Fund of the Week: Lilly Ventures – Eli Lilly's Strategic Biotech Investor

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal, financial, or investment advice. The author is not a lawyer or financial adviser. All information is derived from publicly available sources and may not be complete or current. Details regarding transactions, royalty structures, and financial arrangements may change. Readers should conduct their own due diligence and consult with appropriate legal and financial professionals before making any decisions.

Overview – Who Is Lilly Ventures?

Lilly Ventures is the venture capital arm of Eli Lilly and Company, one of the world's largest pharmaceutical firms. Established in the early 2000s, Lilly Ventures operates as a corporate venture capital fund, meaning it invests Eli Lilly's own balance-sheet capital (not money from outside investors) into emerging biotech and health-tech startups. This internal financing structure gives Lilly Ventures a long-term outlook – it can back high-risk, cutting-edge science without the same pressure for quick returns that traditional VC funds face. The unit is based in Indianapolis (Lilly's headquarters) and has a team of seasoned scientists and investors. Its mission is twofold: strategic – to accelerate innovation aligned with Lilly's areas of interest – and financial – to ultimately generate returns (both in new therapies and monetary) for the parent company.

Eli Lilly's corporate headquarters in Indianapolis. Lilly Ventures leverages the pharma giant's resources and long-term capital to back biotech startups, aiming to bolster Lilly's future drug pipeline.

Investment Focus: Lilly Ventures concentrates on life-science startups developing novel therapeutics and enabling technologies. In practice, this has meant a focus on small-molecule drugs, protein therapeutics, CNS (central nervous system) and metabolic diseases among other areas. These priorities closely mirror Lilly's core therapeutic franchises (such as diabetes/obesity in metabolic disease and neuroscience). Lilly Ventures typically invests from Series A rounds up through later-stage financings, often co-investing alongside traditional venture firms. The fund does not shy away from platform technologies – it has backed companies in areas like drug discovery tools, "molecular glues" for protein degradation, and innovative delivery methods. Importantly, Lilly Ventures is balance sheet financed by its parent: instead of raising fixed-size funds from outside limited partners, it draws capital directly from Eli Lilly's corporate coffers. This evergreen funding model gives it stability and flexibility to invest patiently for strategic impact.

How It's Structured: As a corporate VC, Lilly Ventures is fully owned by Eli Lilly. Its investment team sits within Lilly's business development or innovation organization, ensuring visibility into Lilly's R&D strategy. Unlike independent VCs, Lilly's venture investors are company employees – historically, they have not received a typical VC "carry" (profit share) on exits, aligning their incentives more with Lilly's strategic goals than pure financial gain. Lilly Ventures often collaborates with Lilly's other external innovation initiatives (for example, Lilly's Catalyze360 incubator and Gateway Labs incubator spaces) to support startups beyond just providing capital. In summary, Lilly Ventures serves as an extension of Lilly's R&D arm into the startup ecosystem, giving the pharma early access to promising science while also nurturing those startups with Lilly's resources.

Recent Deals and Partnerships (Late 2024 – 2025)

In the past year, Lilly Ventures and Eli Lilly have been extremely active in forging new investments, partnerships, and licensing deals to bolster Lilly's pipeline. Below is a roundup of notable recent deals (Q4 2024 through Q4 2025) that highlight Lilly Ventures' strategy in action:

Oral Biologics (Orbis Medicines) – Venture Investment: In January 2025, Lilly Ventures joined a $93.2 million Series A for Denmark-based Orbis Medicines, a startup developing technology to convert injectable biologic drugs (like peptides) into oral pills. Orbis's platform for oral "macrocycle" drugs attracted Lilly's interest because Lilly (and rival Novo Nordisk) market injectable GLP-1 biologics for diabetes/obesity – an oral alternative could be a game-changer. Lilly's participation alongside Novo's fund signals strategic alignment: both pharmas are keen on oral versions of their blockbuster injectable therapies.

