12 Best Medtech & Medical Device M&A Advisors in 2026 (QMSR-Era Bench)

12 Best Medtech & Medical Device M&A Advisors in 2026 (QMSR-Era Bench)

Last updated: September 2026 · Last verified: September 2026

TL;DR. In a medical device sale the asset the buyer pays for is a set of regulatory files, and each one moves by a different mechanic on a different clock, the Regulatory-File Gate: a 510(k) transfers by the new holder listing under the original K-number, with no FDA submission and no FDA obligation to update its public database (FDA draft guidance, June 5, 2025); a PMA transfers by amendment and needs a pre-approval supplement before the buyer moves your plant (FDA PMA FAQ); the QMSR has run since February 2, 2026 (89 FR 7496); and EU legacy certificates expire December 31, 2027 and 2028 (Regulation (EU) 2023/607). Ranked on dated adviser-of-record evidence: middle market Piper Sandler, William Blair and Outcome Capital; large-cap J.P. Morgan, Goldman Sachs, Perella Weinberg Partners, Citi and Jefferies; medical-adjacent Baird, Houlihan Lokey and Stifel; capital-markets-led Leerink Partners. PwC counts $36.5 billion of medtech deal value in the first half of 2026 after "a decade-high 2025" (June 17, 2026). I run Peony, the data room 6,800+ teams use for processes like these; we are not an adviser.

Why is "medtech M&A" three markets, and which one are you in?

Because a finished-device company, a contract manufacturer and a scaled public platform are bought by three different buyer sets, priced on three different things and, on the 2025-26 tape, advised by three different sets of banks. I'm Sean Yu, co-founder of Peony, a data room company. I have built and watched thousands of data rooms across my career — about 1,000 of those when I was an investor at two funds with a combined $6.3 billion in AUM, and the rest across the 6,800+ teams Peony serves today, where the founders we work with have raised over $18 billion to date. This guide is for the owner of a commercial-stage 510(k) or PMA device company, the owner of a device contract manufacturer, CDMO or OEM component business, and the board or corp-dev team of a scaled platform reading who sat on each side of the filed deals. Until now this demand landed on our Boston, San Francisco and Minneapolis city guides, because no dedicated page existed.

A medtech M&A advisor is an investment bank or sell-side boutique that runs the sale, carve-out or recapitalization of a medical device business on the owner's behalf: positioning the regulatory file and the reimbursement story, building the buyer list of strategics, sponsor platforms and supply-chain consolidators, and managing the FDA, notified-body and CMS calendar that decides when a deal can actually close. This post sits under the best M&A advisors hub, deepens the medtech section of our best healthcare M&A advisors guide, and mirrors the behavioral health and dental spokes; the document-level playbook is our medical device M&A data room guide.

I built the bench on one standard, the Adviser-of-Record Ledger: a firm earns a rank only if I could read its medtech adviser-of-record credit in a primary source, a party's press release, an SEC filing or the firm's own dated release, for a 2024-26 transaction; where the evidence is trade press only, buy-side only or medical-adjacent, the profile says so. Every middle-market and boutique firm on the bench was also run through the SEC's adviser-info firm search on September 16, 2026.

How does the Regulatory-File Gate work when you sell a medical device company?

It works like this: the value of a device company sits in files that regulators hold or supervise, and none of them transfers the way a share certificate does. Call it the Regulatory-File Gate, a Peony-original frame. Six files move on six mechanics, and your adviser's job is to have modelled all six before the LOI, because the one you forget is the one that sets the closing date.

Does a 510(k) transfer, and what does FDA actually do?

It transfers, and FDA does almost nothing, which is the part sellers get wrong. FDA's draft guidance of June 5, 2025, "Transfer of a Premarket Notification (510(k)) Clearance – Questions and Answers," docket FDA-2024-D-1528, is a draft, so treat every line below as FDA's current thinking rather than a rule. Its logic starts from one sentence: "FDA believes there can be only one 510(k) holder for a device at a time." When a clearance is sold, "the new 510(k) holder must list their device in the FDA Unified Registration and Listing System (FURLS)/ Device Registration and Listing Module (DRLM)" under "the original FDA-assigned premarket submission number," and if the device "is not significantly changed or modified in design, components, method of manufacture, or intended use, the new 510(k) holder does not need to submit a new 510(k)." A new owner or operator "must register via FURLS/DRLM within 30 days," and newly acquired listings are reported each fiscal year between October 1 and December 31. The sentence that matters for diligence is about FDA's own database: "FDA is not required to update registration or listing information in response to such notifications," after noting that it "commonly receives requests" asking it to. So the public 510(k) database keeps showing the original applicant, and a buyer builds the chain of title from the purchase agreement and the seller's listing history, not from FDA's website. Two more lines belong in every device purchase agreement: the previous holder that "ceases to perform an activity on or to the device... must update such device listing," and a device "not included in a list required by section 510(j), is misbranded."

How does a PMA transfer, and why is it the deal-timing asymmetry?

By a filing, with a pre-approval gate attached, and that is the Transfer Asymmetry every device adviser should model. FDA's PMA FAQ answers "Can the sponsor sell the PMA to another company?" directly: "Yes, a PMA may be sold to another company. The sponsor must submit a PMA amendment to notify FDA of the new owner... The PMA reference number will remain the same." The former owner provides a letter, "preferably on the letterhead of the former owner and signed by an appropriate company official," and the amendment states the effective date, the new owner's commitment to the conditions of approval, and whether it holds a complete copy of the PMA or needs one from FDA's files. Then the gate: "A change in manufacturing or product sterilization site and certain changes to the device, labeling, or packaging require prior FDA approval through a PMA supplement," and where changes require a supplement under section 814.39 "the new owner must submit an appropriate PMA supplement and obtain written FDA approval before marketing the device." Even a trade-name change is a supplement with prior approval. A buyer that plans to move a PMA device into its own plant after closing is carrying an approval gate that a 510(k) buyer is not; put it in the closing conditions, the integration plan and the fee tail before you sign.

What did the QMSR change on February 2, 2026?

It replaced the quality-system vocabulary your buyer's regulatory team learned on. The final rule "Medical Devices; Quality System Regulation Amendments" was published February 2, 2024 at 89 FR 7496 and took effect February 2, 2026, amending the device CGMP requirements "by incorporating by reference an international standard specific for device quality management systems." On the eCFR text current as of September 1, 2026, 21 CFR Part 820 is six sections long, 820.1, 820.3, 820.7, 820.10, 820.35 and 820.45, with Subparts C through O reserved; section 820.7(b) incorporates ISO 13485:2016, third edition, March 1, 2016; and the strings "design history file" and "device master record" appear zero times. What appears instead is the medical device file, which section 820.3(a) uses to define rework. Section 820.10 requires a manufacturer to "document a quality management system that complies with the applicable requirements of ISO 13485," to document a UDI-assignment system under Part 830, to report complaints that meet Part 803 criteria, and to apply design and development controls to class II, class III and listed class I devices including "devices automated with computer software." And section 820.3(b) is the sentence contract manufacturers should read twice: a manufacturer "includes, but is not limited to, those who perform the functions of contract sterilization, installation, relabeling, remanufacturing, repacking, or specification development." The room-level consequence is in our medical device M&A data room guide: label every folder under both the QMSR term and the retired DHF, DMR and DHR terms, because half your reviewers trained on each.

