The EIC Transition: Navigating the Valley of Death in European Deep-Tech Innovation
Section 1: The Genesis of EIC Transition - A Legacy of Experimentation
The European Innovation Council (EIC) Transition programme, a cornerstone of the Horizon Europe framework, was not conceived in a vacuum. It represents the culmination of a multi-year, evolutionary process of strategic experimentation by the European Commission. Its purpose is to bridge the perilous gap between promising, lab-validated scientific discoveries and market-ready innovations—a chasm often referred to as the "valley of death." To fully comprehend the role and design of EIC Transition, it is essential to trace its lineage back to its foundational predecessors within the Horizon 2020 programme. These earlier instruments, each with a distinct purpose and scope, collectively exposed a critical structural gap in the EU's innovation pipeline, a gap that EIC Transition was precisely engineered to fill. It inherited its core DNA from two distinct programmatic ancestors: the Future and Emerging Technologies (FET) programme's Innovation Launchpad, which provided the "push" from the scientific base, and the SME Instrument, which provided the "pull" from the commercial market.
1.1. The Foundational Layer: The Future and Emerging Technologies (FET) Programme
The conceptual bedrock of the entire EIC pipeline, including the Transition programme, is the Future and Emerging Technologies (FET) programme under Horizon 2020. Comprising three complementary lines of action—FET-Open, FET-Proactive, and FET Flagships—the programme's central mandate was to fund high-risk, high-reward, interdisciplinary research into visionary ideas for radically new future technologies. FET was designed to be Europe's "seed corn" for deep-tech, supporting projects at the earliest stages of development, typically ranging from Technology Readiness Level (TRL) 1 to 4.
The FET programme was highly successful in its primary objective, generating a wealth of groundbreaking scientific results. The EIC pilot phase (2018-2020), which incorporated the FET programme, supported over 430 projects involving more than 2,700 partners. These collaborations produced over 3,000 peer-reviewed scientific articles, more than 600 innovations, and over 100 patents. However, this very success created a second-order problem: a growing portfolio of promising, low-TRL technologies with no clear, dedicated, and sufficiently funded pathway to the next stage of development. A FET project would typically conclude with a proof-of-concept validated in a laboratory environment (TRL 3-4), leaving a significant gap to traverse before it could attract private investment or enter a commercialisation-focused programme. This challenge was the foundational problem that subsequent instruments, and ultimately EIC Transition, sought to solve.
1.2. The First Bridge: The FET Innovation Launchpad (FET-IL)
The first direct attempt to bridge this gap was the FET Innovation Launchpad (FET-IL), introduced under the Horizon 2020 FET-Open calls. This instrument can be seen as the direct, albeit small-scale, prototype for the EIC Transition. Its design and limitations were instrumental in shaping the final form of its successor.
The FET-IL's purpose was to fund short, focused actions to take a promising result from a FET-funded project "out of the lab" and onto a path toward social or economic innovation. Critically, the programme explicitly funded non-scientific activities that were not covered by the original research grant. These activities included defining a commercialisation process, conducting market and competitiveness analysis, performing technology assessments, and consolidating intellectual property rights (IPR). This established the vital principle of using public funds for business maturation and market readiness activities, a core tenet of the modern EIC Transition programme.
However, the FET-IL was an experiment of modest scale. It offered small grants of up to €100,000 for projects lasting no more than 18 months. While this made the instrument agile and a low-risk trial for the Commission, the funding amount was often insufficient to perform the substantial validation, demonstration, and prototyping work needed to truly de-risk a deep-tech innovation for follow-on private investment.
A defining feature of the FET-IL was its "gated pipeline" model. Eligibility was strictly limited to proposals building on results from an ongoing or recently finished project funded under the FET programme. This created a direct, traceable lineage from foundational research to early commercial exploration, a model that EIC Transition would initially inherit. Despite its small scale, the FET-IL demonstrated its utility. Projects like UVALITH, which aimed to advance optical frequency conversion technology for industrial use, and HERMES SR, which sought to commercialise a super-resolution microscope, received support to define their go-to-market strategies, showcasing the instrument's value in practice. The FET-IL proved the concept of a targeted grant for commercial exploration but also highlighted the need for a more substantial financial commitment to make a meaningful impact.