Muscle-Sparing Obesity Drug (Laekna) – Research Collaboration: In November 2024, Lilly entered a collaboration with Shanghai-based biotech Laekna to develop an experimental obesity antibody (LAE102) that aims to help patients lose weight while preserving muscle mass. Under this deal, Lilly is funding and providing expertise for LAE102's trials (including outside China), while Laekna retains the drug's rights. The partnership builds on Lilly's strategy to extend its obesity franchise (led by its GLP-1 drug Zepbound/Mounjaro) by adding next-generation therapies that tackle weight loss side effects like muscle loss. Lilly had similarly acquired Versanis in 2023 for a fat-cell targeting drug – these moves show Lilly doubling down on obesity treatments.

Molecular Glues for Oncology (Magnet Biomedicine) – Collaboration & Equity: In Feb 2025, Lilly inked a deal with Magnet Biomedicine, a Boston startup, to co-develop "molecular glue" degraders for difficult-to-treat cancers. Molecular glues are an emerging drug modality that induce protein degradation. The deal gives Lilly an equity stake (Magnet received up to $40 million in equity financing from Lilly) and the option to license resulting therapies. Magnet is eligible for over $1.25 billion in milestone payments if candidates advance, plus royalties. This collaboration highlights Lilly Ventures' interest in cutting-edge platform technologies that could feed Lilly's oncology pipeline (where Lilly has been looking to expand). It's a high-risk, high-reward bet on a novel mechanism, with Lilly leveraging Magnet's TrueGlue™ discovery platform while providing its own cancer R&D know-how.

ALS & Neurodegeneration (Alchemab Therapeutics) – Licensing Deal: In May 2025, Lilly signed a licensing agreement worth up to $415 million with UK-based Alchemab Therapeutics for Alchemab's lead program ATLX-1282, a first-in-class antibody for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) and other neurodegenerative diseases. This deal actually grew out of an earlier collaboration – in January 2025 Lilly and Alchemab began jointly discovering antibodies for ALS (up to five targets) using Alchemab's AI-driven platform. Now Lilly is licensing a ready-for-clinic ALS antibody, with Alchemab running an initial Phase 1 and Lilly to take over development thereafter. The partnership shows Lilly venturing into neurodegeneration (ALS has no cure) by tapping an external innovator. It also underscores Lilly's willingness to license promising assets early, paying an undisclosed upfront and milestones rather than outright acquiring the company. Strategically, this could seed Lilly's neurology pipeline beyond its Alzheimer's efforts.

Long-Acting Incretins (Camurus) – Technology License: In June 2025, Lilly entered a collaboration and licensing deal with Camurus AB, a Swedish drug-delivery company, to develop long-acting injectable formulations of Lilly's incretin drugs (e.g. GLP-1 agonists) for cardiometabolic diseases. Camurus's proprietary FluidCrystal® technology can create depot injections that slowly release drugs over weeks or months. Lilly gained exclusive worldwide rights to use FluidCrystal with up to four of its own peptide compounds (including dual/triple agonists for diabetes/obesity). In return, Camurus is eligible for up to $870 million in payments ($290 million tied to development/regulatory milestones and $580 million sales milestones) plus royalties. This deal aligns perfectly with Lilly's strategy to improve treatment convenience in diabetes and obesity – long-acting versions of Lilly's weekly injectables could further extend their market dominance. Instead of inventing new delivery tech in-house, Lilly essentially rented Camurus's validated platform, accelerating Lilly's timeline for long-acting formulations.

AI Drug Discovery for Obesity (Superluminal Medicines) – R&D Collaboration: In August 2025, Lilly announced a partnership with Boston-based Superluminal Medicines to utilize Superluminal's AI platform for discovering new small-molecule drugs targeting GPCRs (G-protein coupled receptors) for obesity and related metabolic diseases. The headline value of the deal is $1.3 billion, reflecting potential milestone payouts; it also includes an equity investment in Superluminal and eventual royalties. Notably, Superluminal's platform targets GPCRs to develop oral drugs – a complementary approach to injectable peptide hormones. Rival Novo Nordisk struck a similar $2.2B GPCR-focused deal with Septerna in 2025, underlining how hot this space is. For Lilly, which dominates the current obesity market with injectable GLP-1 therapies, this collaboration is about staying ahead of the curve. By leveraging AI and a partner's expertise, Lilly aims to churn out next-gen oral obesity drugs. This deal fits a pattern of Lilly investing heavily in obesity/diabetes innovation (as seen with Orbis, Laekna, Camurus) to defend and expand its franchise.

