Between September 2025 and May 2026, about 235 IPOs entered the US market. Thirty-eight of these – roughly one in six – fell by at least 49% from their IPO price within months. That in itself is shocking. Even more shocking is how many lost not 50%, but 80–99%.
This was not a random collection of failed listings. A clear pattern emerges: many were small-float deals, often foreign-incorporated shell-like structures, early-stage biotech, or “story stocks” built around themes like AI, EV, automation, space, or decarbonization. The market initially rewarded the narrative, then aggressively repriced the reality.
The 2025–2026 IPO cohort shows a classic truth of new listings: poor post-IPO performance is usually less about sector and more about deal structure — float size, underwriter quality, lock-up overhang, capital needs, and whether the business was mature enough to justify public-market valuation.
Why these IPOs collapsed
The worst performers fell into three broad groups.
The first was the offshore microcap cluster — often Cayman, Singapore, Hong Kong, or BVI structures with tiny public floats. These frequently opened strong, spiked, and then collapsed once underwriter support faded. Liquidity dried up, and any subsequent financing became massively dilutive. That pattern appears repeatedly in names such as RPGL, CHOW, MGN, CCHH, and SLGB.
The second group was biotech and medtech. Their decline was more traditional: cash burn, weak milestone cadence, and the reality that many came public before commercial validation. Names like PLYX, AIDX, RGNT, LABT and TTRX fit this category. In biotech, 70% declines are not uncommon when there is no catalyst after listing.
The third group was speculative future-tech. EV aircraft, robotics, cloud automation, smart vending, AI platforms, and space infrastructure all attracted aggressive IPO valuations in late 2025. But once macro conditions tightened and investors demanded revenue instead of promise, valuations compressed sharply.
The five strongest survivors: companies with real operating businesses
Among the group, five names stand apart. These are not necessarily cheap, but they are real companies with operational substance, revenue, and credible strategic positioning.
Klarna Group plc
Klarna Group plc KLAR is the strongest fundamental business in the dataset. Its stock is down more than 70%, but the decline is primarily a valuation reset, not a business collapse.
Klarna’s own filings show 2025 revenue of $3.5 billion, 118 million active consumers, and adjusted operating profitability. The company has moved beyond BNPL into a broader digital banking model. Its latest quarter showed $1 billion revenue and a return to profitability, a major milestone after years of losses.
That makes Klarna different from the majority of this list. It is a scaled consumer fintech franchise that the market likely overvalued at IPO, then punished. A 2–3x rebound over several years is plausible if execution continues.
Netskope, Inc.
Netskope, Inc. NTSK is arguably the highest-quality software company in the list. The stock is down, but operational performance remains strong: ARR above $800 million, revenue growth above 30%, and improving free cash flow.
The decline reflects a common software IPO pattern: strong company, overpriced listing. Investors punished post-IPO SBC and dilution, but the business itself remains attractive.
This is not a failed company. It is a volatile, still-loss-making growth platform with substantial institutional sponsorship.
BETA Technologies, Inc.
BETA Technologies, Inc. remains speculative but interesting. Its electric aircraft platform is one of the few in the sector with real flight hours, infrastructure deployment, and commercial partnerships. Its website highlights more than 120,000 nautical miles flown and over 100 charging sites.
The market derated the entire advanced-air-mobility segment. That may create opportunity. Among concept aviation companies, BETA appears among the strongest operationally.
Via Transportation, Inc.
Via Transportation, Inc. is a genuine software infrastructure business for cities and transit systems. Its public-market decline reflects skepticism about profitability, not relevance. It has recurring contracts and enterprise relationships.
This one may recover slowly rather than explosively, but its revenue base gives it resilience.
Black Rock Coffee Bar, Inc.
Black Rock Coffee Bar, Inc. BRCB is a very different case: consumer retail. The stock fell as discretionary spending slowed and the market rotated away from restaurant growth stories.
But unlike many in the list, the company sells a real, simple, profitable product. That matters. If sentiment improves, this could rerate meaningfully.
The most dangerous names: why the 90%+ losers are structurally risky
These ten names deserve special caution because their declines often signal structural issues, not just oversold pricing.
Republic Power Group Ltd
RPGL is perhaps the clearest warning sign. The company received Nasdaq deficiency notices after falling below the $1 minimum bid. That often begins a death spiral: reverse split, further dilution, then another decline.
A 99.5% collapse suggests the IPO itself was mispriced or structurally promotional. Recovery is unlikely without extraordinary restructuring.
Our Bond, Inc.
OBAI shows a classic fintech microcap failure. Thin float, weak institutional support, and a valuation that assumed rapid scaling. The market removed that premium almost immediately.
PomDoctor Ltd
POM likely suffered from illiquidity plus weak commercialization. Healthtech IPOs without near-term revenue scale often fall quickly once early buyers exit.
20/20 Biolabs, Inc.
AIDX belongs to the high-risk biotech bucket. The decline likely reflects cash-burn repricing and low confidence in near-term catalysts.
Megan Holdings Ltd
Holding-company IPOs with small float frequently become price-discovery failures. The public market discounts opaque structures.
Freecast, Inc.
CAST is a platform narrative stock. It listed at a premium but entered a market already skeptical of ad-supported media. Revenue likely did not justify IPO pricing.
ChowChow Cloud International Holdings Ltd
CHOW resembles many offshore microcaps: narrow float, weak liquidity, promotional launch. These often collapse after the initial trading window.
CCH Holdings Ltd
CCHH shows the same pattern — likely low transparency, weak analyst coverage, and no sustained institutional demand.
Polaryx Therapeutics, Inc.
PLYX is dangerous because it combines biotech risk with high valuation. Cash runway becomes the central issue quickly.
VenHub Global, Inc.
VHUB attracted excitement around automated stores. The concept is interesting, but capex-heavy hardware businesses can burn through IPO cash fast if rollout lags.
The common denominator
The 90% losers are dangerous because they often share four traits:
- Tiny float — price is easily manipulated
2. Weak underwriters — less institutional sponsorship
3. Need for immediate capital — post-IPO offerings destroy price
4. Story before revenue — narrative outruns business fundamentals
That combination creates what traders call a “broken IPO.” Once the market loses confidence, even good news struggles to lift shares.
Are any of the deep losers worth buying?
Some, but only selectively.
Potential speculative rebounds:
- BETA Technologies, Inc.
- Via Transportation, Inc.
- Klarna Group plc
- Netskope, Inc.
- Black Rock Coffee Bar, Inc.
These have real operating scale.
Speculative but risky:
- VenHub Global, Inc.
- Virtuix Holdings Inc.
- Jaguar Uranium Corp.
Avoid unless trading short-term:
- RPGL
- CHOW
- MGN
- CCHH
- AHMA
- ACCL
- SLGB
These resemble financing vehicles more than long-duration public investments.
Final conclusion
Your dataset reveals an important insight: the worst IPO collapses were not concentrated in one sector. Biotech had many. Tech had many. Consumer had some.
But the strongest predictor of failure was structural:
small float + speculative valuation + immediate financing need.
That combination mattered more than whether the company sold software, coffee, aircraft, or medical devices.
For investors, that means screening future IPOs should focus less on headline sector and more on:
- float size
- balance sheet runway
- underwriter quality
- insider lock-up
- revenue maturity
- valuation relative to peers
That is where the real signal lies.
And in this cohort, only a handful — Klarna, Netskope, BETA, Via, and Black Rock Coffee — look like companies that may still justify patient capital. The rest are mostly trading instruments: capable of violent rebounds, but equally capable of permanent capital destruction.