What do the EU MDR legacy-certificate dates do to a 2026 sale?

They put a hard date on the marketing window of any product still sold on an old directive certificate, and they add a condition that collides with the buyer's plans. Regulation (EU) 2023/607 of 15 March 2023, published in the Official Journal on 20 March 2023, rewrote Article 120 of the MDR. New Article 120(3a): devices with a certificate issued under Directive 90/385/EEC or 93/42/EEC "may be placed on the market or put into service until the following dates: (a) 31 December 2027, for all class III devices, and for class IIb implantable devices except sutures, staples, dental fillings, dental braces, tooth crowns, screws, wedges, plates, wires, pins, clips and connectors; (b) 31 December 2028, for class IIb devices other than those covered by point (a)..., for class IIa devices, and for class I devices placed on the market in sterile condition or having a measuring function." Article 120(3b) gives the same 2028 date to class I devices up-classified into notified-body review, with a declaration of conformity before 26 May 2021. The conditions in Article 120(3c) are the diligence list: the devices "continue to comply" with the directive; "there are no significant changes in the design and intended purpose"; a quality management system under Article 10(9) and a formal application to a notified body, both "no later than 26 May 2024"; and a signed written agreement with the notified body "no later than 26 September 2024." Article 120(3f) gave class III custom-made implantables until 26 May 2026, already passed. Call the second condition the No-Significant-Change Collision: the extension that keeps your EU revenue alive is conditioned on not changing the design or intended purpose, which is exactly what a strategic buyer intends to do after closing. Nothing later than 2023/607 was opened for this guide; do not assume a further extension, and never repeat the pre-2023 cut-off of 26 May 2024 as the current date.

Why does Open Payments show up in device diligence?

Because your relationships with the surgeons who use your product are already on a public CMS database, and the buyer inherits the reporting obligation. Under Social Security Act section 1128G, implemented at 42 CFR 403.900 to 403.914, payments and "other transfers of value provided by an applicable manufacturer to a covered recipient during the preceding calendar year... must be reported by the applicable manufacturer to CMS on an annual basis" (403.904(a)(1)), "by the 90th day of each subsequent calendar year" (403.908(a)). A covered device is one for which Medicare or Medicaid payment is available and which "by law, requires premarket approval by or premarket notification to the FDA," so 510(k) and PMA devices are in and exempt class I devices are out. Each record must flag a payment to a physician "who holds an ownership or investment interest... in the applicable manufacturer" (403.904(c)(11)), the categories include "Royalty or license," "Current or prospective ownership or investment interest" and "Acquisitions," and reported records may not be altered "unless an error is discovered." The diligence step, our inference from the rule: the buyer reconciles your Open Payments submissions to your fair-market-value-documented consulting and royalty contracts and to the cap table's physician-owner positions, because after closing it is the applicable manufacturer for your covered devices and its filing for the closing year covers your pre-closing months. I do not quote civil-money-penalty amounts; they are adjusted annually and were not opened here.

What happens to UDI and GUDID when the labeler changes?

The labeler record moves on the shortest clock on the list. Under 21 CFR 830.330(b), "the labeler of a device shall submit to FDA an update to the information required by § 830.310 whenever the information changes," no later than the date a device is first labeled with the changed information, or within 10 business days if the change does not appear on the label; FDA's 510(k) draft guidance cross-references the same duty for a change in "the name of the labeler." Whether a new labeler needs new device identifiers depends on the issuing agency's rules, not opened here. Reimbursement is the seventh file, carried only as practitioner framing because no CMS rule was opened: a buyer underwrites whether your revenue depends on one physician-payment code, one facility bundle or one coverage decision, and whether any is scheduled to change. Confirm every row in this section with regulatory counsel before an LOI.

Which advisers actually closed the medtech and medical device deals on the tape, 2024-26?

Twelve transactions where I could read the adviser's role in a party's release, the firm's own release or, where marked, dated trade press. The Adviser-of-Record Ledger is the whole ranking; everything else is commentary. Status is as of September 16, 2026.

Bottom line: the sell side of the two largest deals on the tape belongs to Goldman Sachs and Perella Weinberg Partners; the only bank with repeat, dated device sell-side evidence in the middle market is Piper Sandler; and the deals under $1 billion where I could read an adviser's name are more often contract manufacturers and component makers going to sponsors than finished-device companies going to strategics. Our healthcare hub also records William Blair advising Azenta on the US$63 million sale of B Medical Systems to THELEMA, announced December 29, 2025 and not re-verified this pass.

Most device deals name no sell-side bank at all. Masimo's own adviser on the Danaher sale, Boston Scientific's on Penumbra and American Industrial Partners' on Avanos are not in the releases I could open. A list that says a firm "advised on" any of these without a release, a filing or a dated tombstone is asserting, not reporting.

Who are the 12 medtech M&A advisors on this bench, and how are they ranked?

By dated medtech adviser-of-record evidence first and by relevance to an owner-seller second. A party's release or the firm's own dated release outranks trade press, which outranks a sector page; repeat sell-side evidence at the size this guide's readers sell at outranks a single credit at $10 billion, which is why Piper Sandler and William Blair sit above Goldman Sachs and Perella Weinberg Partners, and why the large-cap tier reads as the banks across the table below roughly $1 billion rather than your hire; a buy-side or medical-adjacent credit ranks below any sell-side device credit; and a live sector page with no M&A credit ranks last.

1. Piper Sandler: the only repeat, dated device sell-side record in the middle market

Piper Sandler, Minneapolis, NYSE: PIPR, is the one firm on this bench with three dated device sell-side mandates across both lanes. On the finished-device side it was "exclusive financial advisor to Paragon 28" on Zimmer Biomet's acquisition at "$13.00 per share in cash... an enterprise value of approximately $1.2 billion," plus a contingent value right of up to $1.00 per share on revenue milestones, announced January 28, 2025 and closed April 21, 2025 per Zimmer Biomet's 8-K, a foot-and-ankle orthopedics company, which is to say a 510(k) portfolio. On the supply-chain side it was Bentec Medical's financial adviser on the sale to Avista Healthcare Partners announced April 8, 2026, where the seller Greyrock commended "the Piper Sandler team for running a great process," Bentec being "a leading manufacturer of complex, silicone-based medical device components and finished goods"; and, per trade-press reporting rather than the release, financial adviser to Resolution Medical, the Minnesota Arcline portfolio company sold to Carlyle's Resonetics, announced January 27, 2026. Its healthcare page states "200+ Global healthcare professionals" and "1,200+ Healthcare investment banking and public finance transactions since 2010"; our healthcare hub records the tools-and-diagnostics franchise and names Peter Day as Global Group Head of Healthcare Investment Banking. Registration: Piper Sandler & Co., CRD 665, active. Verdict: first, because it is the only firm a device seller can check deal by deal in both lanes; our Minneapolis guide carries the local buyer map.

2. J.P. Morgan: the most sell-side device credits at scale, and one carve-out

J.P. Morgan carries three roles on the tape and two are sell-side. It "served as lead financial advisor" to Avanos Medical on its approximately $1.272 billion sale to American Industrial Partners, announced April 14, 2026 and closed July 27, 2026, with UBS Investment Bank also advising Avanos; it "acted as financial advisor to PENTAX Medical" on the $22 million sale of the C2 CryoBalloon device ($19 million in cash at closing plus up to $3 million contingent) to Merit Medical Systems, announced October 15, 2025, the only product-line carve-out on this ledger with a named seller adviser; and, per Novanta's June 9, 2026 release (8-K Exhibit 99.1), J.P. Morgan Securities served with Baird as financial adviser to Novanta on Riverpoint Medical, closed July 27, 2026. Verdict: the bank a public device company or a Japanese or European parent hires to sell a US division; below the upper middle market, the bank on the other side of your table.