1.3. The Commercial Pull: The SME Instrument
Operating in parallel to the science-push of the FET programme was the market-pull of the Horizon 2020 SME Instrument. This programme, particularly its Phase 2, represented the philosophical counterpart to the FET-IL. It was designed to support innovation in small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) by filling the funding gap for early-stage, high-risk projects and increasing the private-sector commercialisation of research results.
The focus of the SME Instrument Phase 2 was squarely on market readiness. Its goal was to take a technology from the prototype level (typically starting at TRL 6) to a state of commercial readiness, preparing it for market entry and global conquest. To achieve this, it offered substantial grants, ranging from €0.5 million to €2.5 million, covering activities like prototyping, scaling-up, testing, demonstration, and validation for market replication. This grant size and focus on later-stage development activities would become a key feature of the EIC Transition.
A crucial innovation of the SME Instrument was its focus on single SMEs as beneficiaries. This broke from the traditional EU model that required multi-partner consortia for research projects, acknowledging that the agile and focused efforts of a single commercial entity are often the most effective drivers of market innovation. This mono-beneficiary approach would also be adopted as a key option within the EIC Transition framework.
The design of the SME Instrument, however, made the "valley of death" starkly apparent. A typical FET project would conclude at TRL 3 or 4. The €100,000 provided by a subsequent FET-IL grant was rarely enough to advance a complex technology to the TRL 6 minimum entry requirement for the SME Instrument's Phase 2. This created a clear chasm in the EU funding landscape: a gap between the end of foundational research funding and the beginning of close-to-market commercialisation support. It was precisely this chasm that the EIC Transition was conceived to bridge.
1.4. The EIC Pilot (2018-2020): Consolidation and the Emerging Gap
The EIC pilot phase, launched in 2018, was the pivotal moment when these disparate programmatic elements were brought under a single strategic umbrella. This act of consolidation formalized the European innovation pipeline and, in doing so, made the need for a dedicated "Transition" instrument undeniable.
The pilot created a new architecture by bringing existing Horizon 2020 instruments, notably the FET programme and the SME Instrument, into a single, integrated work programme. FET was rebranded as the "EIC Pathfinder" pilot, responsible for early-stage, visionary research, while the SME Instrument became the "EIC Accelerator" pilot, focused on supporting companies in bringing innovations to market and scaling up. This established the clear three-pillar structure that defines the EIC today: Pathfinder for advanced research, Accelerator for scale-up, and a suite of Business Acceleration Services (BAS) to support beneficiaries.
By formally structuring the funding pathway in this linear fashion, the gap between the Pathfinder (typically ending at TRL 3-4) and the Accelerator (typically starting at TRL 5/6) became an explicit, undeniable structural problem within the Commission's own framework. It was no longer just an implicit challenge for innovators but a visible missing link in the EIC's logic. The success of the pilot phase, which demonstrated the immense demand and potential at both ends of the spectrum, only amplified the urgency of this issue. The very first "EIC Transition to Innovation Activities" call, which closed in late 2019, was the direct and necessary response to this newly formalized gap, designed to ensure the coherence and functionality of the entire EIC concept.
The creation of EIC Transition was therefore not a radical new idea but an evolutionary synthesis. It logically combined the specific, gated-pipeline eligibility and deep-tech origin of the FET Innovation Launchpad with the substantial grant size and business-centric focus of the SME Instrument Phase 2. It adopted the eligibility model of the former and the funding scale of the latter, creating a fit-for-purpose bridge to carry Europe's most promising scientific breakthroughs across the valley of death.
