The Debate Shaping Medtech Venture Capital at LSI Europe ’25

At LSI Europe ’25, one of the more revealing conversations was not about a single therapeutic area, product category, or financing milestone. It was about portfolio construction itself. In a debate session titled “Including Medtech, Biotech, or Healthtech in Your VC Thesis,” investors from TVM Capital Life Science, Canaan Partners, Santé Ventures, Brightlands Venture Partners, and Unorthodox Ventures offered a candid look at how they think about risk, timing, capital efficiency, and long-term returns across healthcare. For founders trying to understand what different investors actually want, the discussion provided a sharp window into how medtech venture capital firms are making decisions in a more disciplined market.

Moderated by Luc Marengere of TVM Capital Life Science, the panel made one thing clear early: there is no single right way to build a healthcare investment strategy. Some firms continue to back medtech as a core pillar. Others have stepped away from it at the earliest stages. Some want commercial traction before they invest. Others want to get in before a company has done much more than define the problem and assemble the right team.

That divergence was exactly what made the conversation useful.

Why Some Investors Still Believe In Medtech Venture Capital

Ashley Seehusen of Santé Ventures made a strong case for keeping medtech in the mix, especially within a diversified healthcare strategy. Santé invests across biotech, healthtech, and medtech, with what she described as “about a third, a third, a third of each fund.” For her team, medtech remains an important source of consistency in an otherwise volatile market.

“We always think of that as sort of the steady Eddie of the three,” Seehusen said, describing biotech and healthtech as “a lot more volatile with valuations.”

That does not mean Santé approaches medtech casually. Quite the opposite. Seehusen emphasized that the firm’s strategy is tightly defined. Santé likes to invest early, build meaningful ownership, and exit before commercialization becomes necessary. As she put it, “We like to say we sell on hopes and dreams.”

That line was memorable, but the underlying point was serious. The firm is not looking for companies that need years of commercial buildout before becoming attractive acquisition targets. Instead, it wants companies that can create enough strategic value before that stage. The model is shaped by fund size, return math, and discipline around what fits the thesis.

“Every deal we invest in has to be a good deal, but we can’t invest in every good deal,” Seehusen said.

That framing captured one of the panel’s central themes. A good company is not always the same thing as a good fit for a given fund.

Brent Ahrens of Canaan Partners offered the clearest counterpoint. Canaan once invested in medtech, but no longer does so on the life sciences side, which is now focused exclusively on biotech. His explanation was blunt and grounded in return data. Comparing stage-matched medtech and biotech investments, he said, “the biotech companies exit in half the time, compared with medtech, and for twice as much.”

Originally published at: https://www.lsieuropesummit.com/news/the-debate-shaping-medtech-venture-capital-at-lsi-europe-25/