3. William Blair: dated, firm-published, and in the consumables lane

William Blair, Chicago, employee-owned, publishes its own dated tombstones, rarer on this bench than it should be. Verbatim from its release: "William Blair acted as the exclusive M&A advisor to Primed, a portfolio company of Paragon, on its pending sale to Inflexion. The transaction signed July 2026." Primed, of Halberstadt, Germany, makes single-use consumables "certified under the European Medical Device Regulation (MDR)" and sold in over 70 countries, an MDR-certified asset changing sponsor hands as the legacy cliffs approach. Our healthcare hub adds its advice to Azenta on the US$63 million sale of B Medical Systems to THELEMA, announced December 29, 2025 and carried here as announced. Registration: William Blair, CRD 1252, active. Verdict: the call for a consumables, cold-chain or European-certified seller in the $50 million to $500 million band, and the firm to ask for its dated list first, because it will hand you one.

4. Goldman Sachs: both sides of the large-cap lane

Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC was "exclusive financial advisor to Hologic" on the sale to a Blackstone-and-TPG-led consortium at $76 per share in cash plus a contingent value right of up to $3 per share on revenue milestones, "up to $79 per Share," an enterprise value "of up to $18.3 billion" per the release, announced October 21, 2025 with a 45-day go-shop and closed April 7, 2026 per SEC filings, the largest sponsor take-private on the medtech tape; and "exclusive financial advisor to Zimmer Biomet" on Paragon 28. Verdict: the template for a public-company sale with a go-shop, and the bank most likely to sit opposite you if a large strategic bids; no evidence below $1 billion.

5. Perella Weinberg Partners: the sell side of the largest device deal on the tape

Perella Weinberg Partners, New York, Nasdaq: PWP, an independent advisory firm, "is serving as exclusive financial advisor to Penumbra" on Boston Scientific's agreement at "$374 per share, reflecting an enterprise value of approximately $14.5 billion," announced January 15, 2026 and pending as of September 16, 2026; Boston Scientific's release names no financial adviser of its own. Registration: Perella Weinberg Partners LP, CRD 138618, active. Verdict: ranked on one credit because it is the largest and it is filed in the buyer's release; the independent-adviser model a public board hires when it wants no financing conflict, and not a middle-market hire.

6. Citi: two buy-side credits, both closed

Citi "acted as financial advisor to Danaher" on the $9.9 billion Masimo acquisition, announced February 17, 2026 at "approximately 18x estimated 2027 EBITDA" and closed June 10, 2026, and "is serving as exclusive financial advisor... to the Blackstone-and-TPG-led consortium" on Hologic. Verdict: the bank a strategic or a sponsor consortium hires to buy at scale; ranked because both credits are in the parties' releases and both closed, and placed below the sell-side names because a seller does not hire it.

7. Jefferies: the freshest supply-chain sell-side, on the freshest multiple

Jefferies, New York, CRD 2347, with the 140-plus-banker healthcare group our hub describes, "served as sole financial advisor to Riverpoint Medical" on Novanta's acquisition of Riverpoint Medical from Arlington Capital Partners, per Novanta's June 9, 2026 release filed as 8-K Exhibit 99.1, which also names Baird and J.P. Morgan Securities as financial advisers to Novanta. The deal is the most useful pricing marker on the ledger: $1.2 billion in cash at closing plus "a milestone payment of $250 million in the first quarter of 2027," the upfront price being "approximately 19x Riverpoint's estimated 2026 Adjusted EBITDA excluding synergies" (PE Professional, citing Novanta, puts that EBITDA at $63 million), for a Portland, Oregon maker of private-label sutures, anchors and implantable fibers for OEMs. Novanta announced completion on July 27, 2026 in a second 8-K. Verdict: the sponsor-exit bank for a scaled supply-chain asset, and the one credit on this bench filed by the buyer with the SEC on both the signing and the close.

8. Outcome Capital: the registered boutique with a dated device credit

Outcome Capital, 20 Custom House Street, Boston, states in its footer that it is a "Member of Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) and the Securities Investment Protection Corporation (SIPC)." Its dated device credit is in the counterparty's release: "ZIEN received strategic and financial advisory services from Outcome Capital LLC" on the June 16, 2025 partnership between ZIEN Medical Technologies, a Salt Lake City "vertically integrated medical device contract design & manufacturing organization (CDMO)" founded in 2009, and Averra Holdings with Banner Capital. Its transactions page lists undated tombstones including NanoHive Medical, Direct Diagnostics, Coherex Medical and ELIOS Vision, with no dates or buyers I could verify, and 2026 headlines record senior hires into its medical device, digital health and AI practices. Registration: Outcome Capital, LLC, CRD 100960, active. Verdict: the boutique call for a lower-middle-market device or CDMO seller in New England, and the only boutique-scale firm here with both a registration and a dated device credit (ZIEN terms undisclosed); our Boston guide sets it beside the city's life-science boutiques.

9. Baird: device-adjacent, and on the buy side of the tape

Baird, Milwaukee, employee-owned, CRD 8158, appears twice: per Novanta's June 9, 2026 release, financial adviser with J.P. Morgan Securities to Novanta on Riverpoint Medical (closed July 27, 2026), a buy-side role; and, per trade press, co-adviser with Houlihan Lokey to PrecisionX Group and CORE Industrial Partners on the sale to Windjammer Capital, announced April 2, 2026, PrecisionX making precision components for "aerospace manufacturers, medical device companies, and satellite technology firms," a medical-adjacent industrial rather than a device company. No pure device sell-side mandate from a primary release was verified. Verdict: a real middle-market bank with real medical-supply-chain exposure; ask for a device sell-side close before hiring it as one.

10. Houlihan Lokey: the healthcare volume leader, without a device sell-side I could date

Houlihan Lokey, Los Angeles, NYSE: HLI, CRD 17708, is the dominant middle-market healthcare adviser by deal count in our hub, led by Mark Francis and Michael Pisani. On this pass its only 2024-26 credit was as co-adviser, with Baird, to PrecisionX and CORE Industrial on the Windjammer sale, per trade press, medical-adjacent precision manufacturing; the device tombstones its site surfaced were 2023, outside the ledger window. Verdict: the volume and restructuring bench the hub describes, and a firm whose 2024-26 pure-device sell-side record I could not verify; a gap in the public record, not a verdict on its practice, and one that three dated device closes would close.

11. Stifel: one buy-side, medical-adjacent credit

Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, St. Louis, CRD 793, "was the financial advisor to Windjammer on the buy of PrecisionX," per PE Professional, April 2026. A February 2026 headline on Quantum Surgical's purchase of NeuWave Medical from Johnson & Johnson surfaced under a Stifel query, and the adviser line could not be opened, so it is not attributed. Verdict: ranked because the credit is dated and the registration is active; a sponsor buy-side bank on this tape, not a device sell-side one.

