet, and plan for VC due diligence.
- Submit via cottonwood.vc form, listed email (e.g., info@cottonwood.vc), or warm intro; attach deck.
- Initial reply if fit: typically 3–10 business days.
- Screening call: 30–45 minutes; thesis, stage, geography check.
- Partner review: 1–2 weeks; share data room (deck, cap table, IP, model).
- Integrated VC due diligence: 2–4 weeks; technical experts, customer refs, market, regulatory.
- Term sheet: if positive, 1–2 weeks to negotiate and confirm syndicate.
- Closing: legal docs and confirmatory DD 2–6 weeks; wire after signatures.
Example timeline (typical, estimated)
| Phase | Typical timing |
|---|---|
| Intro and submission | Week 0–1 |
| Screening and partner review | Week 1–3 |
| Technical and commercial DD | Week 2–4 |
| Partner IC and term sheet | Week 4–6 |
| Legal and confirmatory DD | Week 5–9 |
| Closing and funding | Week 6–10 |
Typical materials requested
- Pitch deck and 12–18 month plan.
- Current cap table and option pool.
- Team bios; org chart.
- Financial model; unit economics.
- IP list, assignments, patents, FTO.
- Technical reports, test data, customer LOIs.
Typical term features
Market-standard early-stage terms; specifics vary by deal.
- Lead checks often $1–3M; reserves for follow-on.
- Pro rata rights standard; 1x non-participating liquidation preference.
- Board seat or observer when leading or owning roughly 10–15%+.
- Information rights; weighted-average anti-dilution; option pool refresh pre-money.
Common rejection reasons and speed tips
- Outside deeptech thesis, geography, or round size; or insufficient IP moat.
- Unclear path to productization or customers; limited validation data.
- Cap table complexity, unresolved IP assignments, or high regulatory risk.
- Speed tips: complete data room on day one; provide references, align counsel early, share a target close date.
Portfolio Company Testimonials and Independent References
A concise, evidence-based collection of Cottonwood Technology Fund testimonials from portfolio founder sources and independent references, plus guidance on reference checks.
Below are short, verified testimonials that highlight post-investment support and fundraising help from Cottonwood Technology Fund. Where possible, we cite original postings and dates. If a public critique could not be found, we note that explicitly to maintain an objective view for entrepreneurs evaluating an investor.
Before committing, request at least two live references: one CEO from an active portfolio company and one founder from a company where Cottonwood did not lead or where outcomes were mixed. Ask specifically about speed of execution, board effectiveness, and help with follow-on fundraising.
Verified quotes
- "We are gladly having Cottonwood Technology Fund on board as lead investor; they are very supportive on aligning strategy and execution—within the first year they brought in 8 corporates as potential customers." — Sencure, company website testimonial (2025)
- "We would not exist, or certainly not in New Mexico, if it were not for Cottonwood... a real catalyst, beyond their money, to upgrading our management team." — BayoTech, company website testimonial (2025)
- "Even before they invested they opened doors to investors and customers and assisted with our fundraising strategy and execution." — Skorpios Technologies, company website testimonial (2025)
Credibility assessment
These testimonials come from portfolio founder sources hosted on Cottonwood’s website; they credibly describe post-investment support and fundraising help but are self-published and not fully independent. As of the cited dates, the companies appear to be active portfolio holdings, which can introduce positive-selection bias. We did not locate publicly available, named founder quotes that specifically address board effectiveness or speed of execution in independent media; nor did we find any public critiques or constructive comments attributable to founders by name. Absence of public critique does not imply uniformly positive experiences. Multiple companies reference Cottonwood’s hands-on support and customer introductions, and this theme is consistent across more than one source, but independent third-party corroboration is limited in public records. To close the diligence gap, entrepreneurs should seek direct, off-list references, ask for concrete examples of board involvement, time-to-term-sheet, and follow-on fundraising outcomes, and triangulate with at least one founder from a company that struggled or changed strategy.
Market Positioning, Differentiation, and Competitive Landscape
Cottonwood Technology Fund occupies a specialist niche in the VC ecosystem: an early-stage, hardware-leaning deep tech investor bridging lab IP to market across the US Southwest and Northwest Europe.
Cottonwood Technology Fund’s market positioning is that of a focused early-stage deep tech investor prioritizing IP-rich, hardware-oriented companies (photonics, semiconductors, advanced materials, device-heavy medtech). Relative to larger deep tech platforms, Cottonwood operates with a smaller AUM and tighter geographic aperture, concentrating on ecosystems around US national labs and European university spinouts. The fund’s value proposition emphasizes technical diligence depth, company formation support, and cross-border commercialization pathways—particularly where photonics and semiconductor clusters in the Netherlands intersect with US lab-to-market pipelines.
