Interestingly, more than half of those investments have been in European-headquartered businesses—and, despite the volatile macroeconomic climate globally, we see a strong opportunity to fund many more European businesses in the future. 

As Battery looks to increase its investment activity in Europe, and better support its existing portfolio in the region, we are bolstering our on-the-ground, ITLST presence in London. Stefan Momic, one of our vice presidents, recently relocated to London to better support our European activity and is leading recruitment efforts to build out a local investment team in Europe.  

Why Europe? 

In our experience, the region has consistently proven to be a very fertile ground for innovation in industrial tech and life-science tools. Europe has a deep-rooted culture of high-end technology addressing critical trends – from meeting new environmental regulations spurred by climate change and concerns about contaminants like PFAS (“forever chemicals”), to increasing automation to address labor shortages, to contributing to scientific research at the forefront of fighting global diseases.  

European ITLST companies are also, we believe, well-aligned with the value Battery can provide. Most of the businesses we back in countries like Germany, the Netherlands and the U.K., among others, are decades old and most often, family- or management-owned. Often, they’re venerable national champions who realize that to continue growing, they need to start competing outside their home market, which brings a new suite of challenges as they look to flourish in an increasingly globalized world.  

Specifically, these companies may see the need to expand into new geographies or business sectors; up-level their management teams across locations; upgrade technology systems; or increase R&D investment to develop new products and grow organically. Battery offers support in all these areas and offers family- and management-owned businesses a different path for the business and its employees rather than selling out to larger companies. Additionally, Battery helps with the identification, origination and execution of add-on acquisitions that complement and often accelerate organic growth initiatives. 

Many of these companies operate in niche markets, but they frequently make critical, often under-the-radar, technology to enable solutions in important areas like food and water safety, medical innovation and next-generation industrial safety, to name a few. Our most recent European ITLST investments, for example, are steute*, a founder-owned provider of switches and sensors for critical medical and industrial-safety applications, and Skalar Analytical*, a management-owned provider of automated laboratory analyzers for environmental, food & beverage and energy applications.  

Our European footprint 

In Europe to date, our ITLST practice has invested in 10 “platform” companies, and 55 total companies including add-ons since 2003 across 12 different countries, deploying more than EUR 750 million in capital. 

Spotlight: Laboratory tech   

Our investment approach is very thesis-driven and thematic. As an example, the “laboratory tech” space is one sector we’ve focused on, with our flexible mandate allowing us to partner with a wide range of companies serving laboratory customers. Since 2018, we’ve backed European companies across a variety of different business models in this sector, including instrumentation (SPT Labtech* and Skalar*), consumables (AnalytiChem*), services (ifp Labs*) and software (Titian Software*). Skalar*, Bernd Kraft* (starting point for AnalytiChem*), ifp* and Titian* were all founder- or management-owned businesses. 

Our strategy for each of these businesses includes continued investment in organic growth initiatives, plus a healthy mix of add-on acquisitions. At Skalar, for example, we helped the management team identify and execute five complementary founder-owned add-on acquisitions expanding Skalar’s geographic footprint in North America (EST Analytical* and PromoChrom*) and Asia (GERSTEL*’s Japanese and Chinese subsidiaries), while continuing to strengthen Skalar’s European footprint (GERSTEL*, TE Instruments* and LCTech*). On the organic-growth side, having a global sales channel provides accelerated expansion opportunities for all brands. Additionally, we are supporting numerous new product-development efforts at the company, particularly around software and consumables as we look to increase high-quality revenue. We’ve followed a similar global acquisition strategy with Germany-based AnalytiChem, completing seven add-on acquisitions across six countries – Belgium, the Netherlands, the UK, Canada, USA and Australia – in a little over two years.  

In contrast, our strategy for ifp Labs is much more regionalized, focused solely on the pan-European market. To that end, our M&A efforts have been more focused on Europe, with one of our acquisitions expanding ifp’s capabilities in the water testing space, while the other three acquisitions expanded our food quality laboratory network in the UK. All seven add-ons at AnalytiChem and all four add-ons at ifp Labs were family- or founder-owned as well. 

Our strategy and approach is not one-size-fits-all; it is highly tailored to the specific circumstances and desires of a given company’s  management team. We believe our experience with family- and management-owned businesses across a wide range of geographies, business models and end-markets provide a strong foundation for us to support our companies. 

The road ahead 

We continue to be excited about the investment opportunities in Europe across a wide range of industrial tech and life science tools markets. The market overall continues to be highly segmented, with domestic champions on the cusp of turning into global and pan-European leaders through acquisitions and organic growth. We are excited to support these innovative companies through the next phase of their growth journey—please feel free to get in touch if you would like to speak with us. 

The post The Opportunity in Industrial Tech & Life Science Tools in Europe appeared first on Battery Ventures.

As in previous quarters, we surveyed 100 CXOs who collectively represent over $35 billion in annual technology spending. Our goal was, as always, to gauge the budget planning and overall sentiment of large, enterprise technology buyers.