Section 2: The EIC Transition under Horizon Europe - Formalisation and Evolution (2021-2025)
With the launch of the Horizon Europe framework programme in 2021, the EIC Transition was formalized as a core component of the fully-fledged European Innovation Council, which was endowed with a budget of €10.1 billion for the 2021-2027 period. The programme's evolution since its inception has been marked by significant shifts in budget, strategic focus, and eligibility, reflecting a continuous process of adaptation and response to the needs of the European innovation ecosystem and broader EU policy objectives.
2.1. Launch and Mandate (2021): A Bridge Over Troubled Waters
The official mandate of the EIC Transition programme was clear from its launch: to support innovation activities that go beyond the experimental proof of principle in a laboratory. It was designed to fund both the maturation and validation of novel technologies, advancing them from a starting point of Technology Readiness Level (TRL) 3 (experimental proof of concept) or TRL 4 (technology validated in lab) to a target of TRL 5 (technology validated in relevant environment) or TRL 6 (technology demonstrated in relevant environment). This positioning confirms its role as the critical bridge between the EIC's Pathfinder and Accelerator instruments.
The inaugural 2021 Work Programme allocated a total budget of approximately €100 million to EIC Transition. This funding was divided between a bottom-up "Open" call, with no predefined thematic priorities (€59.6 million), and two top-down "Challenge" calls (€40.5 million). This established the dual-track approach of supporting both unsolicited, breakthrough ideas and strategically targeted innovations from the programme's outset.
The results of the first call in 2021 provided immediate insights into the demand and sources of innovation. A total of 42 projects were selected for funding from 292 submitted proposals. A significant finding was that 60% of these successful projects originated from the European Research Council's Proof-of-Concept (ERC-PoC) programme, with the remaining 40% stemming from FET/Pathfinder projects. This demonstrated a strong pull from Europe's fundamental science base, validating the need for an instrument to help top-tier researchers explore the commercial potential of their discoveries.
2.2. The Dual-Track Approach: The Rise and Fall of "Transition Challenges"
A central feature of the EIC's strategy is the use of top-down, thematic "Challenge" calls, steered by EIC Programme Managers, to direct funding towards areas of strategic importance for the EU. The EIC Transition programme adopted this dual-track approach from 2021 to 2023, running Challenge calls alongside the bottom-up Open call.
The thematic priorities of the Transition Challenges evolved each year, reflecting shifting EU policy priorities:
- 2021 Challenges: The initial challenges focused on two key areas: Medical Technology and Devices: from Lab to Patient and Energy Harvesting and Storage Technologies.
- 2022 Challenges: The focus shifted towards the green and digital transitions, with three challenges: Green digital devices for the future, Process and system integration of clean energy technologies, and RNA-based therapies and diagnostics for complex or rare genetic diseases.
- 2023 Challenges: The challenges became more technologically specific, targeting: Full scale Micro-Nano-Bio devices for medical and medical research applications, Environmental intelligence, and Chip-scale optical frequency combs.
However, the 2024 Work Programme marked a significant disruption: the Transition Challenges were suspended, making the programme entirely bottom-up and "Open". The 2025 Work Programme has continued this "Open only" approach, signaling a strategic pivot away from the dual-track model for this specific instrument.
This suspension can be interpreted as a pragmatic recognition of the inherent difficulties in applying a top-down, portfolio-management approach at the mid-TRL Transition stage. The EIC's model, driven by Programme Managers, is predicated on creating strategic portfolios to tackle specific challenges. While this works well for Pathfinder, where it can steer the direction of new foundational research, and for the Accelerator, where it can target scale-up in strategic sectors, it proved more complex for Transition. The raw material for Transition projects—the outputs of previous, disparate research projects—is less malleable. It is difficult to retroactively fit these diverse results into a coherent, top-down Challenge portfolio. Evidence from the September 2023 cut-off statistics supports this view: there was a high number of proposals for the broad "Micro-Nano Bio devices" challenge (67) but far fewer for the more niche topics of "Environmental intelligence" (16) and "Chip-scale optical frequency combs" (12). This suggests an uneven alignment between the strategic challenges defined by the EIC and the actual research results emerging from the pipeline. The decision to suspend the Challenges was therefore likely a practical move to more efficiently capture the best innovation potential at this stage, regardless of its thematic alignment.