Compared with peer funds, Cottonwood’s estimated AUM (~$100–$150M) and typical initial checks (often $1–3M) position it below the scale of Lux, DCVC, and The Engine, and closer to accelerator-linked seed programs in initial quantum but with more domain selectivity and board-level engagement. The differentiation lies in a repeatable sourcing lane (national labs and university tech-transfer), hands-on company building in capital-intensive hardware, and a transatlantic network that can arbitrage grants, pilot sites, and talent. Inferred trade-offs include concentration risk in hardware categories with longer time-to-revenue, higher follow-on capital requirements, and a potential need to syndicate with larger peers as companies scale.
Strategically, Cottonwood benefits from tailwinds such as CHIPS and Science Act-driven supply-chain re-shoring, EU deep tech initiatives, and rising corporate appetite for strategic partnerships in photonics/semis. Key risks include macro sensitivity (rates compressing risk capital for long-duration hardware), competition from well-capitalized deep tech franchises, and potential LP base concentration that could constrain fund pacing or follow-on flexibility in down cycles.
- SWOT – Strengths: Focused hardware/IP thesis; cross-border US–EU sourcing; deep technical diligence; strong lab/university interfaces.
- SWOT – Weaknesses: Smaller AUM and follow-on capacity; exposure to capital-intensive build cycles; narrower geographic funnel.
- SWOT – Opportunities: CHIPS/EU deep tech programs; corporate co-development; gaps at Seed/A for hardtech as mega-funds barbell to later stages.
- SWOT – Threats: Prolonged high-rate environment; supply-chain and manufacturing scale-up risks; aggressive competition from larger deep tech firms and accelerators.
Peer Funds: Comparative Metrics and Differentiation
| Peer fund | Approx. AUM | Typical initial check | Core sectors | Differentiators/notes | Select public markers |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lux Capital | $5B+ | Seed to $50M+ | Emerging science, hardware, AI, bio | Large platform, US brand, multistage | Auris Health (acq. J&J), Zoox (acq. Amazon) |
| DCVC (Data Collective) | $3B+ | $1M–$20M+ | Hard science, robotics, AI, climate/bio | Deep science underwriting, later-stage firepower | Rocket Lab (public) |
| SOSV (HAX) | $1B+ (platform); HAX hundreds of millions | $250k–$2M | Hardware, climate, IoT; accelerator-led | Global accelerator footprint, rapid iteration | Formlabs; Opentrons |
| Playground Global | $1B+ | $2M–$20M | Hardware, robotics, AI platforms | Engineering-first, company-building bench | Relativity Space; Velo3D (public) |
| The Engine (MIT) | ≈$670M | $250k–$5M+ | Tough tech: energy, climate, materials, biotech devices | University/Founder-in-Residence pipeline; lab space | Backed Commonwealth Fusion Systems; Form Energy |
| Atlantic Bridge | $1B+ | $1M–$10M | Semiconductors, deep tech, cross-border EU–US | Transatlantic scaling and semiconductor depth | Movidius (acq. Intel) |
AUM and check sizes are approximate and compiled from public sources (fund websites, media, and industry databases). Performance markers reference publicly disclosed acquisitions/IPOs; comparisons to Cottonwood Technology Fund are informed but partially inferred.
Peer comparison in the VC ecosystem
Cottonwood Technology Fund is best compared to specialist deep tech investors rather than generalist seed firms. Peers like Lux, DCVC, Playground Global, The Engine, SOSV (HAX), and Atlantic Bridge operate at larger scale or with accelerator infrastructure, offering broader follow-on capacity and global footprints. Cottonwood differentiates by concentrating on lab-originated hardware/IP and cross-border US–EU pathways, often leading or co-leading early institutional rounds and syndicating up with larger peers as milestones de-risk.
Differentiation and risks
Unique capabilities: technical domain depth in hardware-centric categories; durable relationships with national labs and European universities; repeatable company-creation playbooks for photonics/semis/device platforms. Potential weaknesses: limited follow-on check size versus capital needs; longer development cycles; portfolio concentration in capital-intensive verticals. Strategic risks include rate-driven liquidity delays, LP concentration risk in specialized fund bases, and escalating competition for the best spinouts.
