The reopening of the biotech IPO market is fragile. A key risk identified by investors is a series of failed IPOs, which could halt the sector's positive momentum. Consequently, there is intense pressure on bankers and VCs to exhibit "quality discipline," ensuring that only the most mature and high-potential companies go public first to build a track record of success.

Related Insights

The 2020-2021 biotech "bubble" pushed very early-stage companies into public markets prematurely. The subsequent correction, though painful, has been a healthy reset. It has forced the sector back toward a more suitable, long-duration private funding model where companies can mature before facing public market pressures.

When the IPO window opens, nearly every stakeholder—from bankers and lawyers to VCs and management—is financially motivated to go public. This collective "irrational exuberance" can lead to a rush of mixed-quality companies, perpetuating the industry's historical boom-bust IPO cycles.

Unlike the 2020-2022 bubble, the expected wave of biotech IPOs features mid-to-late-stage companies with de-risked assets. The market's recent discipline, forced by a tough funding environment, has created a backlog of high-quality private companies that are better prepared for public markets than their predecessors.

While a challenging fundraising market seems negative, it forces startups to operate with discipline. Unlike in frothy markets where companies expand based on hype, the current climate rewards tangible results. This compels a lean structure focused on high-value projects, creating a healthier long-term business model.

The strong biotech market performance in 2025 was not a case of a rising tide lifting all boats. Outperformance was concentrated in companies with strong fundamentals and backing from specialist investors, indicating a healthy, discerning market that rewards quality over speculation.

VCs are actively deploying capital in anticipation of the IPO window reopening in 2026. Driven by pressure from their own LPs to return capital, they cannot afford to be on the sidelines and are ensuring their portfolio companies are funded and ready to go public.

After the 2007-2013 biotech IPO drought, Portola Pharmaceuticals successfully went public by setting reasonable expectations. The goal wasn't a sky-high valuation but to gain liquidity and access to capital, recognizing the IPO is a starting line, not a finish line, for value creation.

Unlike in tech where an IPO is often a liquidity event for early investors, a biotech IPO is an "entrance." It functions as a financing round to bring in public market capital needed for expensive late-stage trials. The true exit for investors is typically a future acquisition.

The profile of a company prepared to go public has matured significantly. Unlike the 2020 boom where IND acceptance was a key milestone, today's IPO candidates typically need Phase 2 or even Phase 3 data, raising the quality bar but shrinking the potential pool of companies.

A successful biotech IPO isn't about attracting the public; it's about securing commitments from crossover investors beforehand. These investors must "bring their own beer to the party" by participating in the IPO. Their presence validates the company, stabilizes the offering, and is essential for attracting generalist funds later.