12. Leerink Partners: the medtech page that shows capital markets, not M&A

Leerink Partners, Boston, CRD 39011, employee-owned since its 2023 management buyout, says its "Medical Technology team supports both emerging and established companies, serving as a valued partner through M&A, capital raising, and strategic transactions." The recent-transactions carousel on that page on September 16, 2026 showed four credits, all capital markets and all early 2025: a $235 million IPO, a $75 million follow-on, a $350 million Rule 144A convertible and a $50 million at-the-market facility. A search for Leerink as "exclusive financial advisor" in 2026 returned hospital divestitures and pharma, no device M&A. Verdict: the house to call for a device IPO, follow-on or convertible; for a sale, ask for three dated device M&A closes, and if they exist this profile changes.

How do I check whether a medtech M&A adviser is FINRA-registered?

Search the legal entity, not the brand, on the SEC's adviserinfo.sec.gov firm search, which returns both investment-adviser and FINRA broker-dealer records, and expect the brand name to fail more often than the entity name does. I ran the bench and the leave-offs on September 16, 2026.

The leave-offs are registered too: TD Securities (USA) LLC (CRD 18476, the record behind the TD Cowen brand), Canaccord Genuity LLC (1020), Guggenheim Securities (40638), Lincoln International (42045), Harris Williams (113930) and Oppenheimer & Co. (249), all active; MTS Health Partners returns no record under that name and its broker-dealer entity was not looked up. Goldman Sachs, J.P. Morgan, Citi and UBS were not run this pass; their roles are in the parties' releases. The trap: a boutique whose broker-dealer sits under a different name returns nothing under the brand, so read the footer for "securities offered through" before you conclude a firm is unregistered. The device-specific reason registration matters: a sponsor recapitalization asks a founder to roll equity into a holding company, which is a securities transaction, and the CVR in Paragon 28's deal is itself a security; ask, in writing, which registered entity advises on that leg and receives the success fee.

Who did we leave off, and why?

Every firm below is real; what is missing is a 2024-26 device credit I could read. Canaccord Genuity: its surfaced device deals, Avanos and OrthogenRx in December 2021 and TransMedics and Bridge to Life in August 2023, are outside the window and the adviser lines were not opened. TD Cowen: a March 2026 headline on the DermTech Chapter 11 sale carried no adviser line I could open. Guggenheim Securities: pharma and dental-distribution credits, none device. Oppenheimer: only a 2020 Intersect ENT and Fiagon headline. Craig-Hallum (Minneapolis, CRD 121395): no device tombstone found and the site was unreachable. MTS Health Partners: pharma credits and a May 2026 sponsor-coverage hire, no device deal. Lincoln International (NYSE: LCLN): its January 2025 Vance Street and Fumex credit is fume extraction, not a device. Harris Williams: only RQM+ headlines from 2021-22. Covington Associates (Boston, CRD 127437): its site did not resolve and its Foster Corporation and Geon role in January 2025 could not be confirmed. Aquilo Partners (San Francisco, CRD 114909) is a real life-sciences boutique whose 2025-26 tape is biopharma, 4E Therapeutics and Adverum to Lilly and Curio Bioscience to Takara, not devices; our San Francisco guide places it correctly. Provident Healthcare Partners and Bourne Partners established no device credit. Deals I could not attribute because the page was blocked: Gore and Conformal Medical, Quantum Surgical and NeuWave Medical, and Axogen and BioCircuit (a $200 million headline of September 10, 2026); and the large 2024-25 strategic deals a reader will ask about, Stryker and Inari, Johnson & Johnson and Shockwave, Boston Scientific and Axonics, Globus and Nevro, were not opened for adviser lines and are attributed to no one here. If a list tells you a firm advised on one of those, ask for the release.

What are medical device companies selling for in 2026?

At scale, two filed forward multiples in the high teens; below scale, nobody publishes a verified 2026 private-company multiple, so every range you are quoted is an adviser's opinion. Danaher's February 17, 2026 release states the Masimo price as "$180 per share in cash, or a total enterprise value of approximately $9.9 billion including assumed indebtedness and net of acquired cash. This represents a transaction multiple of approximately 18x estimated 2027 EBITDA," Masimo being, in Danaher's framing, "a leading specialty diagnostics provider of pulse oximetry and other patient monitoring solutions." Novanta's Riverpoint price, per its June 9, 2026 release filed as 8-K Exhibit 99.1, is "approximately 19x Riverpoint's estimated 2026 Adjusted EBITDA excluding synergies" (the $63 million EBITDA figure is PE Professional's, citing Novanta), with "a milestone payment of $250 million in the first quarter of 2027" on top, a supply-chain asset priced like a growth platform; the deal closed July 27, 2026. The other priced deals on the ledger state no multiple: Paragon 28 at $13.00 per share plus a CVR, Penumbra at $374 per share, Hologic at $76 per share in cash plus a CVR of up to $3, Avanos at approximately $1.272 billion, C2 CryoBalloon at $22 million.

Our healthcare hub carries the sector row as roughly 10-20x EBITDA, a broad range, with an approximately 18x NTM marker from practitioner trackers, and I keep it: two deal-level markers do not make a private-company range. What the markers do show is structure, the Contingent-Value Pattern, our reading of the ledger: four of the seven priced deals carry contingent consideration, Paragon 28's CVR of up to $1.00 per share, Riverpoint's $250 million milestone payment, Hologic's CVR of up to $3 per share on top of $76 in cash, and C2 CryoBalloon's up to $3 million, and Hologic also carried a 45-day go-shop, so a device seller should expect the second number before the first is agreed, and should settle with the adviser how the success fee treats it. Underneath every multiple sits the Regulatory-File Gate: a PMA device whose buyer plans a site move, a legacy-MDD product with fifteen months of certificate runway, or a 510(k) whose listing history has a gap is priced on the fix, not the headline.

Who is buying medical device companies in 2026: strategics, sponsors or take-privates?

All three, and the tape sorts them by what the target makes. PwC's Medtech US Deals 2026 midyear outlook, published June 17, 2026, reads: "Medtech M&A is entering the second half of 2026 with continued momentum following a decade-high 2025, supported by strategic and sponsor-backed transactions. Capital market pressure and lower equity valuations are a catalyst for deals. Strategic acquirers are pursuing assets that strengthen long-term defensible growth, while private equity is deploying capital into opportunities that have become accessible at current valuations." Strategics "continued investing in higher-growth categories including cardiovascular, neurostimulation, and ecosystem platforms," while "portfolio reshaping, carve-outs, and take-privates remained active." And its caveat, which every middle-market seller should read as good news: "As strategic acquirers have scaled, public disclosure of mid-size transactions has declined, leaving visible deal values as only part of the story." PwC publishes no deal count and no multiple on that page, and I print none.

The ledger sorts the same way. Finished devices went to strategics: Penumbra to Boston Scientific, Paragon 28 to Zimmer Biomet, Masimo to Danaher, the C2 CryoBalloon to Merit. Scaled platforms went private: Hologic to Blackstone and TPG, Avanos to American Industrial Partners. And the supply chain went mostly to sponsors, the Supply-Chain Tape, a Peony-original observation: Bentec's silicone components to Avista, Resolution Medical to Carlyle's Resonetics, ZIEN's CDMO to Averra and Banner, PrecisionX to Windjammer, four of five to sponsors or sponsor-backed platforms; the fifth, Riverpoint's OEM sutures and anchors, went to Novanta (Nasdaq: NOVT), a public strategic that supplies medical and advanced-technology equipment manufacturers, closed July 27, 2026. Under section 820.3(b) these are "manufacturers" for QMSR purposes, and under the ledger they are where a middle-market owner is most likely to find an adviser with a dated credit. The headwinds PwC names, "tariff exposure, conflict in the Middle East, and broader supply chain disruption," which "at times, shifted management focus from M&A toward operational resilience, supply chain stability, and margin protection," land hardest on exactly that lane; a contract manufacturer's tariff schedule by component and country belongs in the room before the first management meeting. For a $5 million-EBITDA device company, run the hub's buyer-universe test against all three columns, then ask the one device question that decides which column pays more: does the buyer intend to keep your plant? A sponsor buying a CDMO is buying it; a strategic buying a PMA device may be planning the supplement.

