The news
Isomorphic Labs, the AI drug discovery company spun out of Alphabet's (GOOGL) Google DeepMind, is in early talks to raise new funding at a valuation of $40 billion to $50 billion, Bloomberg reported, according to SiliconANGLE's October 8, 2026 account of the report.
Neither the size of the round nor the investors involved were identified, according to SiliconANGLE, and the talks were described as early. Isomorphic has not publicly confirmed the discussions.
The reported range would mark a steep rise. Isomorphic raised $2.1 billion earlier in 2026 in a round led by Thrive Capital, with Alphabet, GV, MGX, Temasek and CapitalG also taking part, at an undisclosed valuation, ARY News reported in May. At the time, chief executive Demis Hassabis said the money would let the company build out its drug design engine at scale.
Isomorphic, based in London and founded in 2021, uses AI models to find and design drug molecules. Its IsoDDE platform automates the search for binding pockets, the spots on a protein where a drug can attach, and models how proteins and small molecules fit together. In February the company said IsoDDE was more than 50% better at finding binding pockets than the closest competing tool, SiliconANGLE reported.
The company has commercial deals with three large drugmakers. In 2024 it signed agreements with Eli Lilly (LLY) and Novartis (NVS) worth about $3 billion combined, and in January 2026 it began a collaboration with Johnson & Johnson (JNJ), according to SiliconANGLE. All three focus on small molecules, the pill-type drugs that make up most of the market.
Isomorphic has not yet tested a drug in people. ARY News reported in May that the company expected to start its first clinical trials by the end of 2026, later than an earlier 2025 goal.
The numbers
- Reported valuation range
- $40B–$50B
- Earlier 2026 round
- $2.1B (valuation undisclosed)
- Lilly and Novartis deals (2024)
- About $3B combined
- First clinical trials expected
- By end of 2026
Why CEOs should care
For pharma and biotech executives, a valuation in this range would price an AI discovery platform above many established drugmakers before it has clinical data. Business development teams should expect AI-native partners to push for richer milestone and royalty terms. The useful question in any negotiation is what share of a deal's value depends on clinical success versus upfront fees, and whose models own the resulting intellectual property.
For CFOs and investors outside life sciences, the report is another sign that private capital is paying for platform potential rather than revenue. Isomorphic has disclosed partnerships but not revenue figures, and its trial timeline has already slipped once. Boards weighing AI-for-science investments or partnerships should ask for evidence tied to physical outcomes, such as hit rates in the lab and time saved per program, not just benchmark claims.
For CIOs at research organizations, the competitive pressure is practical. If AI design tools shorten early discovery, the bottleneck shifts to data quality, lab automation and validation capacity. Budget conversations should include those, not just model licenses.
The bigger picture
Isomorphic sits at the center of a broader bet that AI models built on protein-structure breakthroughs such as AlphaFold can cut the cost and failure rate of drug development. The size of the reported range shows how far investors are willing to run ahead of proof. The first human trials, now expected by the end of 2026, will be the earliest real test of that thesis.
What’s next
Watch for confirmation of the round's size, lead investors and final valuation, and for Isomorphic's first clinical trial announcement, which the company has targeted for the end of 2026.
What “Fact-checked” means
Fact-checking means testing a story’s facts against the evidence before it is published. This story went through at least two separate checks before this version was published.
- What we checked
- Its names, figures, dates, job titles, quotes and who said what were checked against the story’s sources, including its main source where it could be opened. The headline was checked for accuracy and overstatement.
- How
- A first check reviewed the whole story. If it passed, a second, skeptical check went back to the sources to look for mistakes in the most important facts. If a check flagged the story, it was edited to fix the problems found, and a separate re-check then reviewed the whole story again.
- Who
- The checks are made by our newsroom, as steps kept separate from the writing, under rules set by our editor, Hussein Mukhtar. A story the checks still flag is held for the editor, who decides whether it is fixed, published or dropped.
- If something is wrong
- “Fact-checked” does not mean error-free. If a material error is found after publication, we correct the story and add a note saying what changed. Report an error
Companies in this story
