Introduction
The DeepTech Colombia Alliance — MenteX and OlarteMoure Abogados — has published three annual reports on Colombia’s science-based company (EBCT) ecosystem (MenteX and OlarteMoure Abogados 2023, 2024, 2025). Each edition changes something: how things are measured, which companies are included, what gets counted for the first time.
Reading them together raises an uncomfortable question: what actually changed, and what’s a methodological artifact? That’s what this exercise is about — not replacing the reports, but putting them in conversation.
One warning before we start: these are our interpretations, not the authors’. The three documents use different methodologies, map different company universes, and sometimes define the same categories differently. We flag those gaps when we find them. But the best thing you can do is read the originals and decide for yourself.
The three reports: a quick overview
📗 DeepTech Colombia Report 2023
Authors: MenteX · OlarteMoure Abogados. Support: Cámara de Comercio de Bogotá, Econova–Ecopetrol, Oracle NetSuite.
The first systematic mapping: 32 EBCTs, priority verticals, and structural recommendations. Used the BID Lab's The New Wave as a reference.
📘 Sciencepreneurs Report 2024
Authors: MenteX · OlarteMoure Abogados · DeepTech Colombia Alliance.
Second edition. For the first time, the authors sent a structured survey to founders — that's how we got concrete numbers: $60M raised, $853M in portfolio valuation, 500 direct jobs. Maps 49 EBCTs and adds SDG contribution analysis.
📙 Sciencepreneurs Report 2025
Authors: MenteX · OlarteMoure Abogados · DeepTech Colombia Alliance.
Third edition and the biggest jump. 98 EBCTs mapped — double 2024. New additions: TRL maturity levels, knowledge bioeconomy, and regional node density across the country.
What we found: patterns across the three reports
Despite methodological differences, the three reports converge on several diagnoses. These are the most notable patterns we identified:
On these patterns: The findings aren’t identical across editions — the framing and emphasis shift. But these themes keep showing up in all three, which is the point: they look more like structural features of the ecosystem than artifacts of any particular report year.
What we found: the documented evolution
Beyond the recurring themes, the three reports let us track how the ecosystem actually changed year over year. Some of the comparisons below are direct; others are approximate. We say which is which.
Key ecosystem indicators
Comparative table by dimension
| Dimension | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 |
|---|---|---|---|
| EBCTs mapped | 32 | 49 +53% | 98 +100% |
| Capital raised (USD) | Not measured | $60M | $108M +80% |
| Total estimated valuation | Not measured | $853M | $676M Methodological adjustment |
| Direct jobs | Not measured | 500 | 820 +64% |
| Startups with female founder | 37.5% | 49% +12 pp | 58% +9 pp |
| Dominant vertical | HealthTech (36%) | Energy/Climate (27%) | AgriFood (35%) |
| Most adopted technology | BioTech (44%)* | BioTech (38%)* | AI (31%) |
| City with most EBCTs | Bogotá (44%) | Bogotá (47%) | Bogotá (44%) |
| EBCTs in R&D/POC stage | Not available | Not available | 56% |
| Bootstrapping as primary source | ~40% (estimated) | 28% | 58% ↑ warning signal |
* In 2023 and 2024, startups could indicate multiple technologies (multi-select); in 2025, primary technology is recorded. Figures are not directly comparable.
Sector evolution (vertical)
The clearest shift across the three reports is in sectoral composition. The table below shows the relative weight of each vertical — and the numbers move more than you’d expect in two years:
| Sector / Vertical | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | Trend |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 🌾 AgriFood Tech | 20% | 22% | 35% | ↑ +15 pp |
| ⚡ Energy / CleanTech | 28% | 27% | 17% | ↓ −11 pp relative |
| 🧬 HealthTech / BioMed | 36% | 25% | 23% | ↓ −13 pp relative |
| 🔩 Materials / Sustainability | 16% | 20% | 25% | ↑ +9 pp |
Geographic distribution: how much is the ecosystem decentralizing?
| Region | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bogotá | 44% | 47% | 44% |
| Medellín | 31% | 33% | 24% −9 pp |
| Eastern Zone | 8% | 6% | 12% +6 pp |
| Western Zone | 10% | 8% | 9% |
| Coffee Region | 5% | 4% | 6% |
| Others / New | 2% | 2% | 5% Pasto, Pereira, Yumbo |
Explore the data in the interactive dashboard
We built a dashboard to make all of this easier to navigate — three reports, one interface. Filter by sector, technology, region, or financing source.
Final reflections: read the reports yourself
This is our reading of three documents. In building the comparison, we made choices: which data to include, how to name categories, when to flag incomparabilities. Those choices introduce bias, even when we try to be transparent about them.
So the main thing this post is trying to do isn’t sell you on our tables. It’s get you to read the three reports yourself.
What the data does suggest, across all three editions: more companies, more gender diversity, more geography, more capital — none of it at the scale needed, but the direction is consistent. The barriers are also consistent: R&D investment at 0.34% of GDP, bootstrapping as the dominant funding source, regulation that wasn’t designed for science-based companies.
Whether those trends hold up under scrutiny, whether the methodologies are actually comparable, whether the diagnoses are right — that’s for you to decide from the original documents.
Built from the three reports published by the DeepTech Colombia Alliance. The data are indicative of trends — they don’t replace the originals. Thanks to the MenteX and OlarteMoure Abogados team for three years of mapping work.
References
Citation
@online{amaya_guzmán2026,
author = {Amaya Guzmán, Brian},
title = {Three Years of {DeepTech} in {Colombia:} {What} Do the
Reports Say?},
date = {2026-03-22},
langid = {en}
}