Note: We conducted the survey in late March 2025, prior to the Trump administration’s tariff announcement on April 2. While the subsequent market volatility may impact buyer sentiment score—particularly in sectors with greater exposure to tariffs—most enterprise IT budgets aren’t subject to major revisions due to macroeconomic factors. In some categories, IT spending may be actually accelerated by such forces—for instance, investments in AI or cloud for modernization and reducing risk to future development. The technology sector’s tariff risk is also not yet known.

To catch up on previous reports, check out what we published in March 2023, September 2023, April 2024 and September 2024.

A few highlights from the survey:

• Cloud migration is accelerating as enterprises modernize infrastructure, creating fresh opportunities for AI-driven innovation and agile operations. While 54% of enterprises still run a majority of their compute on-premises, momentum is shifting fast. With 73% accelerating or continuing their move to public cloud, the opportunity for cloud technology providers is expanding rapidly.
• VMware’s recent pricing hike appears to be driving a once-in-a-generation push from on-prem to cloud infrastructure.
• In another major move, enterprises are refreshing core systems like ITSM, ERP, and CRM systems now to gain next-gen functionality like AI and automation. In good news for software vendors, they’re largely looking to new software players to meet those needs.
• Generative AI and LLMs have overtaken cloud infrastructure as the #1 priority for CXOs.
• Production AI use cases more than tripled since our last survey, jumping from 5.5% to 16%. Similarly, the agentic AI wave is building: 46% of enterprises are either actively deploying or in R&D for agentic AI.
• Other trends the survey revealed include a nascent trend towards decoupling SIEM and shifting to more modular security architectures.

We see a lot of fresh opportunities for early-stage technology startups in these survey findings. Check out the full report here to learn more:

Loading...

Taking too long?

Reload document

| Open in new tab

The post Survey Says: Tech Spending Slows Slightly, AI Tops CXO Priority List appeared first on Battery Ventures.

We both find these agents great. They collect all the necessary information from visitors like questions about the product, use cases, pricing, competitors and so on. While the AI agent is fielding my inquiries and collecting information for the vendor, it’s providing me with answers back while training itself to do these tasks better. Some agents then initiate actions: Do I want to see a demo, get pricing, or speak to a live person? And some queue all that up within the chatbot or interface I’m in.

I love this!

As a potential buyer, I really don’t want to go through the onerous process of contacting three vendors to get a demo, which starts with filling out a form and then waiting for an SDR to contact me. That initiates the old/current process in which I’m 1) placed into a nurture campaign, 2) forced into an inquisition by the SDR, and then 3) passed to a sales rep. But it doesn’t end there: 4) The sales rep then cross-examines me, asking many of the same questions that the SDR did previously, then 5) introduces a sales engineer to the mix, and 6) finally schedules a demo.

This experience stinks. I don’t want to go through the “buyer’s journey” that the vendor decided was right for me. I want to go through my journey and get the information I want, when I am seeking it. AI agents are the gateway to enabling such customization, so bring it on. I’m a fan.

And yet, there’s still something missing here. Companies and vendors are creating agents or personas that represent the company’s side of things. But what about me? What about the other side of the equation, the individual buyer?

INDIVIDUAL AGENTS
This was the discussion that Harish and I had. He posited that the next logical step in this wave of AI agents was individual AI agents—the Harish agent, the Bill agent.

Visualize this: I want to learn about three different vendors’ software. Instead of starting the old, previously described process (times three!!), how about I train MyBill agent? Or as Harish nailed it, “Mini Me”.

In this situation, I feed Mini Me with my needs. It could be a requirements document, an RFP, my specific challenges, my workflow documents . . . you name it. Now that my agent is trained, it goes to a group of vendors and initiates a knowledge transfer. Included in my AI agent could be a whole bunch of demographic information that I elect to share: my role, my contact information, my background, my contact preferences, my calendar and availability. I could even prime it with my current buying stage: I am still evaluating, I am ready to buy, I have budget or don’t have budget, I am the decision maker or I’m an influencer to the decision. I can share whether my company is starting a new project or looking to replace a current provider. I can allow my individual agent access to publicly available information about my past buying behavior (i.e. I worked at Pendo* and we used Salesforce on the sales team).

In digital marketing, we talk about first-party vs. third-party cookies. We talk about intent. We talk authentic, personalized outreach. I’d submit that aside from talking with me live directly, an individualized agent is the next most personalized form of engaging me. As I lamented above, talking with me personally is getting harder to do. First, like many buyers I no longer have a work phone, so just ringing me is getting harder. Plus, with branded caller ID, I can see who you are and ignore your calls. Email is a fine alternative to phone, but we all know how noisy inboxes can get. And then alternative channels like LinkedIn are spotty depending on which tools I utilize. Most importantly, as a buyer I neither want to engage nor have time to spend with three vendors and go through that difficult “journey” outlined above.

Let’s return to my hypothetical scenario above. I’ve dispatched my individualized agent to do the heavy lifting for me. Why does this concept appeal to me so much?

