2026 RNA Investment Landscape: Recent Deals, IPOs, And Venture Trends

A column by William Soliman, Ph.D., BCMAS, founder & CIO, White Manna Capital

RNA medicine is no longer evaluated on promise alone. As the field matures, capital, policy, and regulatory dynamics play a larger role in determining which platforms advance — and which quietly stall. “Soliman Says: Capital, Healthcare Policy, Pharma and the RNA Reality” is a brand-new recurring column that examines RNA through that decision-making lens, connecting investment behavior, healthcare policy, and biopharma strategy to the biological and operational realities that ultimately determine success. The goal is not to forecast hype cycles but to explain what the market is rewarding — and why.

From Hype To Hard Filters In RNA Investing

RNA medicine entered 2026 with a markedly different tone than the post-pandemic peak. The sector is no longer defined by broad vaccine enthusiasm and easy capital. Instead, investors underwrite technical advantages in delivery, durability, and manufacturability. Investors reward platforms that can translate into products with a credible regulatory path. Deal activity is now the signal of conviction. I see this shift as a sign that the market is focusing on technical strengths.

Large biopharma is paying for next-generation RNA modalities and for in vivo approaches that look less like traditional nucleic acid therapeutics and more like programmable biologics made inside the patient. At the same time, public markets are open but selective, with most RNA focused names leaning on follow-on financings rather than large, frequent venture rounds. A key crosscurrent for 2026 is regulatory and political uncertainty around vaccines, which is influencing how generalist investors think about mRNA exposure, even as therapeutic RNA investment continues to broaden.

I see dealmaking focusing on the RNA, plus delivery. I also see strategic dealmaking moving toward the in vivo therapies. I think the attention-grabbing deal so far in 2026 is Eli Lilly agreeing to acquire Orna Therapeutics for up to $2.4 billion. Orna’s pitch is not just circular RNA as a novelty. It is circular RNA paired with lipid nanoparticle (LNP) delivery to develop novel therapeutics, including early in vivo CAR T cell concepts. The market read through is that Big Pharma is willing to pay for platforms that can convert RNA into a manufacturing and logistics advantage, especially if the approach can extend beyond oncology into immunology and autoimmune diseases.

That pattern was already clear in late 2025. Bristol Myers Squibb agreed to acquire Orbital Therapeutics for $1.5 billion to build a cell therapy approach inside the body that relies on RNA to reprogram function. The label “cell therapy” can make the Bristol Myers Squibb deal look close to CAR T. The investment logic looks like a bet on RNA-driven control systems paired with delivery that can be repeated across indications. This is important for investors because it reframes RNA not as a single product category but as an enabling layer for in vivo biologics and cell engineering and, ultimately, that means a repeatable revenue stream.

Partnership activity in RNA interference remains robust, with large companies using options structures and multi-target frameworks to create opportunities while capping early risk. AbbVie’s collaboration and license option agreement with ADARx, which included a large up-front payment, is a representative example of how incumbents are paying for next-generation siRNA chemistry and development capacity rather than for a single late-stage asset.

In neurology, where delivery and target engagement are persistent obstacles, a notable 2025 deal came from Novartis licensing Arrowhead’s preclinical siRNA program targeting alpha-synuclein for Parkinson’s disease, with total potential value up to $2.2 billion and a substantial up-front payment. For the RNA investment landscape, this matters because it shows that RNAi is no longer perceived as limited to liver-directed programs. Strategic buyers are funding attempts to expand into harder tissues, even if the clinical proof will take time.

Another important adjacent signal is capital flowing to gene editing approaches that can be framed as RNA programmable systems, particularly in vivo. Regeneron’s collaboration with Tessera Therapeutics on an investigational gene editing therapy for alpha 1 antitrypsin deficiency illustrates how large companies are blending editing, delivery, and genetic medicine positioning, often with shared cost and profit structures to align incentives. This type of partnership is increasingly part of the same investor conversation as RNA therapeutics because it competes for the same capital pools and relies on overlapping delivery and manufacturing capabilities.

Public Markets: Fewer True RNA IPOs, More Financing Through Follow-Ons And Regional Listings

The IPO window for biotech has improved, but RNA specific IPOs remain relatively scarce in the United States. Instead, the market has favored follow-on offerings from companies with recognized platforms and late-stage pipelines. Avidity Biosciences’ roughly $690 million public offering in September 2025 is a clear example of how RNA adjacent companies are using public financings to extend runway and bring multiple programs forward without relying on venture markets alone.

RNA IPO activity is moving more outside the usual U.S. Nasdaq route. In January 2026, Suzhou Ribo Life Science filed a Hong Kong IPO to get money for Suzhou Ribo Life Science’s siRNA lead program. This shows that the Asian capital markets are a place for the RNA developers. It also demonstrates that the Asian capital markets matter, especially for the RNA developers that have research and development in China or have plans to. For investors, this geographic diversification matters because it can change valuation anchors, liquidity expectations, and the type of syndicates that form around RNA platforms.

Public market sentiment toward the mRNA vaccine stories has become more fragile. Just this month, the FDA announced a refuse to file decision for Moderna’s mRNA flu vaccine application. The news made me think about shifting review standards and political influence on vaccine regulation. I saw the market wobble under political influence and rhetoric around vaccines. The mRNA vaccine market feels shaky. No matter how you look at the Moderna case, the investment consequence is simple: vaccine timelines in the U.S. may be less predictable. That uncertainty can spill over into how general investors price the mRNA category. Therapeutic RNA companies may benefit from differentiation, but they will not be fully insulated from sentiment.

