Skip to content 
Raising finance for a digital business is not the same problem it was even five years ago. The mainstream venture capital narrative – pitch a deck, raise a round, give up equity, scale fast – was always one option among several, and it was never the right one for most businesses. What has changed recently is that the alternatives have multiplied. There are now more credible ways to fund a digital company than at any point in my career, which is both good news and a problem. The good news is that founders have real choice. The problem is that most founders do not understand the trade-offs between the options well enough to choose the right one for their specific business.
This article is a plain-language map of the funding landscape as I see it in 2026, drawn from twenty years of running, advising and investing in digital businesses. It is not a complete list – finance is creative and there are always edge structures – but it covers the six options most digital businesses should be considering, what each one actually costs, what each one is best suited to, and the question to ask yourself before choosing between them.
The question to ask before you choose any option
Before you can sensibly compare funding routes, you need to be honest about one question. What kind of company are you actually trying to build? The funding option that is right for a venture-scale business aiming for a billion-pound exit in seven years is wildly wrong for a steady, profitable lifestyle business doing two million in revenue. The funding option that is right for an asset-heavy SaaS company with predictable monthly recurring revenue is wrong for a content business with seasonal cash flow.
If you cannot answer this question precisely, no funding decision you make will be defensible. The frameworks I will lay out below are useful, but they all assume you have done this work first. If you have not, do that work before you talk to a single funder of any kind. The mismatch between funding type and business type is the single most expensive mistake I see digital founders make, and it tends to be irreversible.
Option 1: Bootstrapping
The first and most underrated option is not raising money at all. Bootstrapping – funding the business from revenue, with founder savings or personal contributions – is the route that produced most of the digital businesses I have personally been part of. Both Custard and PR Fire were bootstrapped to scale, and the strategic flexibility that gave me at every subsequent decision point is hard to overstate.
The advantages of bootstrapping are dilution-free ownership, complete control of strategic decisions, the discipline that comes with having to make every pound work, and a much simpler relationship with the eventual exit. The disadvantages are slower growth than the venture path, a real cap on how much capital you can deploy at once, and personal financial risk that the founder bears alone.
Bootstrapping is the right answer for businesses where the time-to-revenue is short, the unit economics are good from early on, and the founder is willing to grow at the rate the cash flow allows. It is the wrong answer for businesses that genuinely need significant up-front capital to reach a usable product, or where the market is winner-take-most and being second is being out.
Option 2: Angel investment
The next step up the capital scale is angel investment – typically high-net-worth individuals putting in tens to hundreds of thousands of pounds in exchange for equity, usually at an early stage of the business. Angels are the natural funding source for digital businesses that are too early for institutional capital but need more than the founders can put in personally.
The good angels are not just capital. They bring sector experience, contacts, and a willingness to be useful between board meetings in ways that institutional investors typically cannot match. The bad angels bring money tied up in unhelpful constraints, opinions about a business they do not deeply understand, and a slow drag on every subsequent fundraising conversation.
My strong advice on angel rounds is to filter ruthlessly for fit before money. The price you pay for angel capital is not just the equity dilution. It is the time you will spend managing the relationship for the next decade. An angel who is a poor fit at fifty thousand pounds is more expensive than a great angel at one hundred and fifty thousand. Choose people you would be happy to be on a board with for ten years, because in effect you will be.
Option 3: Venture capital
Venture capital is the funding route that gets the most attention and is the right answer for the smallest minority of digital businesses. VC is structured around a specific kind of company: high growth potential, large addressable market, defensible technology or model, and a credible path to a return that justifies the fund’s mathematics. If your business does not realistically fit that profile, VC will either decline to fund you or, worse, fund you and then push the business in a direction it should not go.
The honest reality of VC is that it is excellent for the businesses that fit and brutal for the ones that do not. The pace, the dilution, the governance, the focus on growth over profitability and the ten-year fund timelines all make sense if you are building something that needs to be a billion-pound outcome. They make no sense if you are building a fifty million pound outcome that takes fifteen years.
If you are considering VC, the most important question is not whether you can raise it. It is whether you should. Founders sometimes interpret an offer as validation. It is not validation. It is a specific deal proposal with a specific shape, and the shape may not match the business you actually want to build.
Option 4: Debt and traditional lending
Debt finance – bank loans, growth loans, invoice financing, asset-based lending – is the most under-considered option in my experience working with digital founders. Debt is non-dilutive, it is increasingly available to digital businesses with predictable revenue, and it can be the right answer for a stage of growth where the cost of equity is too high but the cost of debt is bearable.