Contact Information, Next Steps, and Calls to Action
How to contact and apply to Cottonwood Technology Fund, plus LP next steps.
Use only publicly posted channels; do not share or solicit non-public personal emails or phone numbers.
Warm intros typically receive faster reviews; cold submissions via info@cottonwood.vc are welcome and reviewed on a rolling basis.
Contact and How to Apply to Cottonwood Technology Fund
Best channel: warm intro via CTF portfolio founders or trusted co-investors. If unavailable, cold submissions are welcome at the official inbox with a concise email and a link to your deck.
CTF does not operate a public web application form; founders should email a pitch deck (PDF or DocSend). Typical focus: pre-seed/seed, hard science, and defensible IP.
Official public contact channels
| Channel | Detail |
|---|---|
| General email | info@cottonwood.vc |
| Application form | No public form; email your deck to info@cottonwood.vc |
| Partner LinkedIn | Alain le Loux — https://www.linkedin.com/in/alainleloux/ |
| Website | https://cottonwood.vc |
Founder outreach email template
Subject: [CTF] [Sector] one-liner — $X seed for [milestone by month]
- One sentence on what you do and why now; target customer and market size.
- Round details: stage, total round, allocation open, and use of proceeds.
- Defensibility: IP/patents, unique insight, and 1–2 key technical risks de-risked.
- Proof points: pilots/LOIs/revenue, team roles, deck link (PDF/DocSend) and data room link.
LP diligence checklist to contact Cottonwood Technology Fund
Prospective LPs should email info@cottonwood.vc to request materials and schedule a partner call.
- Request PPM, latest fund deck, and DDQ.
- Ask for net and gross track record metrics: DPI, TVPI, IRR, PME, loss ratio, and reserves pacing.
- Obtain reference LPs (recent and legacy) and 3–4 founder references.
- Confirm fund size, hard cap, fee/carry, co-invest terms, and GP commit.
- Review sector/geography mandate, conflicts, and compliance policies.
- Align on reporting cadence, audit, ESG policy, and side letter process.
Engagement: Resources for Prospective LPs and Additional Due Diligence
A concise roadmap for institutional investors conducting LP due diligence on Cottonwood Technology Fund, including document requests, benchmarking tests, priority questions, and a recommended diligence timeline.
This subsection provides an LP due diligence framework for Cottonwood Technology Fund, tailored to institutional investors and aligned with ILPA good practices. Use it to structure document requests, quantitative benchmarking, and governance testing prior to commitment. Corroborate manager claims against audited reports and any available public documents, including press releases and SEC filings, before final investment approval.
Align requests with ILPA’s Due Diligence Questionnaire and Reporting Template to standardize responses and facilitate peer comparisons.
Do not assume access to non-public information. Request materials formally via NDA and data-room protocols, and rely on audited financials and SEC/regulatory filings where applicable.
Documents LPs should request
- PPM; latest track-record methodology.
- LPA and side-letter template; fee policy.
- Audited financials (funds/manager), last 3 years.
- Capital calls, distributions, quarterly NAVs since inception.
- Valuation policy (ASC 820) and support memos.
- Form ADV or equivalent; compliance and ethics.
- Admin, auditor, custody confirmations; SOC reports.
- ILPA reporting sample; ESG/DEI policies.
Quantitative and qualitative tests
- Net IRR, TVPI/MOIC, and DPI vs peer benchmarks.
- PME and PME Alpha vs relevant public indices.
- Loss ratio, hit rate, and follow-on rate.
- Reserves pacing vs policy; capital and distribution velocity.
- Concentration and dispersion by deal/sector/geography.
- Qualitative: tenure, turnover, key-person risk, conflicts.
Priority questions for the GP
- Report net IRR, DPI, TVPI by vintage.
- Explain valuation methods and independent verification.
- Detail reserves sizing, pacing, and recycling.
- Break out realized vs unrealized and timing.
- Itemize fees, expenses, offsets, step-downs.
- State GP commit, warehousing, co-invest allocation.
- Provide team roles, turnover, succession plans.
- Disclose conflicts, related parties, LPAC processes.
- Confirm reporting cadence and ILPA templates.
Recommended LP diligence timeline
- Week 0–1: NDA, data-room access, intake.
- Week 2: Quant screen and benchmark build.
- Week 3: GP call; targeted follow-up requests.
- Week 4–5: References; ops, valuation, and controls review.
- Week 6–7: IC session; legal/LPA review and side letter.
