The VC market is obsessed with AI companies showing "zero to 100 in a year" growth. This creates a blind spot for high-quality, traditional software companies. A business growing 5x annually is a fantastic investment by any historical standard but now struggles for attention.
A market bifurcation is underway where investors prioritize AI startups with extreme growth rates over traditional SaaS companies. This creates a "changing of the guard," forcing established SaaS players to adopt AI aggressively or risk being devalued as legacy assets, while AI-native firms command premium valuations.
Glean spent years solving unsexy enterprise search problems before the AI boom. This deep, unglamorous work, often dismissed in the current narrative that credits AI for its success, became its key competitive advantage when the category became popular.
The current fundraising environment is the most binary in recent memory. Startups with the "right" narrative—AI-native, elite incubator pedigree, explosive growth—get funded easily. Companies with solid but non-hype metrics, like classic SaaS growers, are finding it nearly impossible to raise capital. The middle market has vanished.
Investors' obsession with companies growing "from zero to 100 in a year" has led them to neglect fundamentally strong enterprise software businesses. This creates an arbitrage opportunity for those willing to back solid companies with great, albeit not exponential, growth in large markets.
Despite headline figures suggesting a venture capital rebound, the funding landscape is highly concentrated. A handful of mega-deals in AI are taking the vast majority of capital, making it harder for the average B2B SaaS startup to raise funds and creating a deceptive market perception.
The focus on AI among institutional investors is so absolute that promising non-AI companies risk "dying of neglect" and being unable to secure follow-on funding. This creates a potential opportunity gap for angel investors to fund valuable businesses in overlooked sectors.
The AI investment case might be inverted. While tech firms spend trillions on infrastructure with uncertain returns, traditional sector companies (industrials, healthcare) can leverage powerful AI services for a fraction of the cost. They capture a massive 'value gap,' gaining productivity without the huge capital outlay.
Investor uncertainty about the long-term viability of software business models due to AI is causing a fundamental shift in valuation. Instead of paying a premium for future growth, investors are now demanding immediate returns like dividends, effectively treating established software firms as value stocks rather than growth stocks.
The market has shifted beyond a simple AI vs. non-AI debate. The only metric that matters for private companies is extreme growth velocity. Startups demonstrating anything less are considered unfundable, creating a stark divide in the venture landscape.
The market for hyper-growth tech companies now exists almost exclusively in private markets, with only 5% of public software firms growing over 25%. With companies staying private for 14+ years, public markets are now for mature, slower-growing businesses.