Slide 15 — Portfolio Snapshot

What this slide is

A categorical view of the portfolio. Six categories × ~5 companies each = ~30 visible logos (a curated subset of the 60+ total). Categories cover infrastructure, chronic conditions, AI/clinical, prevention, FemTech/TabooTech, and telehealth.

Why it’s here

This slide answers two LP questions at once:

1. Diversification — Are you concentrated in one bet, or spread across the HealthTech surface? The six categories say spread.
2. Thesis breadth — Where do you see opportunity? The category names are themselves a thesis statement.

Notably, the categories aren’t generic (“Series A SaaS”); they’re sector-specific HealthTech subdomains. That signals expertise in the domain.

The footer-statement ties the breadth to a value claim: our well-balanced portfolio of 60+ companies addresses the most pressing challenges in global healthcare. “Well-balanced” is the word doing work — diversified-on-purpose, not diversified-because-undisciplined.

What’s most important to surface

The six category labels are the thesis. B2B SaaS & Infrastructure / Chronic Conditions / AI & Clinical Decision Support / Prevention, Wellness & Longevity / FemTech & TabooTech / Telehealth & Hybrid Care. These should be visually prominent — they’re more important than any individual logo.

FemTech & TabooTech is the most brand-revealing category name. Most VC firms shy away from “taboo” subjects (sexual health, mental health, women’s health, urological/gut/skin issues). Calm/Storm is putting it on the cover slide of their portfolio view as a positive identifier. This is brand positioning — they want to be known as the firm that backs unfashionable categories. Worth highlighting visually.

LP-recognizable names: Nelly (German healthcare admin SaaS, well-funded), Lindus Health (UK clinical-trial platform), 9am Health (Frank Westermann’s company from slide 13, founder-backed). These are the names that get written down in LP memos.

The 60+ in the footer is the same number as slide 4 pillar 1 (“60+ The largest European HealthTech portfolio”) and slide 14’s stat. Three slides reinforce the same number — that’s deliberate. It’s the firm’s anchor metric for portfolio scale.

The category mix tells a story about category coverage — which is itself the diversification argument. Two AI-adjacent categories (AI & Clinical Decision Support / B2B SaaS & Infrastructure). Three condition/wellness categories (Chronic, Prevention, FemTech). One delivery-model category (Telehealth & Hybrid Care). That breakdown is balanced — no one category dominates.

Composition risk

This is a logo-grid slide. Source uses a flat 2-column × 3-row layout with a category header per box and 5–6 logos inside. Without the actual logos, the slide collapses to a list of company names by category — much less visually persuasive. This is the second slide (after slide 12) most hurt by Phase 1’s no-imagery rule. Logos here are not decoration; they’re the point. Consider whether the categories can carry alone (with company names as text), or whether this is a slide where a few well-known logos should be inlined as text-marks (e.g., “Nelly · Lindus · Foundation”) to preserve some brand recognition.

Visual hierarchy I’d suggest

1. Headline + subhead
2. Six category banners — equal weight, visually punchy (these are the slide’s content)
3. Logo grids per category (or, in Phase 1, company-name lists with the most-recognized names emphasized)
4. Footer-statement with “well-balanced” and “60+” called out