New Biotech Venture Fund (a16z Partnership) – VC Fund Formation: Lilly isn't only investing directly in startups; it's also stepping up its venture investing capacity through a novel fund partnership. In January 2025, Lilly teamed up with top Silicon Valley VC firm Andreessen Horowitz (a16z) to launch the "Biotech Ecosystem Venture Fund," a $500 million fund for early-stage biotechs. Lilly is providing all $500M of the capital for this fund (making it essentially an off-balance-sheet extension of Lilly Ventures) while a16z will source and vet the startups. The fund plans to back "therapeutic platforms and cutting-edge technology companies" broadly in biotech. Lilly also offers these startups access to its resources (via programs like Catalyze360 and Lilly's Gateway Labs incubator) to help accelerate their R&D. This move is significant – it indicates Lilly's desire to cast a wider net in early innovation by leveraging a16z's deal flow and venture expertise. In effect, Lilly has created a hybrid model: a corporate-funded VC fund managed with the agility of a Sand Hill Road firm. For Lilly, the payoff would be early insight and stake in disruptive science (with a16z likely getting management fees/performance carry for their role). The partnership underlines Lilly Ventures' increasingly proactive approach to sourcing innovation, even beyond its in-house team.

As the above deals show, strategic alignment with Lilly's core goals is a common thread. Most of these transactions directly bolster areas that Lilly's management has prioritized: metabolic diseases (obesity/diabetes) through Laekna, Camurus, Superluminal; neurology via Alchemab; oncology via Magnet; and generally leveraging new technologies (AI, protein degradation, novel delivery) to enhance Lilly's pipeline. Lilly Ventures is acting as a scouting and collaboration arm, allowing Lilly to place many "shots on goal" externally. Instead of relying solely on internal R&D, Lilly can invest small-to-moderate sums in a range of startups, then double down (via partnerships or acquisitions) on those that show success. This modular approach to pipeline expansion is evident – e.g., Lilly invested in Orbis (to get an early look at oral peptide tech) and partnered with Laekna (to test a new obesity mechanism) without initially buying those companies outright. It's a risk-sharing model: Lilly shares upside with the startup and venture co-investors, while securing options or insights that could lead to future licensing or acquisition.

Blue Team Analysis – Strengths and Opportunities

From an optimistic, "blue team" perspective, Lilly Ventures offers significant advantages to both Eli Lilly and the startups it backs:

Patient Capital, Long-Term Vision: Backed by Lilly's balance sheet, Lilly Ventures isn't constrained by a typical 10-year fund lifecycle. It can afford to be patient and support companies through scientific ups and downs. This stable funding (fueled by Lilly's recent revenue windfalls from drugs like Mounjaro) gives Lilly Ventures deep pockets even during industry downturns. Unlike traditional VCs, they don't need to constantly fundraise or rush to exits – a key strength in capital-intensive biotech R&D.

Active in a Capital Crunch: In 2025's biotech funding pullback, Lilly Ventures stepped up as an active dealmaker when many traditional VCs pulled back. Lilly (through its venture arm) participated in 13 startup financings in 2025, putting it among the most active corporate investors (tied with Sanofi's fund, and behind only Novo Holdings). This not only advances Lilly's interests but also buoys the biotech ecosystem by providing funding when startups need it most. Corporate VCs like Lilly's have arguably become lifelines for early-stage biotechs in the recent tough market.

Strategic Synergies & Validation: A Lilly Ventures investment can provide a strong validation signal to other investors and partners. The presence of a pharma's venture arm on a cap table often implies that experts at a major drug company vetted the science and see promise. Indeed, 70% of biotech IPOs since 2022 included at least one corporate VC, and those IPOs were all sizable ($50M+ raises). Moreover, corporate venture backers were involved in over 60% of biotechs that were acquired in recent years. This suggests that having a strategic investor like Lilly "increases the odds of a successful outcome," whether that's an IPO or M&A. For startups, Lilly's backing not only brings money but also access to Lilly's scientific expertise, development capabilities, and industry connections. "Biotechs see the value of relationships that align around shared interest in the science and are not solely based on financial opportunity," notes Brad Robling, VP at Lilly Ventures. Lilly often helps its portfolio companies make key connections or even provides incubator space and mentorship, accelerating their growth.

