Background The COVID-19 pandemic spurred an unprecedented global research response, highlighting the need for better coordination amid limited resources and the ongoing threat of emerging diseases. The Pandemic PACT Programme has developed a live database tracking funded research on pandemic-prone diseases and broader preparedness efforts to facilitate improved pandemic preparedness. This paper presents the baseline analysis of this dataset, examining gaps in global research funding by disease, geography and research topic, and identifying which funders are supporting pandemic-prone infectious disease research. Methods As of March 1, 2025, the database includes 20,362 grants from 326 funding organisations spread across 58 different countries, representing at least $14.4 billion in financial commitments. We conducted a mapping review to provide an open, accessible analysis of the funded research portfolio on infectious diseases with pandemic potential. The review analyses global research funding trends from 2020 to 2024 across priority diseases and research areas, identifying key investment priorities and gaps. Results Analysis of the Pandemic PACT dataset reveals uneven global research investment across infectious diseases with pandemic potential. While funding has generally aligned with priority research areas, major research gaps persist, particularly in diagnostics, health systems research, and ethics. Although vaccine and therapeutic research dominate the portfolio, much of it remains focused on pre-clinical and early-phase trials. There is, however, increasing attention to vector and environmental research in comparison to prior analyses on COVID-19 research. Investments remain concentrated in high-income countries, with limited financial support for context-specific research led by institutions in low- and middle-income countries. The inclusion of vulnerable populations in funded grants is also limited. Conclusions Our findings reveal critical gaps and disparities in global pandemic preparedness research funding. The living design of this review will enable ongoing monitoring of these gaps, providing real-time evidence to support funder coordination and policy decisions.