What do buyers diligence in a medical device sale, and what should the data room look like when the bidders are your competitors?

The regulatory file first, then the surgeons, then the customers, and a room built for the fact that the most likely strategic bidder makes a competing product. The items with a primary source behind them: the 510(k) chain of title, listing history under the original K-number and the seller's discontinuation plan, because FDA's database will not show the transfer; the PMA file, every amendment and supplement and the conditions of approval, plus a memo on whether the buyer's integration plan triggers section 814.39; the QMSR file, ISO 13485:2016 certificate, management-review and internal-audit records, CAPA log, complaint and MDR files, labelled under both the new and the retired names; EU certificate evidence, the notified-body application and written agreement against the 26 May and 26 September 2024 dates and a certificate calendar against December 31, 2027 and 2028; the Open Payments reconciliation; and the GUDID record with the labeler point of contact. Practitioner items with no rule behind them, ours: 483 and warning-letter history with closed CAPAs, recall files, reimbursement dependence by code, OEM customer concentration for a contract manufacturer, tariff exposure by component, and key-person risk where the physician-inventor is also the chief medical officer. The quality of earnings and our sell-side due diligence guide sit on top.

The fix for the competitor problem is staged access:

• A separate data room per bidder, with visitor groups walling the strategic that makes a competing device off from the sponsor platforms inside one process, so no party sees another's tranche, activity or Q&A.
• Staged disclosure: teaser, product list and regulatory-status table first; medical device file, 483 and CAPA history, Open Payments reconciliation and notified-body agreements in the middle; surgeon and KOL contracts, OEM customer contracts and the design-change record last, after a bid you believe.
• NDA gates before the room opens: acknowledge-only Simple NDA on Business and up, Advanced NDA with a countersigned PDF on Data Room and up; view-only files with screenshot protection and one-click revoke on Business and up; password links and link expiry on every tier including Free.
• Per-viewer dynamic watermarks on every rendered page, Data Room plan and up, so a forwarded design-verification report traces to the engineer who opened it.
• Page-level analytics, on every tier, showing which strategic spent forty minutes on your CAPA log, the one preparing a retrade or a competing design.
• Redaction on the Deal Team plan for schedules that still carry a patient or surgeon identifier, and archive download for the closing binder, plus auto-indexing and structured Q&A.

Peony is not an M&A advisor and does not place deals; the firms above do that. We are the confidential room the process runs in: pick your advisor first, then stand up the room. Peony serves 6,800+ customers on exactly this layer, rated 4.8 on G2 and 4.9 on Capterra. The Data Room plan is $52 per admin per month billed annually, the tier a sell-side process wants: dynamic watermarking, Advanced NDA, custom domain and per-file permissions. Business is $30 per admin per month billed annually, enough for the teaser stage; Deal Team is $64 per admin per month billed annually and adds redaction and archive download; a Free tier with password links, expiry and analytics exists (pricing). The room is a document-handling control, not a regulatory opinion. The build is in our M&A data room playbook and how to write a CIM; the product-by-product medical device file layout is in our medical device M&A data room guide.

What do medtech M&A advisers charge?

A retainer plus a success fee, and not one device bank on this bench publishes a fee percentage, searched September 16, 2026, the same finding as our behavioral health spoke. So the honest numbers are the house canon in our M&A advisor fees guide: Axial's 2026 M&A Fee Guide, last updated July 23, 2026, reports that "Lehman-style success fees remain the most common structure, while flat-percentage fees continue to gain adoption," and that "71% of advisors charge some form of upfront fee, most commonly a monthly retainer or a one-time fixed engagement fee"; the Firmex and Axial 2024-25 composite curve runs about 4.8% at $5 million, 3.4% at $20 million and 2.0% at $100 million of deal value; and a double-Lehman scale produces $300,000 on $5 million (6.0%), $600,000 on $20 million (3.0%), $1.2 million on $50 million (2.4%) and $2.2 million on $100 million (2.2%). I will not print a "typical medtech fee," because none is published.

Three device-specific terms matter more than the rate. Contingent value in the fee base: Paragon 28's CVR of up to $1.00 per share, Hologic's CVR of up to $3 per share and Riverpoint's up to $250 million on milestones are the three on this ledger (four with C2 CryoBalloon's up to $3 million), so settle in writing whether the success fee is computed on upfront value only or includes contingent value when, and only when, it is paid. The closing definition for a PMA device: if the buyer plans a site move, the supplement approval under section 814.39 is a gate, and the engagement letter should say which side of it the fee sits on. Exclusivity against the MDR cliff: a legacy-certificate product signing in late 2026 has a marketing window that ends December 31, 2027 or 2028; negotiate exclusivity and the tail against that calendar, not a generic twelve months.

So which medtech M&A adviser should you hire?

The one whose dated evidence sits in your lane, because the three lanes do not share buyers. A commercial-stage 510(k) or PMA device company under roughly $500 million: Piper Sandler for the only repeat device sell-side record, William Blair for consumables or a European-certified product, Outcome Capital below $100 million in New England; ask each for its last five device closes with dates, buyers and the regulatory pathway of each target. A contract manufacturer, CDMO or OEM component maker: Piper Sandler and Jefferies have the freshest supply-chain sell-sides on the tape, Baird and Houlihan Lokey the medical-adjacent ones; expect a sponsor or a sponsor-backed platform across the table and Stifel or Baird advising it. A public company or a scaled sponsor-owned platform: Goldman Sachs, Perella Weinberg Partners and J.P. Morgan are the sell-side names in the 2025-26 releases, with Citi, Goldman and Baird on the buy side; the go-shop, the CVR and the PMA supplement are the terms that decide value after the headline. Whoever you hire, make them walk you through the six rows of the Regulatory-File Gate before you sign the LOI.

Related resources

• Best healthcare M&A advisors, the hub this spoke deepens, and the behavioral health and dental sibling spokes.
• Medical device M&A data room, the document-level playbook for the medical device file, 483s and CAPAs, and best data rooms for healthcare and life sciences.
• City guides that carry the local bench: Boston, San Francisco and the Bay Area and Minneapolis.
• Best M&A advisors, M&A advisor fees, how to structure an earnout and M&A advisor vs broker vs investment bank.
• M&A data room, how to write a CIM, quality of earnings and sell-side due diligence.
• Pricing and the M&A, due diligence and private equity solution pages.

Frequently asked questions

Who are the best medtech M&A advisors?

