45. Figma
Design software was once dominated by desktop applications that created fractured workflows, locked users into specific platforms and hindered collaboration. Figma founders Dylan Field and Evan Wallace had something different in mind: a professional-grade design tool built for the internet. The two wanted to reimagine design software, drawing inspiration from real-time, multi-user platforms like Google Docs.
The idea took off in 2012 when Field received a $100,000 Thiel Fellowship, prompting him to drop out of Brown University to start Figma. When the product launched in 2016, it was initially dismissed as a lightweight alternative to established desktop software. But Figma soon won over professionals with its robust features, flexibility and version control.
The company has since evolved into a broader platform that supports the entire product development lifecycle. In addition to the design tool, Figma now includes FigJam for virtual whiteboarding, Slides for presentations, Dev Mode, an interface for developers translating designs into code, and Figma Make, a "vibe-coding" tool that uses AI to help automate the process of building websites and applications.
Figma clients include Google, Microsoft, Netflix, and Ikea, plus nearly 100 U.S. federal agencies, including the IRS and the Department of Education. More than 85% of its users and half of its revenue come from outside the U.S. Moreover, active users increasingly include non-designers such as marketers, product managers and executives.
The company made headlines in 2022 when Adobe announced plans to acquire the company for an eye-popping $20 billion. But after 15 months of regulatory scrutiny and mounting antitrust pressure from EU and UK authorities concerned about reduced market competition, the deal was abandoned. Figma walked away with a $1 billion breakup fee. In May 2024, it held a tender offer allowing current investors, including current and former employees, to sell their shares in a deal that valued the company at $12.5 billion.
To date, the company has raised $332.9 million in funding from prominent investors like Greylock, Sequoia, and Andreessen Horowitz — not including the $1 billion from Adobe. The company filed for an initial public offering in April, even as other tech companies delayed their IPOs amid the market volatility caused by Trump's tariff announcements.
Despite posting record revenue every quarter in 2024 while remaining cash-flow positive, the company now faces growing competition from both traditional players and startups like fellow Disruptor Canva. The growing prevalence of AI-powered design tools is costly, and return on investment for customers remains a major question, which Field acknowledged in a comment last year to CNBC that the company is "eating the cost" of AI adoption for now.
"We're gonna eat the cost for 2024, because we don't know how people are going to use the features yet. We don't know how many of you will care, we don't know how good they get," Field said in a June 2024 interview with CNBC.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
8 hours ago
- Yahoo
Tech industry insiders share their picks for the next startups who will ride the IPO wave after Figma's blockbuster debut
Figma's sensational IPO last week resurrected longstanding debates about IPO pricing and first day pops—an unsurprising reaction to the newly listed stock's 333% surge in its first days of trading. As investors dissect the offering (and as Figma's stock settles back a bit, falling 27% on Monday), other key questions have emerged: Will Figma's debut entice other startups to jump into the fray, bringing an end to the tech industry's IPO drought? And if so, who's next? There's a long list of late-stage VC-backed tech companies with strong customer bases that Wall Street investment bankers would love to take public. Many of these multi-billion dollar companies, including Databricks, Klarna, Stripe, and SpaceX, have been subjects of IPO speculation for years. And then of course, there's the crop of richly valued AI startups, from OpenAI and Anthropic, to Elon Musk's xAI. Those companies will likely continue to be in the spotlight, but in conversations I had with several investors following Figma's debut, other names came up as more likely to IPO sooner including Canva, Revolut, Midjourney, Motive, and Anduril. 'Having positive IPOs is a good signal for everybody,' says Kirsten Green, founder and managing partner at Forerunner Ventures, whose portfolio company Chime recently went public and experienced a 37% pop in stock price on its first day of trading. (Forerunner also has investments in public company Hims & Hers and late stage private companies including Oura.) 