The report’s recommendations span what companies must do to become investable, what unlocks investor confidence, and the regional coalition that ties it together. Filter by theme or audience.
LATAM’s deep tech future won’t be unlocked by isolated wins. It needs a neutral, mission-driven coalition spanning countries and verticals, “the European Union, minus the bureaucracy.”
The science-to-startup pipeline
Scientific founders often lack entrepreneurial training, so frontier science stalls before it becomes a company. Embed venture builders inside universities and labs to pair scientists with seasoned operators.
65%LATAM deep tech startups still pre-seed or seed with under US$1m raised, to 2022
A repeatable route from lab bench to fundable company, with an operator in the founding team and a corporate pilot waiting at the other end.
A deep tech KPI framework
Two 2024 LATAM deep tech funding totals circulate, US$138m and US$536m, a 4× gap with no reconciliation. Build a KPI framework with agreed definitions so the region can be priced like for like.
17% vs 10%Average net IRR, deep tech funds against traditional tech funds, 2003 to 2020 vintages
Definitions agreed before numbers, so one 2024 total replaces two and an investor can price a LATAM venture against a global one.
Educate privately, convene publicly
Deep tech takes 6% of LATAM tech funding and the region runs six competing convenings. Educate the roughly 40 active funds privately, and consolidate the events into one flagship.
6%Deep tech share of LATAM tech funding in 2024, US$536m of US$8.8bn including debt
One stage instead of six, and a nameable list of roughly 40 funds moved from unaware to educated, with the return evidence flagged as still missing.
Deep tech for the SDGs
“Facts alone don’t move hearts, or wallets,” says Cristián Hernández of Zentynel. Frame the science as a societal outcome tied to a measurable indicator, without slipping into greenwashing.
65% vs 41%Clean share of LATAM electricity against the global average, 2025
An SDG frame with an indicator behind every claim, so a mission reads to long-term partners as a differentiator rather than as a discount on returns.
Language first, structure next
Single-country markets are too small and too volatile to carry a breakthrough venture. Build for a global market from day one: English as the working language, then international structures and early filings.
158PCT contracting states recognising a single application, at 1 June 2026
Diligence that clears on an English data room and a structure investors already underwrite, and a PCT route available in more than 14 of 33 countries.
Vertical peer-review panels and a portable endorsement seal
Investors told the LADP roundtables they discount science from universities they do not recognize. Convene vertical advisory boards that peer-review TRL 3–5 ventures and issue a seal investors can read.
17% vs 10%Average net IRR of 115 deep tech funds against 1,572 traditional tech funds, vintages 2003–2020, Europe and North America
Diligence that starts from an independent review of the science instead of from the reputation of the university on the founder’s CV.
Three routes out of a five-regulator patchwork
LATAM has no central regulator: review times run from 70 business days at Argentina’s ANMAT to 18–24 months at Brazil’s ANVISA. Choose a route early, global-first, parallel jurisdiction, or reliance.
≤70 business daysArgentina’s ANMAT review time, cut from roughly 160 business days since 2017, as reported in 2025
One dossier more than one LATAM regulator will accept, so a biotech can reach a regional market without repeating the same review five times.
33 countries, one optional 34th regime
A company crossing a LATAM border meets duplicative approvals, and only about 14 of the region’s 33 countries are in the PCT. Constitute a voluntary 34th regime as a plurilateral compact on existing rails.
14 of 33LATAM countries that are PCT contracting states, against 158 worldwide at 1 June 2026; WIPO’s live list checks out at 14 to 15, with Argentina, Bolivia, Paraguay and Venezuela outside
One startup status a founder can carry across borders, so entering a second LATAM market stops meaning starting the paperwork from zero.
A neutral bridge to corporate capital, and a way to measure it
By 2021 only about 40% of LATAM corporates were engaged in CVC, against roughly 90% in the US, and access runs on personal introductions. Stand up a neutral CVC Bridge with an observatory to measure it.
40% vs 90%LATAM companies engaged in corporate venture capital by 2021, against US corporates operating venture arms
Corporate capital reached through a published intake process instead of an introduction, and a public record of how long each deal actually took.
Mixed cohorts and shared-service operators, with an anchor
LATAM has run programs that built networks and then let them dissolve when the cohort ended. Run curated mixed cohorts with retention incentives, tracking and an institutional anchor funded from day one.
US$607m vs US$216m2024 private deep tech investment in Chile against Brazil, which holds most of the region’s companies; Argentina drew US$486m
Cohorts that leave an institution behind, so the introductions, the shared services and the alumni are still there after the program’s funding ends.