Eleven firms carry checkable 2024-26 medtech adviser-of-record evidence and a twelfth, Leerink Partners, a live medtech page, and they split by lane. In the middle market, Piper Sandler (Minneapolis, CRD 665) is the only bank with three dated device sell-side mandates: Paragon 28 to Zimmer Biomet (announced January 28, 2025), Bentec Medical to Avista Healthcare Partners (announced April 8, 2026) and, per trade press, Resolution Medical to Resonetics (announced January 27, 2026). William Blair advised Primed on its pending sale to Inflexion (signed July 2026) and Azenta on B Medical Systems (announced December 29, 2025); Outcome Capital (Boston, CRD 100960) advised ZIEN Medical Technologies on its June 16, 2025 partnership with Averra Holdings and Banner Capital. At platform scale the advisers of record are J.P. Morgan and UBS (Avanos, closed July 27, 2026), Goldman Sachs (Hologic, closed April 7, 2026), Perella Weinberg Partners (Penumbra to Boston Scientific, announced January 15, 2026, pending), Citi (buy-side on Masimo and Hologic) and Jefferies (sole financial adviser to Riverpoint Medical on its sale to Novanta, announced June 9, 2026 and closed July 27, 2026, per Novanta's release); below roughly $1 billion those are the banks across the table, not your hire. Baird, Houlihan Lokey and Stifel carry only medical-adjacent or buy-side 2026 credits, and Leerink Partners' live medtech page shows capital-markets tombstones, not M&A.

Who are the best medical device M&A advisors for a sale under $100M?

Piper Sandler, William Blair and Outcome Capital, because they are the only middle-market and boutique firms on this bench with dated 2025-26 device sell-side credits at undisclosed or sub-$100 million values, and no firm on this bench publishes a deal-size floor. Piper Sandler's Bentec Medical sale to Avista Healthcare Partners (April 8, 2026) and Resolution Medical sale to Resonetics (January 2026, per trade press) were undisclosed-value contract-manufacturer sales; William Blair advised Azenta on the US$63 million sale of B Medical Systems to THELEMA (announced December 29, 2025); Outcome Capital, a FINRA-member boutique in Boston, advised ZIEN Medical Technologies, a device CDMO, on its June 16, 2025 partnership with Averra Holdings and Banner Capital. The only large-cap credit under $1 billion on this bench is J.P. Morgan's $22 million sale of the C2 CryoBalloon device for PENTAX Medical to Merit Medical Systems (October 15, 2025), a parent's product-line carve-out rather than an owner-seller mandate. The test to run on any firm: ask which of its last five device closes was under $100 million of enterprise value, who bought it, and whether the target held a 510(k), a PMA or was a contract manufacturer, because the buyer lists do not overlap.

Which investment banks sell medical device companies?

On the 2025-26 tape, the sell-side advisers of record in a party's release or the firm's own release are Perella Weinberg Partners for Penumbra on Boston Scientific's approximately $14.5 billion agreement (announced January 15, 2026; pending as of September 16, 2026); Goldman Sachs for Hologic on the Blackstone and TPG take-private at $76 per share in cash plus a CVR of up to $3 per share (announced October 21, 2025; closed April 7, 2026); J.P. Morgan Securities as lead and UBS Investment Bank as co-adviser for Avanos Medical on its approximately $1.272 billion sale to American Industrial Partners (closed July 27, 2026); Piper Sandler for Paragon 28 on Zimmer Biomet's $13.00-per-share acquisition (announced January 28, 2025; closed April 21, 2025) and for Bentec Medical (April 8, 2026); J.P. Morgan for PENTAX Medical on the $22 million C2 CryoBalloon sale to Merit Medical Systems (announced October 15, 2025); William Blair for Primed on its pending sale to Inflexion (signed July 2026); and Outcome Capital for ZIEN Medical Technologies (June 16, 2025). Jefferies as sole financial adviser to Riverpoint Medical on the $1.2 billion Novanta deal, per Novanta's June 9, 2026 release (closed July 27, 2026). Per trade-press reporting only: Piper Sandler for Resolution Medical (January 2026). Masimo's own adviser on the Danaher sale is not named in the release I could open.

How does the FDA QMSR affect a medical device sale?

It changes what the buyer's regulatory team asks for and what your quality file has to look like on the day the room opens. The Quality Management System Regulation final rule (89 FR 7496, published February 2, 2024) took effect February 2, 2026 and amended 21 CFR Part 820 by incorporating ISO 13485:2016 by reference at section 820.7. Since that date Part 820 is six sections long (820.1, 820.3, 820.7, 820.10, 820.35 and 820.45, with Subparts C through O reserved); the words "design history file" and "device master record" no longer appear in it, and the record buyers ask for is the ISO-style medical device file. Section 820.10 requires a documented quality management system that complies with ISO 13485, a documented UDI-assignment system under Part 830, reporting to FDA of complaints that meet Part 803 criteria, and design and development controls for class II, class III and listed class I devices, including devices automated with software. Section 820.3(b) defines a manufacturer to include contract sterilizers, relabelers, repackers and specification developers, so a contract manufacturer is diligenced against the same rule as a finished-device company. Practically: label every folder in the room under both the QMSR term and the retired DHF, DMR and DHR terms, and stage your ISO 13485 certificate, management-review and internal-audit records, CAPA log and complaint and MDR files at the QMS level.

Does a 510(k) transfer to the buyer of a medical device company?

Yes, but not the way most sellers describe it, and the mechanic is set out in FDA's June 5, 2025 draft guidance on transfer of a 510(k) clearance (docket FDA-2024-D-1528; a draft, not a final rule). FDA's position is that there can be only one 510(k) holder for a device at a time. When a clearance is sold, the new holder lists the device in FDA's Unified Registration and Listing System under the original premarket submission number; if the device is not significantly changed or modified in design, components, method of manufacture or intended use, no new 510(k) is needed. A new owner or operator not previously registered must register within 30 days, and newly acquired listings are reported in the October 1 to December 31 window each fiscal year. There is no submission that transfers the clearance: FDA says it commonly receives letters asking it to update its records and that it is not required to update registration or listing information in response, so the public 510(k) database keeps showing the original applicant. The previous holder must update its own listing when it stops manufacturing, the labeler must update GUDID if the labeler name changes, and a device that is not listed is misbranded. A buyer therefore builds the chain of title from the purchase agreement and your listing history. A PMA is different: it transfers by a PMA amendment with a letter on the former owner's letterhead, and any manufacturing or sterilization site move needs a supplement approved before marketing.

What do medtech M&A advisors charge?

A retainer plus a success fee, and not one device bank on this bench publishes a fee percentage, searched September 16, 2026, so the only honest numbers are the house canon in our M&A advisor fees guide. Axial's 2026 M&A Fee Guide (last updated July 23, 2026) says Lehman-style success fees remain the most common structure while flat-percentage fees continue to gain adoption, and that 71% of advisers charge some form of upfront fee, most commonly a monthly retainer or a one-time fixed engagement fee; the Firmex and Axial 2024-25 composite curve runs about 4.8% at $5 million of deal value, 3.4% at $20 million and 2.0% at $100 million, and a double-Lehman scale produces $300,000 on $5 million (6.0%), $600,000 on $20 million (3.0%), $1.2 million on $50 million (2.4%) and $2.2 million on $100 million (2.2%). Three device-specific terms matter more than the rate: whether the fee includes CVR and earnout value when it is paid (Paragon 28's CVR of up to $1.00 per share; Hologic's CVR of up to $3 per share; Riverpoint's up to $250 million on milestones); how closing and the fee tail are defined around a PMA-supplement approval if the buyer plans a manufacturing-site move; and how long exclusivity runs against the December 31, 2027 and 2028 EU legacy-certificate cliffs.