Pipeline Expansion at Lower Cost: For Lilly, the venture arm is a strategic tool to fill its pipeline in a cost-efficient way. Rather than acquiring companies or assets at high prices later, Lilly can invest early (at lower valuations) and nurture technologies aligned to its future needs (e.g. oral diabetes drugs, new neuroscience targets). If the science pans out, Lilly has an "in" for partnering or acquisition; if not, Lilly's financial exposure was limited. This approach has the potential to boost R&D productivity – Lilly essentially runs many external experiments in parallel. When one hits (say a portfolio company finds a hot drug candidate), Lilly can swoop in with a license or buyout. This optionality is extremely valuable in pharma, where a single successful drug can be worth billions. In short, Lilly Ventures helps spread Lilly's bets across emerging science and capture innovation that might not arise internally.

Leveraging Parent's Resources: Lilly Ventures also maximizes the value-add of Eli Lilly's massive R&D infrastructure. Startups backed by Lilly can tap into that expertise. For example, Lilly's scientists might advise on trial design, or Lilly's business development team might help a startup navigate regulatory strategy. Such support can de-risk and speed up a young company's progress. Lilly also launched programs like Catalyze360 specifically to support early biotechs with people, tools and know-how. From the blue-team viewpoint, this symbiosis means Lilly gets a window into cutting-edge innovation, and startups get far more than just cash – they gain a powerful ally with global drug development experience.

In sum, Lilly Ventures aligns the interests of a Big Pharma with entrepreneurs in a way that can create win-win outcomes. It allows Lilly to remain at the forefront of innovation (by investing in the "next big things" early), while giving startups crucial funding and validation. The strategy is buoyed by Lilly's strong financial position (flush with cash from recent product successes) and long-term commitment to areas like metabolic disease – making Lilly Ventures a formidable and highly influential player in biotech VC.

Red Team Analysis – Challenges and Criticisms

A more skeptical "red team" perspective flags some potential pitfalls and limitations of Lilly Ventures and corporate venture capital models in general:

Strategic Whiplash & Funding Risk: Because Lilly Ventures ultimately answers to the parent company, its priorities can be subject to corporate strategy shifts. Corporate venture arms often have a "primarily strategic mandate" – they look for technologies their parent cares about. This can turn into a weakness if Lilly's leadership or focus changes. For instance, if Lilly were to pivot away from oncology, its venture unit might suddenly stop supporting an oncology startup (or push to divest it). Funding for projects could "disappear without warning" if they fall out of favor at HQ. Startups tied too closely to one pharma's agenda risk being left stranded if internal priorities or market conditions shift. In contrast, independent VCs provide more consistent support aimed purely at the startup's success, whereas corporate VC support is contingent on strategic fit. This dependence on the parent company's whims is a fundamental vulnerability.

Conflicts of Interest & Exit Constraints: Taking money from a corporate VC can introduce perceived conflicts that worry other stakeholders. For example, will Lilly get an inside track or right-of-first-refusal on a startup's future drugs, potentially deterring the startup from partnering with Lilly's competitors? In the Laekna deal, Lilly funds the obesity drug but Laekna kept global rights – such structures must be carefully managed to avoid scaring off other pharma companies from later partnering with Laekna. Additionally, if a startup with Lilly as an investor wants to be acquired, another pharma might be reluctant to bid if they suspect Lilly has intimate knowledge or certain control provisions. While much of the industry has grown comfortable with corporate co-investors (given how common they are now), there can still be trust issues: entrepreneurs sometimes fear corporates might steal IP or kill a project to remove competition (even if these fears are usually unfounded). This means corporate VCs must tread carefully and often take a backseat (no board control, information firewalls, etc.) to reassure other investors and the startup team.

Balancing Strategic vs. Financial Goals: By design, corporate VC investments might prioritize strategic fit over pure financial return. This can lead to suboptimal financial performance relative to traditional VCs. For instance, Lilly Ventures may fund a company working on a mechanism that complements Lilly's pipeline, even if the standalone market opportunity or ROI is uncertain. If that science ultimately fails or doesn't get integrated into Lilly, the investment could appear wasted. Traditional VCs might have avoided that deal purely on risk/return calculus. Over the long run, if too many bets don't pay off financially, questions arise about the venture arm's effectiveness (especially from shareholders of the parent company). Measuring success is tricky – Lilly Ventures can claim strategic successes (like insight gained or a partnership formed) even if no profit was realized, which outside observers may view critically. There's also a concern that corporate fund managers lack the pressure of external LPs demanding high returns, potentially leading to less disciplined investment decisions.