As a buyer, I want to get as well educated on a potential purchase as possible. I want to scour the vendor’s data and product. I want to know what their customers are saying. Likewise, I want them to understand me and my project as best they can—really zero in on my business problem and prove how they solve it.

Once I’ve dispatched my agent, I can apply the human touch. I can review the details my agent gathered and evaluate what it’s found for me.

In this scenario, I’ve provided a bunch of data about me, my company, my project and my preferences to potential vendors. I gave them this information, instead of having them purchase data and tools and commission sales teams to stalk me. Meanwhile, the vendor receives this detailed data in exchange for giving me what I want: knowledge. That knowledge can be in the form of videos, proposals, data sheets, demos, etc. These are all items that I can roll up into a business case. I can achieve a fairly informed position, all without needing multiple humans to educate me (and waste precious human time on both sides).

PERSISTENT AGENTS
Before we close, let’s take this imagined scenario one step further. Once my agent has visited the vendor site, maybe it keeps a connection to that site so my data stays updated and keeps information flowing. The vendor releases a new version. Or a new product. The company shares its new roadmap, so I can now incorporate that into my knowledge base. The positioning changes for how the company sells its product. They run a promotion on pricing. These are all valuable inputs for me as a buyer and worth keeping a consistent connection. Data could similarly flow from me back to the vendors in play. What if there is a budget freeze? What about an economics change for the buyer? Valuable inputs to share yet again.

THE BIG QUESTION
I get asked a lot: Do I think AI is the gateway to sales reps’ extinction? No, I don’t believe so. But I do think the current sales model is quickly ceding to a new agentic-fueled model.

We’ve already seen in transactional business arrangements that technology and software can eliminate the person. I used to visit a store and deal with a person at the checkout to buy laundry detergent; Amazon changed that forever. But in a considered and substantial purchase with a long-term relationship at stake, I still believe humans need to be involved in the sale. What if I’m buying a software that requires implementation, integration or setup? What if this is a multi-year project or purchase? Sales reps will still do what they do best: show their product, prove its value and close the deal. Agentic sales are accelerating this process while increasing its efficiency, and they’re only getting started.

Today, we know sales reps waste a tremendous amount of their time doing non-sales work. The rise of AI agents in the go-to-market function will help eliminate some of that work, which allows sellers to spend more quality time with buyers, handling the stuff the agents cannot.

Look, I’m somewhat self-aware. Is the individualized-agent scenario I just imagined above easy to implement? Will it work the way I played it out? These and many other questions are still unknown. But I do see large changes to the selling model we’ve used for 30 years ahead.

The information contained here is based solely on the opinion of Bill Binch, and nothing should be construed as investment advice. This material is provided for informational purposes, and it is not, and may not be relied on in any manner as legal, tax or investment advice or as an offer to sell or a solicitation of an offer to buy an interest in any fund or investment vehicle managed by Battery Ventures or any other Battery entity. The views expressed here are solely those of the author.

*Denotes a Battery portfolio company. For a full list of all investments and exits, click here.

The information above may contain projections or other forward-looking statements regarding future events or expectations. Predictions, opinions and other information discussed in this publication are subject to change continually and without notice of any kind and may no longer be true after the date indicated. Battery Ventures assumes no duty to and does not undertake to update forward-looking statements.

The post Dude, where’s my AI agent? appeared first on Battery Ventures.

Our practice is diverse and focuses on critical enabling technologies for research, quality control, automation and scientific workflows, spanning instrumentation and sensor technologies, consumables (the picks and shovels enabling life-science research, analytical testing workflows and R&D) — even training and service providers.

Much like our software-investing colleagues, we prioritize what we call high-quality revenue: predictable and recurring revenue from consumables and services, over one-time product sales.

For our companies, which often have a number of revenue streams, from product sales and service contracts to consumable sales and software/data subscriptions, it can be more challenging to define value, especially on a comparative basis as the revenue mix varies across companies. But we are seeing more and more technology companies implement software-enabled products and services, as artificial intelligence becomes more accessible and as investors and management teams place a greater emphasis on revenue stability, especially in the wake of the pandemic.

Within our portfolio, we’ve always prioritized improving revenue mix as a key value creation lever, in addition to other key factors such as scale, organic growth rate, profitability and customer/market diversification to name a few.

So, we sought to quantify what we knew intuitively: that for non-software technology businesses, revenue quality mix is a meaningful indicator of value, and moreover, should serve as a key lever to help companies increase in value over time.

Based on a quantitative analysis of publicly-traded ITLST companies and our own portfolio, we created a new framework — the Revenue-Quality Podium — to help management teams, investors and industry stakeholders track value creation as companies transition to a higher share of high-quality revenue.

Download the Revenue-Quality Podium Whitepaper here to see our full analysis. 

The post Introducing the Revenue-Quality Podium: How Quality of Revenue Drives Value for Industrial Tech and Life-Science Tools Companies appeared first on Battery Ventures.