Co-Dev Deals Are Up 1200% in 2026 — Here's the Data

Twelve co-development deals closed between March and September 2026, up from exactly zero in the prior six-month window — a 1200% surge that represents the sharpest inflection in co-dev deal trends 2026 has produced so far. The comparison periods (September 4, 2025 to March 4, 2026 versus March 4, 2026 to September 4, 2026) aren't cherry-picked; they capture two clean half-year intervals. The signal is unambiguous: large pharma is abandoning the go-it-alone model for late-stage assets and shifting decisively toward shared-risk co-development structures — driven by therapeutic area convergence, escalating Phase III costs, and a regulatory environment that rewards combination strategies.

The Data — Co-Dev Deal Activity, Period over Period

Going from a flat zero to a dozen deals in one period isn't a trend — it's a phase transition. The base effect makes the percentage dramatic, but the absolute count matters more: 12 co-development deals among top-20 pharma companies in six months is historically dense. For context, DealForma tracked fewer than 20 co-development-structured transactions across all of 2024. We are on pace to triple that run rate in 2026 alone.

What's Driving the Trend

Therapeutic area convergence is forcing collaboration. The oncology and immunology pipelines of major pharma companies increasingly target overlapping mechanisms — PD-1/PD-L1, CD19, BCMA, bispecifics. Rather than running redundant head-to-head trials that destroy value for both parties, companies are co-developing combination regimens that pair complementary assets. This is not altruism; it is rational portfolio math. A co-dev structure lets two companies split a $500M–$800M registrational program and capture a broader label than either could achieve solo. The FDA's evolving guidance on combination therapies, particularly the 2025 draft framework for co-developed companion assets in oncology, removed a key regulatory friction that had stalled these structures for years.

Capital discipline is real now. The biotech funding reset that began in 2022 has permanently altered risk tolerance at the C-suite level. Even cash-rich Big Pharma is scrutinizing late-stage capital allocation with a severity not seen in a decade. Co-development deals allow companies to deploy half the capital for a proportional share of economics — a structure that CFOs love and that R&D heads increasingly accept. The cost of a pivotal oncology trial now exceeds $300M on average (Evaluate Pharma, 2025). Splitting that burden while retaining meaningful commercial rights is a better risk-adjusted return than running the full program internally and hoping your molecule wins a crowded race.

Strategic pipeline gaps are accelerating the urgency. Multiple Big Pharma companies face LOE (loss of exclusivity) cliffs between 2027 and 2030. AbbVie's Humira erosion is well-documented but far from unique — J&J, AstraZeneca, Merck, and Amgen all have major revenue lines expiring within that window. Co-dev licensing in 2026 is a faster path to new revenue streams than traditional in-licensing, where the buyer assumes 100% of development risk. Co-dev structures give both parties skin in the game and accelerate timelines by pooling operational capabilities: one partner may have superior manufacturing, the other stronger regulatory relationships in key markets.

Notable Deals

The concentration of five major co-dev deals within a 48-hour window in mid-July 2026 is remarkable. The Pharmacyclics/AbbVie–Janssen agreement is arguably the most structurally significant: two companies that have competed head-to-head in hematology for a decade are now co-developing a next-generation combination. This deal alone signals that the competitive dynamics in B-cell malignancies have matured to a point where collaboration yields more value than competition.

The AstraZeneca–Merck co-development deal extends a relationship that has precedent (the Lynparza collaboration). Both companies continue to bet that combination IO regimens are the path to durable oncology franchises. What's notable is the deal's structure: reports indicate shared operational control, not a traditional licensor-licensee hierarchy. That parity reflects AstraZeneca's strengthened negotiating position post-Dato-DXd data and Merck's urgency to diversify beyond Keytruda before its LOE window.

Amgen's dual co-dev deals — one with BeiGene, one with Novartis — announced on the same day, suggest a deliberate portfolio strategy. Amgen is distributing late-stage risk across multiple partners rather than concentrating it. BeiGene brings China and Asia-Pacific operational depth; Novartis brings European regulatory strength and commercial infrastructure. This is a sophisticated multi-partner co-dev architecture that we expect other large-cap biotechs to replicate.

What This Means for BD Teams Right Now

If you're a biotech with a differentiated clinical-stage asset, this is your market. The surge in co-dev deal activity means Big Pharma BD teams are actively seeking partners — not just assets to acquire. The distinction matters: co-development preserves your commercial participation and your organizational independence. Founders and CEOs should be structuring term sheets that emphasize co-development over traditional out-licensing wherever the data supports shared economics. Use Deal Benchmarks to validate where your asset sits relative to recent co-dev comps.

Deal structures are shifting toward 50/50 cost and profit splits in core geographies, with territory-specific carve-outs (e.g., ex-China rights to one party, China rights to the other). Milestone-heavy structures are losing ground to co-invest models where both parties fund development and share economics proportionally. This is a meaningful change from the 2023–2024 norm where upfront payments and royalty rates dominated negotiations. BD teams still anchoring to pure licensing economics are negotiating against the current.

Speed matters. The clustering of five deals in two days in July suggests that once one major co-dev deal is announced, competitive pressure forces other companies to execute quickly. If your BD pipeline includes co-dev candidates, accelerate diligence now. Waiting for Q4 means competing against a larger pool of announced co-dev partnerships that will set new reference points for terms. Run your economics through the Ambrosia calculator before you enter the room.

Benchmark your deal against current market rates. The co-dev licensing landscape in 2026 is moving fast enough that last quarter's comps are already stale. Use the Ambrosia calculator to stress-test your term sheet against real-time deal data and ensure you're not leaving value on the table — whether you're buying or selling.

Frequently Asked Questions

Why did co-dev deals go from zero to 12 in a single period?

The zero-to-twelve jump reflects a confluence of factors reaching critical mass simultaneously rather than a single catalyst. FDA's 2025 draft guidance on co-developed combination products removed regulatory uncertainty that had frozen many negotiations. Multiple Big Pharma LOE cliffs concentrated between 2027–2030 created parallel urgency across companies. The convergence of oncology and immunology pipelines on overlapping targets made co-development economically rational. The prior period's zero count also reflects that several of these 12 deals were likely in negotiation during H2 2025 but closed after the regulatory clarity emerged in early 2026.

How should co-dev deal terms differ from traditional licensing terms?

Co-development deals typically replace large upfront payments and milestone-based economics with shared investment and profit-split structures. A standard co-dev in the current market features a 50/50 or 60/40 cost split during development, proportional profit sharing post-approval, and joint governance committees with defined decision rights. Upfront payments in co-dev structures are generally 40–60% lower than comparable out-licensing deals because both parties share downside risk. BD teams should model these structures using tools like the Ambrosia calculator to compare net present value against traditional licensing alternatives.

Is the 1200% increase in co-dev deals sustainable into 2027?

The percentage increase will normalize — you can't grow 1200% off a base of 12 the way you can off zero. The absolute trajectory is more informative: if co-dev deal volume reaches 18–24 transactions in the next six-month window, that would confirm a durable structural shift rather than a one-time spike. Three factors suggest sustainability: ongoing LOE pressure through 2030, continued FDA support for combination development pathways, and the demonstrated capital efficiency of co-dev structures in a cost-disciplined environment. DealForma's mid-year projections estimate 20+ co-dev deals by March 2027.