Incentive and Talent Issues: Recruiting and retaining top venture capital talent can be a challenge for corporate funds. Star biotech investors often prefer the upside of dedicated VC funds (with carried interest on profitable exits) over being a salaried employee. Historically, Lilly's venture team members were company employees without any profit share in deals, which might dampen their entrepreneurial drive. While Lilly can counter this by offering other benefits (job security, corporate perks, and aligning incentives with promotions or bonuses), the structure isn't the same as an independent partnership where investors share directly in the gains. There's a risk that corporate VC teams become bureaucratic or less hungry than their pure-play counterparts. Furthermore, corporate processes (compliance rules, slow decision committees) can make doing deals less agile. Startups might favor fast-moving VCs who can write a term sheet in days, whereas a corporate VC might take weeks to navigate internal approvals. This can put Lilly Ventures at a competitive disadvantage in hot deals, unless it streamlines its decision-making.

Potential for Narrow Vision: A strategic mandate can also lead to blind spots. Lilly Ventures might concentrate only on areas Lilly currently prioritizes (e.g., Lilly's heavy focus on obesity/diabetes now). If a transformative innovation arises outside those focus areas, Lilly could miss it. Independent VCs, driven by returns, will chase any area with breakthrough potential, but a corporate fund might say "not in our wheelhouse." This tunnel vision could hurt Lilly long-term if disruptive science (say, a new gene therapy approach) is ignored because it didn't fit an immediate strategy. Some corporate funds mitigate this by investing in broad platform technologies or by maintaining a "financial return" component to their thesis (not every deal has to have a direct line to Lilly's current pipeline). Roche's venture fund, for example, emphasizes that it focuses on financial returns and operates somewhat independently. If Lilly Ventures becomes too tightly bound to corporate directives, it may lose out on the broader innovation landscape or fail to pivot with emerging trends.

In summary, the red-team view cautions that corporate venture is a double-edged sword. Lilly Ventures must balance the mothership's interests with the startup's needs and remain disciplined in its investments. The fund's success is ultimately tied to Lilly's internal commitment – a downturn in Lilly's business or a new CEO less enthusiastic about external innovation could curtail its activities. Transparency and fairness in dealings with startups are paramount to avoid eroding trust in the market. While Lilly Ventures provides many benefits, these potential downsides illustrate why some in the industry still view corporate VC involvement with a degree of wariness.

Performance vs. Peer Pharma Venture Funds

Lilly Ventures is one of numerous Big Pharma venture capital arms, and it stacks up well among its peer group in both activity and alignment with corporate strategy. A quick comparison with other pharma venture funds:

Roche Venture Fund: Roche's corporate VC is an evergreen fund of about CHF 750 million (≈$800M) that invests globally in life sciences (pharma, diagnostics, some digital health). Like Lilly, Roche's fund is fully backed by the parent and provides long-term support. Roche's approach is slightly different in that it explicitly focuses on financial returns in addition to strategic value. Roche Venture Fund tends to invest in areas core to Roche (oncology, immunology, diagnostics) but also occasionally in enabling technologies. In terms of activity, Roche's fund was not as prolific in 2025 as Lilly's – it didn't make the top-three list of most active, suggesting fewer deals. However, Roche has a larger portfolio overall (~30+ companies) and a long track record. It has been operating for decades (since Roche's founding in a sense) and has an AUM around $850M. Roche's venture investments have yielded notable successes (e.g., GlycArt, a portfolio company acquired by Roche itself in 2005, which brought in an antibody now key to Roche's cancer drugs). The performance metric for Roche's fund is often the strategic benefit (it's credited with helping Roche identify cutting-edge science in antibodies, gene therapy, etc.), much like Lilly Ventures aims to do for Lilly.