Venture Trends: Capital Is Flowing, More Concentrated, And Thesis Driven

Venture investment in RNA has not disappeared but now focuses on platforms that fix problems, especially delivery beyond the liver, and immune targeting and expression that can be controlled. Large private rounds still happen when a company can describe a system and show clinical results in real patients and when a company has a solid and sustainable manufacturing plan.

Programmable mRNA is one such theme. Strand Therapeutics raised a $153 million Series B in 2025 to advance a programmable mRNA pipeline, with participation from strategic and crossover investors. The size of the round, and the mix of investors, fits the broader venture pattern: fewer financings, larger checks, and a higher bar for platform differentiation and clinical translation.

Circular RNA is another theme that moved from interesting science to strategic priority for many Big Pharma companies. The Lilly-Orna acquisition made circular RNA a board-level topic, but the underlying venture logic is that circular RNA can offer greater stability and potentially longer duration of expression, which may unlock dosing and convenience advantages if delivery and immunogenicity challenges can be managed. This is why circular RNA is showing up not only in early platform formation but also in in vivo cell therapy concepts.

Self-replicating RNA is getting attention, especially in metabolic disease where the dosing burden matters. Novo Nordisk has teamed up with Replicate Bioscience. The partnership includes research funding and up to $550 million in milestones. The partnership shows that self-replicating RNA can be used to make proteins inside the body, not just as a tool for vaccines. For investors, the read through is that platform value can be created even before definitive clinical efficacy, if the partnering thesis is strong and the target market is large.

RNAi venture activity continues to be supported by the relative maturity of GalNAc-style liver delivery and by the growing appetite to extend RNAi into new tissues. Industry coverage of deal flow in 2025 highlighted multiple RNA interference licensing transactions, underscoring that RNAi is still viewed as a dependable modality for partnering, with repeatable chemistry and a known development playbook.

What Is Changing How Investors Underwrite RNA Companies In 2026?

People stress test platform claims against the delivery reality. Investors ask if a company owns or rents a delivery strategy with LNPs or the common conjugates. In cell therapy and tissue, targeting has become a focus. Buyers and investors pay for the systems that can localize expression. The systems also manage activation and scale manufacturing.

Secondly, differentiation is shifting from “RNA modality” to “RNA system.” The winners in fundraising and partnerships are often those who present a comprehensive story that includes chemistry, delivery, manufacturability, regulatory strategy, and a product portfolio that can generate multiple reads. The AbbVie ADARx structure, with options across multiple therapeutic areas, reflects how buyers want access to a system rather than a single program.

Thirdly, public market access is influencing private pricing. The ability of certain RNA adjacent public companies to raise large follow-ons provides an alternative to venture capital for late-stage platform builders. That dynamic can compress venture ownership windows and change exit expectations, and it is one reason syndicates are gravitating to companies that can plausibly reach public readiness with clean data packages and simple stories.

Lastly, regulatory perception is becoming a bigger factor, especially for vaccine-linked mRNA. Moderna’s refuse-to-file episode has become a case study in how process risk can move markets quickly. Even if this is ultimately resolved through additional studies or resubmission, it reminds investors that regulatory precedent is not static and that political context can influence perceived risk.

Outlook For 2026: Where To Watch For The Next Inflection

In my view, short-term investment triggers for RNA will come from three places.

1. There will be strategic M&A or big partnerships around programming inside the body, especially where RNA enables cell or immune engineering inside the patient.
2. There will be proof in new tissues, especially CNS related programs where RNAi and other methods try to show that the target is hit and patients are helped.
3. There will be ways to raise money, including more listings, in Asia and Europe and deals that mix venture money crossover money and strategic money.

In practical terms, the 2026 RNA investment landscape is defined by selective confidence. The capital is there, but it is flowing toward companies that can answer two questions with credibility: can you deliver to the right cells, and can you turn that capability into multiple products with repeatable economics? The biggest checks, whether in M&A, like Lilly Orna or in platform acquisitions like BMS Orbital, are going to teams that position RNA as an enabling operating system for in vivo therapeutics rather than as a single category of drugs.

About The Expert

William Soliman, Ph.D., is the founder & CEO of the Accreditation Council for Medical Affairs (ACMA) and the founder & CEO of White Manna Capital Partners, a biotech/pharma focused hedge fund. The ACMA is the leading life sciences accreditation, certification, and training company in the world and established the first ever certification standards for prior authorization, reimbursement, pharma sales, medical science liaisons, and medical affairs professionals.

Soliman is considered a pharmaceutical industry futurist. In March 2021, he testified before the United States Congress’ Energy and Commerce Health Subcommittee about the pharmaceutical industry and the importance of professional standards for those who directly engage healthcare providers, like sales representatives. Soliman is a former pharmaceutical executive who held leadership roles at several big pharma companies including Merck, Johnson & Johnson, AbbVie, and Gilead.

He is routinely featured on media outlets such as NewsNation, Fox News, ABC News, Forbes, Al Jazeera, Yahoo! Finance, Yahoo! Business TV, and more. Soliman received his Ph.D. from Columbia University and his bachelor’s degree from New York University.