2.3. Budgetary Fluctuations and Strategic Shifts (2021-2025)
The budget allocated to the EIC Transition has fluctuated since its launch, providing a barometer of the Commission's evolving priorities and the broader financial context of the Horizon Europe programme. The year-on-year changes are summarized in the table below.
| Year | Total Indicative Budget (€M) | Open Call Budget (€M) | Challenge Call Budget (€M) | Challenge Topics |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2021 | 100.1 | 59.6 | 40.5 | Medical Devices; Energy Harvesting & Storage |
| 2022 | 131.0 | 70.5 | 60.5 | Green Digital Devices; Clean Energy Tech; RNA Therapies |
| 2023 | 128.4 | 67.9 | 60.5 | Micro-Nano-Bio Devices; Environmental Intelligence; Optical Combs |
| 2024 | 94.0 | 94.0 | 0 | Challenges suspended |
| 2025 | 98.0 | 98.0 | 0 | Challenges suspended |
The budget saw a significant increase in 2022 to €131 million, reflecting growing confidence in the programme and the introduction of more ambitious strategic challenges. After remaining robust in 2023, the budget experienced a sharp drop to €94 million in 2024. This reduction was not unique to Transition but was part of a wider EIC budget cut from €1.6 billion to €1.2 billion. This was attributed to the withdrawal of contributions from the Next Generation EU recovery fund and the strategic necessity to allocate more funds for follow-on equity investments in companies already in the EIC Accelerator portfolio. The budget for 2025 shows a slight recovery to €98 million but remains below the 2022-2023 peak.
2.4. Disruption and Adaptation: The 2024 Work Programme
The 2024 Work Programme introduced the most significant evolution of the EIC Transition programme since its launch, marking a clear point of disruption and adaptation. Beyond the suspension of the Challenge calls, two other major changes were implemented.
First, and most consequentially, was a massive expansion of the programme's eligibility criteria. For the first time, EIC Transition was opened to proposals based on results from Horizon Europe Pillar II collaborative projects (which focus on "Societal Challenges" and "Leadership in Industrial Technologies") and from research projects funded by the European Defence Fund (EDF), provided the proposed application is for civil or dual-use purposes. This move broke the original, tightly "gated" pipeline that had sourced projects almost exclusively from the deep-tech wellsprings of EIC Pathfinder/FET and ERC-PoC.
Second, in line with a broader EIC simplification effort, the Transition programme adopted a lump-sum cost model. This aimed to reduce the administrative burden on beneficiaries by eliminating the need for detailed financial reporting and timesheets. Instead, payments are linked to the completion of work packages defined in the proposal, a model intended to allow innovators to focus more on their project's substance.
This expansion of eligibility is a double-edged sword. On one hand, it addresses a potential pipeline problem caused by fluctuating application numbers and fosters greater synergy across the entire Horizon Europe framework, a common recommendation in policy circles. It effectively creates more "winners" by giving a much larger pool of projects a new funding target. On the other hand, it fundamentally alters the deep-tech character of the EIC Transition. The programme's original identity was defined by its mission to mature the most radical, high-risk technologies from Europe's premier science-driven programmes. Opening the door to projects from the more application-oriented Pillar II and the EDF creates a much more heterogeneous pool of applicants. This poses a significant challenge for evaluation: comparing the risk profile and scientific novelty of a project stemming from a fundamental quantum physics discovery (from Pathfinder) with one developing a more incremental improvement to an agricultural sensor (from Pillar II) is extremely difficult. This shift makes EIC Transition a less specialized instrument and more of a general-purpose "mid-TRL maturation fund." While this may be a net positive for the EU innovation system as a whole, it represents a major disruption to the programme's original, more focused identity.
Section 3: The Mechanics of Transition - Rules, Processes, and Support
To fully understand the EIC Transition programme, it is crucial to analyze its operational framework—the specific rules, processes, and support mechanisms that define the experience for applicants and beneficiaries. This framework has been carefully designed to select projects with both technological promise and commercial potential, and to provide them with the resources needed to navigate the path to market.