Is 2026 a good time to sell a medical device company?

By the only dated published read, yes for a well-positioned asset: PwC's Medtech US Deals 2026 midyear outlook (June 17, 2026) counts $36.5 billion of medtech deal value for the first half of 2026, "marking continued M&A momentum following a decade-high 2025," and says the market is entering the second half "supported by strategic and sponsor-backed transactions," with "capital market pressure and lower equity valuations" acting as a catalyst. Strategic acquirers, in PwC's words, kept investing in "higher-growth categories including cardiovascular, neurostimulation, and ecosystem platforms spanning connected devices, patient monitoring, and workflow capabilities," while "portfolio reshaping, carve-outs, and take-privates remained active." Two cautions from the same page: disclosed value "remained concentrated in a limited number of transactions" and public disclosure of mid-size deals has declined, so the visible tape understates the middle market; and tariff exposure, conflict in the Middle East and supply-chain disruption "at times shifted management focus from M&A toward operational resilience." PwC publishes no deal count and no multiple on that page. The regulatory calendar argues for moving rather than waiting if you hold legacy EU certificates: class III and implantable class IIb legacy devices may be placed on the market only until December 31, 2027.

What multiple will my medical device company sell for in 2026?

Nobody publishes a verified 2026 private-company medtech multiple, so the honest anchors are two deal-level markers and one broad range. Danaher's release for Masimo (February 17, 2026) states a price of $180 per share in cash, an enterprise value of approximately $9.9 billion and "a transaction multiple of approximately 18x estimated 2027 EBITDA"; Novanta's $1.2 billion upfront price for Riverpoint Medical (announced June 9, 2026) is, per Novanta's June 9, 2026 release, approximately 19x Riverpoint's estimated 2026 adjusted EBITDA excluding synergies (PE Professional, citing Novanta, puts that EBITDA at $63 million), with a milestone payment of up to $250 million more in the first quarter of 2027; the deal closed July 27, 2026. Our healthcare hub's row for the sector, roughly 10-20x EBITDA as a broad range with an approximately 18x NTM marker from practitioner trackers, is the widest honest statement and I will not narrow it without a source. What moves you inside that range: revenue growth, gross margin, whether your revenue depends on a single reimbursement code or coverage decision, the durability and transferability of the regulatory file, customer concentration if you are a contract manufacturer, and whether the buyer already has a platform in your category. Expect structure as well as a number: Zimmer Biomet paid $13.00 per share for Paragon 28 plus a contingent value right of up to $1.00 per share on revenue milestones.

How is selling a PMA device company different from selling a 510(k) company?

The regulatory file transfers by two different mechanics, and one of them has a pre-approval gate that can set the closing date. For a PMA, FDA's premarket approval FAQ is explicit: a PMA may be sold to another company; the sponsor must submit a PMA amendment to notify FDA of the new owner; the PMA reference number stays the same; the former owner provides a letter, preferably on its letterhead and signed by a company official, stating that all rights have been transferred; and the amendment must state the effective date, the new owner's commitment to the conditions of approval and either that it holds a complete copy of the PMA or a request for one from FDA's files. If the new owner will change the manufacturing or sterilization site, the labeling, the packaging or the trade name, it must submit a PMA supplement under 21 CFR 814.39 and obtain written FDA approval before marketing the device. For a 510(k), there is no submission: under FDA's June 5, 2025 draft guidance the new holder lists the device under the original 510(k) number in FURLS/DRLM, registers within 30 days if it is a new establishment, and needs no new 510(k) if the device is not significantly changed. The deal consequence is timing: a buyer that intends to move a PMA device into its own plant after closing is carrying an approval gate that does not exist for a 510(k) device; model it in the closing conditions, the fee tail and the integration plan before the LOI.

My EU sales run on MDD legacy certificates. Will that hurt my sale?

It will be priced, and how much depends on three documents you can put in the room. Regulation (EU) 2023/607 of 15 March 2023 rewrote Article 120 of the Medical Device Regulation: devices with a certificate issued under Directive 90/385/EEC or 93/42/EEC may be placed on the market until December 31, 2027 for class III devices and most class IIb implantables, and until December 31, 2028 for other class IIb, class IIa and class I sterile or measuring devices and for class I devices that now need a notified body. The extension holds only if, among other conditions, the manufacturer had a quality management system in place and had lodged a formal application with a notified body by 26 May 2024, had signed a written agreement with that notified body by 26 September 2024, and there are "no significant changes in the design and intended purpose." So a buyer will ask for the dated application, the signed notified-body agreement and a certificate-by-certificate calendar, and the no-significant-change condition collides directly with any post-closing product change the buyer plans. A class III legacy device signing in the second half of 2026 has roughly fifteen months before the 2027 cliff. Do not repeat the pre-2023 date of 26 May 2024 as the cut-off, and do not assume a further extension; none is verified here. Confirm your position with EU regulatory counsel before the LOI.

Will my physician-inventor royalties and KOL consulting agreements be a problem in diligence?

They will be reconciled, because they are already public. Under the Physician Payments Sunshine Act (Social Security Act section 1128G) and 42 CFR 403.904, an applicable manufacturer must report to CMS every year the direct and indirect payments or other transfers of value it made to covered recipients, physicians and teaching hospitals among them, during the preceding calendar year, by the 90th day of the following year (42 CFR 403.908). A covered device is one for which Medicare or Medicaid payment is available and which requires a 510(k) or a PMA, so an exempt class I product sits outside the definition. The reporting categories include royalty or license, ownership or investment interest, and acquisitions; each record must flag whether the recipient is a physician owner or investor in the manufacturer (403.904(c)(11)); and reported records may not be removed or altered unless an error is discovered. A buyer's compliance team pulls your Open Payments submissions and reconciles them to your fair-market-value-documented consulting and royalty contracts and to the cap table's physician-owner positions; a gap in either direction is a finding. After closing the acquirer becomes the applicable manufacturer for your covered devices, and its filing for the closing year covers your pre-closing months. I do not quote penalty amounts; they are inflation-adjusted and I did not open the penalty section.

Piper Sandler vs Leerink Partners: which is better for selling a medical device company?

For a sale, Piper Sandler on the evidence; for an IPO, follow-on or convertible, Leerink is the house whose medtech page shows exactly that work. Piper Sandler (Minneapolis, CRD 665) is the only bench firm with three dated device sell-side mandates in 2025-26: exclusive financial adviser to Paragon 28 on Zimmer Biomet's $13.00-per-share acquisition (enterprise value approximately $1.2 billion, announced January 28, 2025, closed April 21, 2025), adviser to Bentec Medical on its sale to Avista Healthcare Partners (announced April 8, 2026), and, per trade-press reporting, adviser to Resolution Medical on its sale to Carlyle's Resonetics (announced January 27, 2026). Leerink Partners (Boston, CRD 39011), employee-owned since its 2023 management buyout, describes its medical technology team as supporting companies "through M&A, capital raising, and strategic transactions," but the recent-transactions carousel on that page on September 16, 2026 showed four capital-markets credits, a $235 million IPO, a $75 million follow-on, a $350 million convertible and a $50 million at-the-market facility, all from early 2025, and I could find no 2024-26 device sell-side M&A closing. Ask Leerink for three dated device M&A closes; if it produces them, this comparison changes.

