Institutional Capital Pivots to Dual-Use and Defence-Adjacent Technology

Twelve billion dollars. That is how much venture capital flowed into defence technology startups in 2025 alone — nearly three times the total from 2020, per S&P Global Market Intelligence. Record-breaking, yes. But the more telling number is not the total. It is who is supplying it.

The Institutional Reallocation — By the Numbers

The scale shift becomes visible when you separate defence-tech venture capital into its sources. Deal-level data from PitchBook shows VC fundraising for dedicated defence funds hit $7.1 billion in 2023, reset to $3.3 billion across nine funds in 2025, and is now reconcentrating, with fewer larger funds backed by institutional LPs rather than the angel-heavy syndicates that characterised the 2020–2022 wave.

What Changed — The Three Forces Reshaping the Asset Class

Institutional capital did not suddenly discover defence technology. What changed is the entry architecture — the combination of vehicles, regulatory clarity, and exit pathways that makes a sector institutionally addressable. Three forces explain the timing.

1. Government procurement reform. The US Department of Defense has, over the past five years, created systematic pathways for commercial technology companies to compete for major programmes — through OTA (Other Transaction Authority) agreements, the Defense Innovation Unit, and SBIR/STTR grants that now routinely lead to production contracts. Europe is following with the EU Defence Innovation Scheme and the Defence Equity Facility. A startup can now win a defence contract without becoming a traditional defence prime — and that creates the commercial traction institutional investors require. As the BMNT guide on investing in dual-use companies notes, "commercial traction covers two aspects: can the company sell, and what is the maturity of the market?" Government procurement reform addresses both.

2. The dual-use bridge. The most important structural change is the expansion of what counts as "defence technology." A generation ago, defence investing meant tanks, missiles, and munitions, products with no civilian market, limited exit pathways, and ESG complications. Today, most defence-relevant innovation sits in dual-use layers: AI-powered satellite analysis, autonomous underwater vehicles, cybersecurity platforms, quantum sensing, directed energy, and industrial robotics. These technologies have both military and commercial applications, meaning they can scale in civilian markets while serving defence customers. A&O Shearman's June 2026 report "Resilient returns: investing in defense" frames dual-use as the entry point for private capital, noting that "dual-use companies are often easier to reconcile with limited partner ESG mandates and ethical sensitivities than direct munitions manufacturers."

3. ESG recalibration. The ESG objection to defence investing was never absolute, but for years it acted as a practical barrier: institutional LPs with explicit weapons or controversial-weapons exclusions in their fund documentation could not commit to dedicated defence funds. That barrier is eroding. The European Commission clarified in 2025 that defence is not inherently incompatible with sustainable finance frameworks under SFDR or the EU Taxonomy. As the YPOG law firm briefing on navigating defence-tech investments puts it: "The EU's sustainable finance framework does not prohibit investments in defence or dual-use technologies, but places limits on controversial weapons." This distinction — between legitimate defence technology and controversial weapons — is what enables institutional capital to enter without breaching its mandates.

What Is Growing — New Fund Structures and Anchor Commitments

The concrete signal of institutional commitment is the fund structures being built specifically for this asset class. In the last six months alone:

These are not isolated allocations. The InvestEU Defence Equity Facility — a €175 million fund-of-funds — has already deployed €161 million across nine fund managers in six European countries, with an expected total mobilisation of over €500 million. As we wrote in July, the question of whether defence tech represented a bubble or a structural shift was already being answered by the data. Its successor, DEF 2.0, is targeting €1 billion. Estonia's SmartCap has launched a dedicated €100 million defence fund. BGK plans to deploy PLN 1.1 billion in Polish strategic sectors including dual-use technologies. As the Vestbee dual-use founders handbook notes, "institutional capital acts as a catalyst, with every euro of public investment typically mobilising five euros of private capital."

What Is Falling — The Barrier That Defined the Old Era

The biggest barrier to institutional defence investing is regulatory complexity, not return. Foreign ownership, control, or influence (FOCI) rules, ITAR classification, export administration regulations, and foreign direct investment screening create compliance burdens that many institutional investors have historically preferred to avoid entirely.

That barrier is now being engineered around, not removed. The A&O Shearman report notes that "private investors are increasingly splitting portfolio companies into military and non-military divisions to maximise exit value and broaden acquisition options." Structurally, the industry is learning to compartmentalise the defence exposure so that institutional LPs can invest in the commercial layer without triggering FOCI complications at the portfolio-company level.

The Innovation Attorney's analysis of defence-tech cap tables highlights the practical challenge: "A U.S. venture fund whose limited partner base includes a foreign sovereign wealth fund or state-owned pension can create FOCI concerns at the portfolio company level through attribution of the fund's LP composition." This means sovereign wealth funds, typically the largest and most patient institutional capital pools, face the steepest regulatory friction. The firms that solve this structuring problem are the ones that will capture the mandate flow.

What Is New — The Generational Fund Architecture

The newest development is the emergence of dedicated defence and dual-use growth funds as a distinct asset class. The AVP-Earlybird E2D fund is emblematic: it started as a standalone €500 million vehicle with a dedicated team, explicit dual-use mandate, and institutionally sized tickets averaging €25 million rather than a thematic sleeve within a larger VC strategy. This architecture did not exist three years ago.

Dakota Marketplace's 2026 guide to the top 10 defence and dual-use investors identifies a new pattern: "Firms were included based on a proven ability to help companies navigate government procurement, compliance, and fielding, and the ability to bridge commercial scale with national security requirements." The investors being rewarded are the ones with the best integration capability rather than the best deal flow. That, more than any single funding round, is the structural change institutional capital is betting on.

Comparison — Defence Tech vs Traditional Institutional Allocations

Sources