3.1. Evolving Eligibility: Who Can Apply?
The eligibility criteria for EIC Transition are highly specific, acting as a gatekeeper to ensure that only projects at the right stage and from the right origins can enter the pipeline.
Applicant Profile: The programme is open to a range of applicants, reflecting the different pathways an innovation can take. This includes single legal entities—such as SMEs, start-ups, spin-offs, and research performing organisations (universities, research or technology organisations)—as well as small consortia of two to five partners. The inclusion of single applicants is a direct legacy of the SME Instrument, acknowledging that a single, agile entity is often best placed to drive commercialisation. Consortia must be composed of independent legal entities from different EU Member States or Horizon Europe Associated Countries, following standard Horizon Europe rules.
Originating Project Requirements: The most critical eligibility rule is that a proposal must be built upon the results of a previously funded EU project. Until 2024, this was restricted to projects from the EIC Pathfinder (including its Horizon 2020 predecessors like FET-Open and FET-Proactive) and the European Research Council Proof of Concept (ERC-PoC) schemes. The 2024 Work Programme significantly expanded this, opening eligibility to results from:
- Research and Innovation Actions (RIAs) funded under Horizon 2020's Societal Challenges and Leadership in Industrial Technologies pillars, and under Horizon Europe's Pillar II.
- Research projects from the European Defence Fund (EDF), for proposals focused on civil or dual-use applications.
Technology Readiness Level (TRL) Gatekeeping: The programme operates within a strict TRL window. The technology from the originating project must have achieved, at a minimum, TRL 3 (experimental proof of concept) and ideally TRL 4 (technology validated in the lab) at the time of application. Proposals based on technologies at other TRLs are not eligible. The goal of the EIC Transition project is then to advance this technology to TRL 5 (validated in a relevant environment) or TRL 6 (demonstrated in a relevant environment).
Intellectual Property Rights (IPR): A final, crucial hurdle is the ownership of or access to the intellectual property. Applicants must either be the IPR owner of the results from the originating project or provide evidence that they hold the necessary rights to further develop and commercialise that IPR. This is a critical requirement, particularly for applicants who were not part of the original research consortium.
3.2. The Evaluation Gauntlet: From Paper to Pitch
The EIC Transition employs a rigorous, two-step evaluation process designed to assess both the technical merit and the commercial viability of a proposal. This dual focus creates a demanding challenge for applicants.
Step 1: Remote Evaluation: Initially, each proposal is evaluated remotely by at least three independent EIC expert evaluators. The evaluation is based on three weighted criteria:
- Excellence (60% weighting in some schemes): Assessing the novelty and groundbreaking nature of the technology, its feasibility, and the soundness of the proposed methodology.
- Impact (20% weighting): Evaluating the project's potential for commercialisation, market uptake, societal and economic benefits, and the credibility of the business model and IP strategy.
- Quality and Efficiency of the Implementation (20% weighting): Scrutinizing the coherence of the work plan, the allocation of resources, and the quality and motivation of the team.
Proposals must meet demanding scoring thresholds for each criterion to be considered for the next stage. This paper-based assessment is primarily a technical and strategic review.
Step 2: Jury Interview: Applicants whose proposals successfully pass the remote evaluation are invited to a face-to-face (or virtual) interview with an EIC Jury. This jury is composed of up to six members, typically experienced investors, entrepreneurs, and other innovation ecosystem experts. The focus of the evaluation shifts dramatically at this stage. While technical soundness is still important, the jury places immense emphasis on the team's entrepreneurial mindset, their deep understanding of the market, the credibility of their business plan, and their ability to articulate a compelling vision under pressure. The interview culminates in a simple "GO" or "NO GO" decision from the jury, determining whether the project will be funded.