Public R&D budgets on an infrastructure footing
LAC spends 0.57% of GDP on R&D against a 1.92% global average, in short annual cycles. Put strategic deep tech on infrastructure footing and turn the R&D budget line into multi-year co-financing.
0.57% vs 1.92%LAC R&D expenditure as a share of GDP against the global average, 2023
Public R&D money committed on the timescale hardware and biology actually take, with one matching-fund term sheet a venture can file across three countries.
A fund-of-funds for domestic deep tech
LATAM holds roughly US$1 trillion in pension assets, much of it deployed abroad. Route 1%, about US$10bn, into an independently managed fund-of-funds through vetted specialist GPs under fiduciary safeguards.
~US$1tn → US$10bnPension AUM across Chile, Mexico, Brazil, Peru and Uruguay, and the 1% redirect proposed
A senior-tranched, rules-based channel that lets a trustee back domestic deep tech without breaching mandate, sized to real manager capacity rather than a headline.
Map the flows, then broker the corridors
Capital, standards and supply chains are being re-routed around LATAM with no shared regional read on it. Stand up a working group to map technology flows and broker corridors with superpowers and middle powers.
15% → 71%Deep tech’s share of China’s total domestic tech investment, 2017 to 2022
One reconciled read of who is committing what, plus model annexes a trade ministry can attach, so corridors spread risk across partners instead of concentrating it.
An open data commons and a funding catalogue
Two independent 2025 mappings of the same ecosystem disagree by a factor of two on Brazil’s share. Build an open regional data commons and a normalized catalogue of public funding programs.
1,048 / 40.8% vs 952 / 72.3%Brazil’s count and share of LATAM deep tech in two independent 2025 mappings of the same ecosystem
Published definitions and a dated, contributable record set, so a disagreement about Brazil’s company count becomes information, not two unfalsifiable numbers.
One flagship, one annual KPI release
The report names seven separate regional deep tech convenings, none of them a reference point for allocators. Consolidate them into one rotating flagship carrying the region’s annual KPI release.
7 conveningsRegional deep tech events named in the report, each with its own organiser, sponsor set and no shared output
One dated annual release the market can diary, carried by a rotating flagship that co-brands the region’s existing summits instead of competing with them.
A versioned registry the community can audit
Two mappings of LATAM deep tech investors disagree by inclusion rule and neither tracks family offices or sovereign funds; build one versioned, auditable registry.
65VC funds with at least one LATAM deep tech investment, IDB mapping, 2023
A single versioned registry that records how often each investor backs LATAM deep tech, at which stages, and with what follow-on behaviour.
An MSCI-style instrument for a gap only measured in listed equities
Listed LATAM equities traded at −48.4% to the world at 30 June 2026 and deep tech probably mirrors the gap, but nothing measures it; build a repeatable, open-methodology index.
−48.4%LATAM price-to-book discount to MSCI ACWI at 30 June 2026, P/BV 1.99 against 3.86
A dated, reproducible number for the deep tech discount, so policy and capital argue about a measured gap instead of a borrowed listed-equity statistic.
Whether corporate backing lowers failure, measured rather than assumed
European startups with corporate backing go bankrupt at 1.24% against 2.58% without, a raw comparison on one secondary source; LATAM has no equivalent, so build the matched study.
1.24% vs 2.58%bankruptcy rate of CVC-backed against non-CVC European startups, a ratio of 0.48
Evidence on whether corporate backing actually lowers failure in LATAM, matched rather than raw, so founders and CVCs price the relationship honestly.
A LATAM benchmark, starting with what can actually be measured
Deep tech funds returned 17% net IRR against 10% for traditional tech across Europe and North America; LATAM has no comparable series and almost no exits, so build the benchmark on gross MOIC first.
17% vs 10%average net IRR, deep tech funds against traditional tech funds, Europe and North America, 115 funds against 1,572, vintages 2003 to 2020
A defined fund universe and a gross return series LATAM can actually report, and a net IRR benchmark the day the region has exits to compute it on.
What a dollar committed to LATAM deep tech actually returned
SOSV/IndieBio’s 72% gross return on 2015 to 2023 LATAM investments is one manager’s portfolio-level number; build the per-dollar comparison bottom-up under a single taxonomy.
72%SOSV/IndieBio gross average return on LATAM deep tech investments made 2015 to 2023, reported via the IDB
A per-dollar return for LATAM built from company records under one taxonomy, so the regional case stops resting on one manager’s gross number.