'I believe we should revisit this idea: an IPO is the Series A of being in the public market–and having that really be a motivator to people's willingness, and maybe even eagerness to go public.' (As if on cue, HeartFlow, a medical technology company, filed an S-1 for its IPO at a $1.3 billion valuation on August 1). Kyle Stanford, the director of research on US venture capital at PitchBook, notes that just 18 venture-backed companies have gone public through June 30 of this year. This, he says, is a factor of policy uncertainties that translate to funding headwinds as well as the overfunding that occurred in 2021 that continues to stymie venture capital. 'Figma hopefully starts to break the dam, but it's been a pretty slow quarter,' he says. Though Figma, which makes design software, is profitable and has a strong set of integrated AI capabilities, these qualities are not essential to companies bound for IPO success, says Stanford. He says that investors would prefer companies to generate a minimum of $200 million in revenue that grows at high rates and prioritize positive free cash flow over profitability. Having an AI story is also 'very important,' unless the company is very high growth and profitable by wide margins. Canva may be a most-compelling case since it's a design company with similar fundamentals to that of Figma, said multiple investors I interviewed. Design collaboration company Canva has raised about $589 million over 18 rounds at a $32 billion valuation, higher than that of Figma's at the time of its IPO. 'Canva is a big winner when it comes to what happened yesterday with Figma,' says Jason Shuman, an investor at Primary Ventures. Shuman, who is not an investor in Canva, points to Canva's $3 billion annual revenue and 35% year-over-year growth as signs of its business' durability. Others agree. 'Canva—after looking at Figma, holy crap—they're going to try to IPO as soon as possible,' says Felix Wang, Managing Director and Partner at Hedgeye Risk Management, who is not a Canva investor. Canva, which was recently valued at $37 billion during a share buy back, did not respond to Fortune's request for comment. Wang and others note that the surge in Figma's price is, in many ways, not actually driven by Figma. Rather, the market is at an all-time high, causing retail trader demand for companies new to market. 'They don't even know this company, but they know it's a new company,' says Wang of retail traders investing in Figma. 'They're going to put some money into it, and then, more interestingly: they're going to show it off on social media.' As Figma is to Canva; NuBank is to Revolut, reasons Primary's Shuman. He looks at fintech NuBank, which is up around 13% from its early 2025 IPO and thinks that Revolut, which has a very similar business model, could copycat. Revolut told Fortune in a statement: 'our focus is not on if or when we IPO, but on continuing to expand the business, building new products, and providing better and cheaper services to serve our growing global customer base.' Another potential IPO candidate in the near-future is chipmaker Cerebras, says Primary's Shuman, who invests in vertical AI, B2B, SMB and finance and defense companies but has no stake in Cerebras or Revolut. (Cerebras filed an S-1 in September 2024 but its IPO was delayed by regulators concerned about a $335 million investment by UAE-based G42. Now, it's been cleared by regulators for a public market listing, but the company has held off on an IPO as it fundraises $1 billion, reports The Information.) Many companies, including the largest and hottest private company OpenAI (which just nabbed a $300 billion valuation, per the New York Times), have significant incentives to remain private. This is because they can avoid public scrutiny that arises from disclosures required of public companies and have access to significant private capital for liquidity infusions that are often essential. Yet, the fact that behemoths like OpenAI, Stripe ($91 billion valuation) and SpaceX ($400 billion valuation) are private may even be a hidden cost for the public market. 'I'm going to get philosophical,' says Forerunner's Green. 'Part of the public market was created so the broader population could participate in the economy and in the growth of the economy; it wasn't meant to sit in a few people's hands.' One behemoth may be entering the stock market limelight. Anduril, the defense tech company that nabbed a $30.5 billion valuation on its Series G, has incentives to remain private due to the nature of its business. But Pitchbook's Stanford predicts it to be the next tech IPO. In addition to Anduril's CEO announcing it will 'definitely' become publicly traded, its value proposition is core to Trump Administration priorities in security and defense, which could make it a hot pick for investors, Stanford reasons. 'Other than that,' he says the list of potential IPO candidates these days is long: 'There's probably about 300 other companies that it could be.' This story was originally featured on Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Bloomberg