This two-step process effectively creates a "personality split" in the assessment. A project must first satisfy technical experts on paper and then convince commercially-minded investors in person. This structure inherently filters for teams that have already bridged the gap between science and business internally. A team led by a brilliant researcher with a poorly articulated business plan may pass the first step but is likely to fail the interview. Conversely, a slick entrepreneur lacking deep technical credibility may not even pass the initial remote evaluation. The successful "winner" is therefore not just a technology but a well-balanced team that embodies the very transition it is proposing to undertake.
3.3. The Role of the Programme Manager: The Hidden Hand
A unique feature of the EIC is the active role played by its Programme Managers (PMs). These are deep-tech experts appointed by the EIC to develop strategic visions for technology breakthroughs and to proactively manage portfolios of funded projects. While they are not formal evaluators with a vote, their influence on the Transition programme is significant.
During the evaluation process, PMs participate in the jury interviews as active observers. Their role is to provide specific technical knowledge and strategic context to the jury members, who are often generalist investors. A PM's intervention can be crucial in helping the jury understand the true disruptive potential of a complex, deep-tech project, thereby shaping their final decision.
Once a project is funded, the PM's role shifts to active portfolio management. They can draw relevant Transition projects into portfolio activities, fostering collaboration and knowledge sharing. They also act as brokers, connecting projects with investors, corporate partners, and regulators to accelerate their path to market. Furthermore, PMs can recommend projects for additional "booster grants" of up to €50,000 to undertake specific complementary activities, such as exploring new commercialisation pathways.
3.4. Beyond the Grant: The Value-Add Ecosystem
The support provided by the EIC Transition extends far beyond the grant funding itself. Beneficiaries are integrated into a rich ecosystem designed to accelerate their growth and maximize their chances of success.
Business Acceleration Services (BAS): All EIC-funded projects gain access to a wide range of tailor-made Business Acceleration Services. These services include bespoke coaching and mentoring from experienced entrepreneurs and experts, specialized training, and access to a global network of partners, including corporates, investors, and other innovators.
Fast Track to Accelerator: Perhaps the most powerful strategic benefit of the EIC Transition is the "Fast Track" scheme. Successful Transition projects become eligible to submit a proposal directly to the full application stage of the EIC Accelerator, bypassing the highly competitive and resource-intensive initial short application stage. This creates a streamlined and privileged pathway for the most promising ventures to access the EIC's flagship scale-up funding. This mechanism is not merely a convenience for applicants; it is a critical internal risk-management tool for the EIC itself. The EIC Accelerator is extremely competitive, with overall success rates in the low single digits. By using the €2.5 million Transition grant as a "grooming" phase, the EIC can heavily vet and de-risk a technology and its team before considering a much larger and more complex blended finance (grant plus equity) deal through the Accelerator. The Transition programme thus functions as a strategic "farm system" for the EIC Fund, making its overall investment portfolio safer and more likely to succeed.
Seal of Excellence: Proposals that are judged to be of high quality in the remote evaluation but are not funded due to budget limitations (or receive a "NO GO" from the jury) are awarded a "Seal of Excellence". This quality label serves as a valuable endorsement, helping the project to attract funding from alternative sources, such as national or regional funding bodies and private investors.
Section 4: Winners and Losers - An Analysis of the EIC Transition Portfolio
A data-driven analysis of the projects funded under the EIC Transition programme reveals distinct patterns in terms of success rates, geographical distribution, applicant profiles, and thematic focus. These trends provide a clear picture of the competitive landscape and highlight which types of applicants and innovations have been most successful in securing funding, effectively identifying the "winners" in this highly selective process.