Novartis Venture Fund (NVF): One of the oldest (founded 1996) and largest pharma venture funds, NVF manages capital in the $800–900 million range (historically one of the top in size) and invests globally. NVF's focus evolved to diversify beyond Novartis's small-molecule roots – it invests in cell & gene therapies, oncology, immunology, and more. NVF operates relatively independently with a mandate to generate strong financial returns (which, presumably, will coincide with strategic opportunities for Novartis). It has a strong track record of exits – since inception, NVF has helped guide 30+ portfolio companies to acquisitions by large pharmas, including deals where Novartis itself was the acquirer (e.g., NVF-backed Spinifex and IFM were bought by Novartis for their pain and inflammation assets). NVF also has numerous IPO successes. Compared to Lilly Ventures, NVF might do slightly fewer deals per year but often leads larger rounds and incubates companies from scratch. Both funds share a philosophy of investing early and across stages. In 2025, Novartis's venture arm wasn't highlighted as top-three active, which may indicate its activity was a bit lower than Lilly's (possibly NVF did ~5-10 deals that year, focusing on selective bets). Nonetheless, NVF is often considered a bellwether – it's known to spot big trends (it was early into gene therapy companies, for example). Lilly Ventures, by contrast, has recently been very obesity/metabolic focused (mirroring Lilly's priorities), whereas NVF spreads bets across a wider range of therapeutic areas (including ones Novartis has exited, like it still invests in neuroscience startups even after Novartis scaled back neuroscience internally).

Sanofi Ventures: Sanofi's VC arm is another peer, and interestingly in 2025 it matched Lilly Ventures in activity – each participated in 13 financing rounds. Sanofi Ventures focuses on areas of interest to Sanofi (such as rare diseases, immunology, and digital health) and typically invests initial tickets of €3–10 million. Like Lilly, Sanofi has been leveraging its venture arm to maintain innovation during the biotech downturn. Both Lilly and Sanofi benefited from strong cash positions (Sanofi from its immunology and rare disease drugs) to invest aggressively. Performance-wise, Sanofi Ventures has helped the company in areas like immunotherapy (for example, it was an early backer of Kymera Therapeutics, a protein degrader company Sanofi later partnered with). Strategically, Lilly and Sanofi's funds play similar roles and have comparable deal flow recently, though Sanofi Ventures might have a slightly broader mandate including digital and vaccine tech, given Sanofi's portfolio.

SR One (GSK's venture fund): SR One was originally GlaxoSmithKline's in-house venture arm, but it underwent a notable change – it spun out as an independent VC firm in 2020 (raising external capital, though GSK remains an anchor investor). Prior to spinoff, SR One functioned much like Lilly Ventures, investing in transformative medicine startups aligned with GSK's interests (oncology, infectious disease, etc.). Now as an independent fund, SR One still collaborates with GSK but has more autonomy in its investments. In terms of performance, SR One was historically very successful – it had multiple big exits (e.g., it invested in companies like Adaptimmune and CRISPR Therapeutics which went public, and in Vir Biotechnology which GSK later partnered with for COVID-19 antibodies). The spin-out indicates that sometimes corporate parents feel a dedicated fund with outside investors can be nimbler. Lilly has thus far kept Lilly Ventures in-house; the performance against SR One is harder to compare now (since SR One invests more like a traditional VC fund with a broad mandate). However, during its corporate days, SR One had a reputation similar to Lilly Ventures: a strong track record of picking winners with strategic overlap for GSK. Lilly Ventures' advantage is having full Lilly funding and commitment, whereas SR One now leverages a mix of capital sources for potentially greater scale.

Merck Global Health Innovation Fund (GHI): Merck & Co. takes a slightly different tack with its GHI Fund – this is a corporate venture fund focused primarily on digital health, health IT, and data science platforms rather than classic drug development. Merck GHI is essentially the venture arm that complements Merck's pharma R&D by investing in technologies that improve healthcare delivery and data (e.g., telemedicine platforms, AI diagnostics). It's an interesting peer to mention because it highlights how pharma VCs can have divergent strategies: while Lilly Ventures sticks to therapeutics and biotech (areas directly feeding Lilly's pipeline), Merck GHI invests in sectors tangential to medicine where Merck sees future value (connectivity, "beyond the pill" solutions). Performance for Merck GHI is measured in strategic insights and the eventual adoption of those technologies (for example, if Merck can integrate a digital biomarker or real-world evidence platform from its portfolio into its clinical trials). Financially, Merck GHI has had exits (it invested in companies like Livongo, which was acquired by Teladoc, and Outcome Health). For Lilly Ventures' audience, the key takeaway is that Lilly's approach is more traditional (therapeutics-focused) relative to some peers like Merck GHI or Novartis's dabbles in tech. This focus likely reflects Lilly's core strategy to double down on medicines, whereas others use their venture arms to explore adjacencies.