13 hours ago
- Bloomberg
Palantir Price Is a Cause for Pause, Analyst Luria Warns
CC-Transcript 00:00All right, Gil. I mean, no one doubts the growth story for this stock. I guess what some people might doubt is a p a forward p e ratio, more than 200 a price to sales ratio at 70, 80 times sales. When you look at the valuation, do you does it give you pause at all, Gil? Yeah. Significant pause. This is unprecedented valuation for a company of this size. We we haven't really seen that for, for several years. In 2021 there was a period where some high growth software companies were trading these types of valuation, but nothing ever since. And right now, right now, Palantir trades at a significant premium to any other software company, including Figma that just went public. That's probably the closest, maybe at 40 or 50 times revenue with similar growth rates, maybe even slightly faster growth rates, which is to say the growth of Palantir is remarkable. It's the fastest of any other software company except for Figma at this scale. Their profitability is tremendous. They have more than 40% operating margins, which is better than any other company that's growing anywhere near this. So they're deserving of a premium valuation. But what a lot of institutional investors struggle with is at how much of a premium are willing to pay and how sustainable that premium is if they have any type of hiccup any time soon. Is there any reason why investors should maybe give this stock a little bit more of a pass, partly because of the relationship that the founders and some of the lead investors have with the current administration? The idea that at least in certain realms of government contracting, it seems that kind of have the market all to itself. I mean, there is certainly a moat here for this business. That's exactly right. And that's why investors like this story so much. And in fact, individual investors have led the way on this in understanding that Palantir has a huge opportunity ahead of it. On the government side, you mentioned a couple of the big advantages. One is that the government, by and large, and especially the Department of Defense and related agencies, are trying to move to dual source software, which is what they call it when it's a commercial vendor developing the software off the shelf for them. And let's not forget, most of the success has actually been on the commercial side where they've been able to really have a tremendous product market fit for what they do. This is the company that is helping now numerous enterprises create an AI strategy, solve the two big problems, which is how do you at once able to bring tools off the shelf and a framework off the shelf while at the same time bringing in the professional services to make it happen for these enterprise customers? Many of their customers were struggling to figure out how to make their data work for them to make air applications and partners solving that problem for many companies, which is really a standout performance right now. Gil What is more valuable to investors growing that commercial business or growing that government business? The potential for the commercial business is greater. That is a much greater market that's growing a lot faster. And so I think that a lot of the excitement is can that business become even bigger than the government business? But the government business, as you were pointing out earlier, they they are very entrenched. They have a big lead. There's very few companies that can do anything remotely like what they can do, where on the commercial side, it is far more competitive. There's a lot of other companies trying to help commercial customers with their A.I. strategy. You know, I look at the free cash flow and expect it to be about 35% of revenue, about $330 million. What is the company going to do with all that cash? What do investors want to see it do with it? Well, they're using some of it even at these rates. They're using some of it to buy back stock. There's not a lot that they need to acquire. Again, they have the product. They need to address the market. So they're just building a fortress balance sheet. They're actually getting great returns on it. That helps with the profitability. And so I wouldn't necessarily expect for them to need to go do a big acquisition. It means they can handle any project, large or small, within government. So it increases the ceiling of the type of projects that they can be the lead contractor on. So it's very much playing to their strength. And again, they're even using some of it to buy back stock, even at these valuation.