Should I sell my device company to a strategic acquirer or a private equity sponsor in 2026?

Run both columns, because the 2025-26 tape splits by what you make. Finished-device companies went to strategics: Penumbra to Boston Scientific (announced January 15, 2026, pending), Paragon 28 to Zimmer Biomet (closed April 21, 2025), Masimo to Danaher (closed June 10, 2026) and the C2 CryoBalloon device to Merit Medical (announced October 15, 2025). Contract manufacturers and OEM component makers went mostly to sponsors and sponsor-backed platforms: Bentec Medical to Avista, Resolution Medical to Carlyle's Resonetics, ZIEN Medical to Averra and Banner Capital, and PrecisionX to Windjammer; the exception, Riverpoint Medical, went to a public strategic OEM supplier, Novanta (Nasdaq: NOVT), closed July 27, 2026. PwC's June 17, 2026 outlook describes the same two engines, strategics pursuing "assets that strengthen long-term defensible growth" and private equity "deploying capital into opportunities that have become accessible at current valuations," with Hologic's sale to Blackstone and TPG at $76 per share in cash plus a CVR of up to $3 per share, with a 45-day go-shop, the largest take-private. Two device-specific tests decide it: whether a strategic that already makes a competing product will pay for your surgeon relationships or for the removal of a competitor, and whether the buyer plans to move manufacturing, because for a PMA device that is a supplement gate with prior FDA approval and for a legacy-MDD device it collides with the no-significant-change condition. A sponsor buying a contract manufacturer is buying the plant; a strategic buying a finished device often is not.

What should the data room look like when the bidders are strategic acquirers who compete with me?

Built so that a rival who loses the auction leaves with nothing it can use, and staged so the regulatory file opens in the order the buyer earns it. For a $60 million-revenue 510(k) company with three strategics and two sponsor platforms in the process, I would run a separate Peony data room per bidder so no party sees another's tranche, activity or Q&A; open with the teaser, the product list and the regulatory-status table; hold the medical device file, the 483 and CAPA history, the complaint and MDR files, the Open Payments reconciliation and the notified-body agreements for the middle stage; and release surgeon and KOL contracts, OEM customer contracts and the design-change record last, after a bid you believe. Put an NDA gate in front of anything that opens, Simple NDA on the Business plan and Advanced NDA with a countersigned PDF on Data Room; use per-viewer dynamic watermarks on the Data Room plan so a forwarded design-verification report traces to the engineer who opened it; keep every file view-only with screenshot protection and one-click revocation, which start on Business; and read page-level analytics to see which strategic spent forty minutes on your CAPA log. Redaction for schedules that still carry a patient or surgeon identifier and archive download for the closing binder sit on Deal Team. Peony's Data Room plan is $52 per admin per month billed annually, Business is $30, Deal Team is $64, and a free tier with password links, expiry and analytics exists; 6,800+ teams use Peony on this layer, rated 4.8 on G2 and 4.9 on Capterra. The room is a document-handling control, not a regulatory opinion; that comes from counsel.

Do contract manufacturers and OEM component makers count as medtech for M&A purposes?

Yes, on both the regulation and the tape, and on the 2025-26 tape they are a large share of the middle-market device closings I could attribute to an adviser. Under the QMSR, 21 CFR 820.3(b) defines a manufacturer to include those who perform contract sterilization, installation, relabeling, remanufacturing, repacking or specification development, so a CDMO or component maker is diligenced against ISO 13485 like a finished-device company. The closings: Bentec Medical to Avista Healthcare Partners (Piper Sandler for Bentec, announced April 8, 2026); Resolution Medical to Carlyle's Resonetics (Piper Sandler per trade press, announced January 27, 2026); Riverpoint Medical, private-label sutures and anchors for OEMs, to Novanta (Nasdaq: NOVT), a public strategic, for $1.2 billion upfront at approximately 19x estimated 2026 adjusted EBITDA excluding synergies (Jefferies as sole financial adviser to Riverpoint per Novanta's release, announced June 9, 2026, closed July 27, 2026); ZIEN Medical Technologies, a device CDMO, with Averra Holdings and Banner Capital (Outcome Capital, June 16, 2025); and PrecisionX, precision components for aerospace and medical device customers, to Windjammer (Baird and Houlihan Lokey for the seller, Stifel for the buyer, April 2026). These businesses are priced on OEM customer concentration, contract terms, capacity and forward EBITDA rather than on a clearance, and the buyer was a sponsor or a sponsor-backed platform in four of those five closings, with Novanta the one strategic.

Sources

• FDA, "Transfer of a Premarket Notification (510(k)) Clearance – Questions and Answers," Draft Guidance, June 5, 2025, docket FDA-2024-D-1528. https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/transfer-premarket-notification-510k-clearance-questions-and-answers
• FDA, "PMA Frequently Asked Questions" (live September 16, 2026). https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/premarket-approval-pma/pma-frequently-asked-questions
• "Medical Devices; Quality System Regulation Amendments," final rule, 89 FR 7496 (February 2, 2024), effective February 2, 2026. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/02/02/2024-01709/medical-devices-quality-system-regulation-amendments
• 21 CFR Parts 820 and 830 and 21 CFR 814.39 (eCFR, current as of September 1, 2026). https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-21/chapter-I/subchapter-H/part-820; https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-21/chapter-I/subchapter-H/part-830
• Regulation (EU) 2023/607 of 15 March 2023, OJ L 80, 20 March 2023. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32023R0607
• 42 CFR Part 403, Subpart I (Open Payments), §§ 403.902, 403.904, 403.908 (eCFR, current as of September 1, 2026). https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-42/chapter-IV/subchapter-B/part-403/subpart-I
• PwC, "Medtech: US Deals 2026 midyear outlook," June 17, 2026. https://www.pwc.com/us/en/industries/health-industries/library/medtech-deals-outlook.html
• Deal releases (URLs in the ledger above): Boston Scientific / Penumbra; Danaher / Masimo; Zimmer Biomet / Paragon 28; Hologic; American Industrial Partners / Avanos completion; Merit Medical / C2 CryoBalloon; Averra and Banner / ZIEN Medical; Avista / Bentec Medical; Resonetics / Resolution Medical; William Blair / Primed.
• Novanta Inc., Form 8-K Exhibit 99.1, June 9, 2026 (agreement to acquire Riverpoint Medical; advisers of record) and July 27, 2026 (completion). https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1076930/000119312526262867/novt-ex99_1.htm; https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1076930/000119312526316947/novt-ex99_1.htm
• PE Professional reports on Riverpoint Medical (June 11, 2026), Resolution Medical (February 2, 2026) and PrecisionX (April 2026). URLs in the ledger above.
• Firm sites read September 16, 2026: pipersandler.com, leerink.com, outcomecapital.com, williamblair.com; SEC adviser-info firm database for CRD numbers.
• Axial, "2026 M&A Fee Guide" (last updated July 23, 2026) and the Firmex/Axial 2024-25 composite curve, as carried in our M&A advisor fees guide.

About the author: Sean Yu is the co-founder of Peony, the data room platform used by 6,800+ customers across M&A, fundraising, and diligence workflows, including medical device companies and their advisers running confidential sales. Before Peony, Sean worked in M&A at Nomura, early-stage VC at Backed VC and growth equity at Target Global. Peony is not an M&A advisor; it is the confidential room a deal process runs in. Contact: sean@peony.ink • LinkedIn.