The shift in the lending market over the last decade is that lenders have become much more comfortable with digital business models. Banks now lend against recurring software revenue, against marketing spend, against e-commerce inventory in flexible ways. Specialist lenders have appeared in categories like SaaS and content. The terms are not always cheap, but they are non-dilutive, and for a profitable business that wants to accelerate without giving up equity, the maths often works.
The risk to manage with debt is, of course, that you have to pay it back regardless of business performance. For digital businesses with volatile revenue, debt is a tool to use carefully. For digital businesses with predictable monthly contracts, debt is one of the most efficient forms of capital available.
Option 5: Revenue-based financing
Revenue-based financing – sometimes called RBF or revenue share funding – is the option that has grown most in the last five years, and the one most worth understanding if you are operating a digital business with consistent revenue but lumpy growth needs. The structure is straightforward: a funder advances you capital, and you repay them as a fixed percentage of revenue until a multiple of the original advance has been paid back.
The appeal of RBF for digital businesses is alignment. Repayments scale with revenue, which means a slow month does not break the company. There is no dilution, no board seat, no governance. The funder is incentivised to help you grow, because their return depends on your revenue. For e-commerce businesses, content businesses and SaaS businesses with predictable revenue but uneven cash flow, RBF can be the cleanest funding structure available.
The cost is real, however. The all-in cost of RBF capital, expressed as an effective annual rate, is typically materially higher than traditional debt and lower than equity. Whether it works for your business depends on whether the use of funds genuinely produces enough additional revenue, fast enough, to justify that cost. Used to fund growth that has demonstrable returns, it is excellent. Used to fund operations or stagnant businesses, it digs a hole.
Option 6: Asset-backed structures and sale-leaseback
The final option is the most specialised and the least understood, but it deserves a place in the list because it is increasingly relevant to digital businesses with significant digital assets. Asset-backed funding involves raising capital against specific digital assets – premium domains, content websites, audience properties – either by borrowing against them, selling them and licensing them back, or partnering with a holding entity that takes ownership of the asset while leaving operational control with the founder.
This option only works for businesses that genuinely have separable, valuable assets, and it is rarely the right structure for the operating company itself. Where it earns its place is for founders who have accumulated valuable digital property over years and want to unlock that value without selling the operating business or diluting equity in it. As the digital asset market has matured, the structures here have become more sophisticated and more accessible.
Honourable mentions: structures worth knowing about
Beyond the six main options, there are a handful of structures that are worth being aware of even if they will not be central to most digital businesses’ fundraising plan.
Equity crowdfunding has matured into a legitimate route for consumer-facing digital businesses with a strong customer brand. The cost is not really cheaper than institutional equity once the platform fee, the investor relations overhead and the future fundraising friction are accounted for, but the marketing benefit of having a thousand small investors who are also evangelists can be significant for the right kind of business. EIS and SEIS reliefs in the UK make this structure particularly attractive for early-stage founders raising from individual UK investors.
Strategic investment from a corporate partner – typically a customer, supplier or platform that has reason to support your growth – is another structure that gets less attention than it deserves. The capital is usually equity, but the strategic value of the partnership often dwarfs the cash. The trade-off is that strategic investors can constrain future options, particularly if the partnership creates a perceived dependency that makes a future acquisition by a competitor harder.
Founder secondary – selling some of your existing equity to incoming investors during a primary round – is a structure that is increasingly available to founders of profitable digital businesses. It is rarely the primary funding route, but it sits alongside one. The ability to take some money off the table without selling the business outright has changed the calculus for a lot of founders, particularly those whose net worth is otherwise concentrated in the company.
How to actually choose
Now the maths. With six options on the table, the question becomes how you actually choose between them. The framework I use with founders has three filters.
The first filter is fit with the business. Does the business have the growth profile, the unit economics and the market shape to support the kind of finance you are considering? A bootstrap-shaped business taking VC is just as wrong as a VC-shaped business taking traditional debt. Be honest about which kind of company you are.
The second filter is cost of capital, fully loaded. The headline number is rarely the real cost. Equity dilution today must be discounted to its likely value at exit. Debt must be modelled against the worst-quarter scenario. RBF must be modelled at the cap, not the average. Real cost of capital is the number you compare across options, not the rate.
The third filter is optionality. Whatever you choose, you should choose it knowing what your next funding round will need to look like, and what doors you are closing or opening with this decision. Some funding structures preserve flexibility. Some lock you into a path that only one kind of exit can satisfy. The right answer is rarely the cheapest option in isolation – it is the one that keeps the most useful options open later.
If you would like an outside view on which of these options is the right next move for your specific business, the Finance Raising page on this site explains how I work with founders on exactly this question. The capital landscape has improved dramatically for digital businesses in the last few years. Most founders I meet are eligible for more options than they realise. The trick is not finding capital. It is choosing the right kind for the company you actually want to build.