In aggregate, Lilly Ventures is performing strongly among pharma VCs. Its 2025 activity level was at the top of the league, suggesting it's aggressively pursuing deals when others might be more cautious. This mirrors Lilly's corporate momentum (buoyed by huge sales in diabetes/obesity) – companies with more cash can afford to invest more in VC. Peers like Novo Holdings (related to Novo Nordisk) are even larger and active – Novo did 18 deals in 2025, the most of any, fueled by Novo Nordisk's own GLP-1 success. In that sense, Lilly and Novo are somewhat setting the pace in the biotech VC arena lately, using their windfall profits to capture future opportunities. Traditional VCs have even commented that corporates like Lilly provide crucial funding and validation in the current market, indicating a positive impact on the startup ecosystem.

It's also worth noting that benchmarking performance for corporate VCs can mean different things: one metric is financial returns (where funds like Roche's claim focus on ROI, and NVF boasts dozens of exits), another is strategic value (how many partnerships or acquisitions resulted from the investments). By the latter metric, Lilly Ventures has had successes: for example, Lilly's investment in Avid Radiopharmaceuticals led to Lilly acquiring it (bringing in Amyvid, an Alzheimer's diagnostic agent), and Lilly invested in ARMO BioSciences before eventually acquiring it in 2018 for its cancer drug. These cases show Lilly Ventures directly contributing to Lilly's pipeline and portfolio. Other pharma VCs have similar stories (Novartis acquiring portfolio companies, etc.), but Lilly's recent string of deals in obesity and beyond may put it in a strong position relative to peers for the next wave of innovations.

Conclusion

Lilly Ventures exemplifies the modern role of corporate venture capital in biotech – it operates at the intersection of finance and pharma strategy. Over the past year, it has actively deployed capital into startups and collaborations that align with Eli Lilly's quest to sustain growth (especially in its booming obesity/diabetes franchise) and expand into new therapeutic frontiers. The fund's balance-sheet financing and close integration with Lilly's R&D give it a long-term horizon and strategic clarity: it is essentially Lilly's "eyes and ears" in the startup world and a tool to incubate future pipeline candidates.

The dual-perspective analysis highlights that while Lilly Ventures brings considerable benefits (stability, expertise, validation, pipeline options), it must continuously manage the inherent challenges of corporate-driven investing – ensuring it remains entrepreneur-friendly, agile, and insulated from any corporate short-termism. So far, Lilly Ventures appears to be striking that balance well, as evidenced by its high deal cadence and the generally positive reception of its partnerships. Its performance relative to other pharma VCs indicates that Lilly is leveraging its strong financial position to be a leader in venture investing, which could pay dividends in the form of first access to breakthrough therapies.

For a biotech and finance audience, the takeaway is that Lilly Ventures is a major force in venture funding right now, particularly in areas synergistic with Lilly's portfolio. It is not mere "PR fluff" but a deliberate strategic extension of Lilly's capabilities. The coming years will test how many of these venture bets translate into tangible products or advantageous deals for Lilly. If even a few hit the mark (say, an oral GLP-1 drug emerging from Orbis/Superluminal efforts, or a novel ALS therapy via Alchemab), Lilly Ventures will have amply justified its value. On the other hand, prudent observers will watch whether Lilly maintains this venture push if economic conditions or internal priorities change.

In summary, Lilly Ventures stands as an instructive example of how big pharmaceutical companies are navigating the current biotech landscape – by investing in innovation at its roots. Its recent flurry of deals and partnerships demonstrates a proactive, analytically driven approach to venture investing, with Lilly using both "blue team" optimism to fuel bold bets and "red team" skepticism to stay grounded. This balance will be crucial as Lilly Ventures continues to compete with other pharma venture funds and traditional VCs in backing the biotech breakthroughs of tomorrow.