Yahoo
14 hours ago
- Yahoo
Figma's Pursuit of Long-Term Backers Kept IPO Price in Check
(Bloomberg) -- Figma Inc.'s record-breaking debut gains are cooling, but they have still handed a windfall to investors including the select institutions that were able to get their hands on the IPO shares, sparking debate over whether the stock was priced too low. Behind the scenes, the desire to court long-term investors influenced the outcome. PATH Train Service Resumes After Fire at Jersey City Station Seeking Relief From Heat and Smog, Cities Follow the Wind Chicago Curbs Hiring, Travel to Tackle $1 Billion Budget Hole Mayor Asked to Explain $1.4 Billion of Wasted Johannesburg Funds The stock's 250% jump in its debut session — the biggest ever first-day pop from a $1 billion-plus US IPO — meant the company and the selling shareholders effectively handed over more than $3.5 billion of value to investors that were able to get shares. Shares of Figma fell 27.4% to $88.60 each on Monday, giving the company a fully diluted value of over $50 billion. Even after the pull-back, the stock trades at more than two and a half times its IPO price. Figma and the banks considered pricing the shares above the ultimate $33 per share set in the IPO, according to a person familiar with the matter. In the end, Dylan Field, Figma's co-founder and chief executive officer, wanted to bring on board certain long-term institutional shareholders, and Field signed off on the final $33 price, the person said, asking not to be identified as the information isn't public. A Figma spokesperson declined to comment. Field didn't immediately respond to a request for comment via his LinkedIn. Representatives for the lead banks on the deal, Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Allen & Co. and JPMorgan Chase & Co., declined to comment. With shares oversubscribed by more than 40 times, a blockbuster debut was by no means unpredictable. Had Figma and Field opted for a higher price, however, some institutional investors may not have been willing to buy the shares. Firms with a long-term investment strategy often base their view of the stock on fundamentals, and determine their price expectations in reference to the valuations of comparable software firms. These investors are typically the most coveted backers in a first-time share sale, as they tend to bring price stability. The banks pitched Figma's IPO valuation in line with highly valued software companies such as Snowflake Inc. and Datadog Inc. that trade at forward enterprise value to sales multiples ranging from 10 to 15 times, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Silicon Valley venture capitalist Bill Gurley, general partner of Benchmark, was among the most vocal critics of the pricing. Figma's day-one pop highlighted the 'gross inefficiency in the modern IPO process,' he wrote Thursday in a post on X. A frequent commentator on the phenomenon, Gurley has long advocated for companies to pursue direct listings – raising no money and letting the market determine the share price — to avoid leaving large sums on the table. Gurley wasn't listed as a shareholder in Figma's filings. Several factors contributed to Figma's IPO surge. During the process of gathering orders for stock, the banks asked for investors to submit a specific number of shares at a specific price, rather than market orders, Bloomberg News has reported – a method providing more detailed information on the prices that investors were prepared to pay. Another clear contributor to Figma's outsized pop was the size of the offering. The number of shares sold, including the over-allotment shares, represented just 7% of the outstanding stock, a relatively small amount though not unheard of among hot tech IPOs. That may have left retail investors largely empty-handed. In social media posts, several users complained that after putting in orders with Robinhood Markets Inc., they received only one Figma share each. A representative for Robinhood said in response to a query from Bloomberg that the company distributes shares based on supply, optimizing to give as many people access as possible. Ultimately, Figma's challenge in satisfying the competing interests in the IPO was a good problem to have, said Matt Sperling, chairman of capital markets at Tigress Financial Partners. 'Arguably, the right fiduciary decision is what the company did,' Sperling said. 'Namely, push price far enough to ensure you will have high-quality owners in your register, knowing there will be a pop that ultimately also attracts strong PR for the company as well, about how great the IPO was.' (Updates with closing price in third paragraph.) AI Flight Pricing Can Push Travelers to the Limit of Their Ability to Pay How Podcast-Obsessed Tech Investors Made a New Media Industry Government Steps Up Campaign Against Business School Diversity What Happens to AI Startups When Their Founders Jump Ship for Big Tech Everyone Loves to Hate Wind Power. Scotland Found a Way to Make It Pay Off ©2025 Bloomberg L.P.