4.1. Success by the Numbers: A Competitive Landscape
The EIC Transition has consistently been a highly competitive programme. While success rates are significantly higher than those for the EIC Accelerator, they remain demanding, typically hovering in the 10-15% range. For instance, the September 2022 call for the Open stream saw a 9.4% success rate, while the corresponding Challenges call reached 13.72%. The subsequent April 2023 calls showed similar competitiveness, with a 10.68% success rate for the Open stream and 10.20% for the Challenges. The most recent call for which data is available, the September 2024 Open call, was the most popular to date in terms of submissions, receiving 413 proposals and ultimately funding 40 projects for an overall success rate of approximately 9.7%. This consistent selectivity underscores the high quality required to win a Transition grant.
| Call | Proposals Submitted | Projects Funded | Success Rate (%) | Top 3 Coordinator Countries (# of projects) | Coordinator Profile (% RTO vs. % Company) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2021 Total | 292 | 42 | 14.4 | DE, IT, ES, NL (tied) | 62% RTO / 38% Company |
| Sept 2022 Open & Challenges | 338 (287 Open, 51 Chal.) | 34 (27 Open, 7 Chal.) | 10.1 | ES, IT, DE, FR | 35% RTO / 65% Company |
| April 2023 Open & Challenges | 180 (131 Open, 49 Chal.) | 19 (14 Open, 5 Chal.) | 10.6 | ES (5), FR (3), NL (3) | 42% RTO / 58% Company |
| Sept 2024 Open | 413 | 40 | 9.7 | ES, IT, DE (by submission volume) | 51% Private Sector (applicants) |
4.2. Geographical Dynamics: The Innovation Map of Europe
The distribution of funded projects reveals a clear geographical pattern. A small group of Member States consistently dominates the EIC Transition results. Analysis of multiple call results shows that Spain, Italy, Germany, France, and the Netherlands are the top-performing countries, consistently securing the highest number of successful projects. For example, in the April 2023 calls, Spain alone accounted for 26% of the winning projects, with France and the Netherlands each securing 15%.
This persistent dominance points to a potential "Matthew Effect" in European innovation funding, where "the rich get richer." Success in EIC Transition is not merely about having a scientifically excellent idea; it requires that idea to have already been funded through a highly competitive programme like ERC or Pathfinder. Institutions in countries with strong, well-funded research infrastructures are more likely to win these foundational grants. Furthermore, preparing a winning Transition proposal demands significant business acumen, market analysis, and specialized proposal-writing expertise. The national and regional innovation ecosystems in these leading countries often provide superior support structures—such as highly effective National Contact Points (NCPs), experienced technology transfer offices, and a mature consultancy market—to help applicants bridge the gap between science and business. Consequently, success in Transition is heavily influenced by being embedded in an ecosystem that can nurture an idea through multiple, complex funding stages. This creates a self-reinforcing cycle where successful regions generate more successful projects, potentially widening the innovation gap with other parts of Europe.
While the programme does have a broad reach, with successful applicants coming from 21 different countries in the September 2024 call, for instance, the frequency of success for smaller ecosystems and widening countries remains lower.
4.3. The Applicant Profile: Academia vs. Industry
The data on the type of organisations coordinating successful projects reveals a fascinating and evolving tension at the heart of the programme. Given that projects must originate from academic-heavy programmes like ERC and Pathfinder, one might expect research and technology organisations (RTOs) and universities to dominate.
Indeed, the 2021 results showed that 62% of projects were coordinated by R&D organisations, compared to just 38% by start-ups or spin-offs. However, this balance shifted dramatically in subsequent calls. By the September 2022 calls, companies were coordinating 65% of the winning projects. This trend continued in the April 2023 calls, where companies led 58% of successful consortia.
This evolution suggests a learning curve among applicants and possibly a preference among evaluators for projects where the commercial driver is already in the lead. A proposal is likely perceived as having a higher "Impact" and being more credible if a dedicated commercial entity, such as a spin-off, is already established and leading the project, rather than being a promised future outcome. This creates a "chicken-and-egg" dilemma for researchers: they may feel pressured to form a spin-off company before applying to Transition to maximize their chances, even if the technology is not yet fully validated for a specific market application. This trend points towards an emerging "winner" profile: the pre-formed, research-led SME. The "loser" profile, conversely, may be the purely academic consortium with a less concrete plan for future commercialisation.
4.4. Thematic Focus: Where is the Money Going?
Although the EIC Transition Open call is, by definition, bottom-up and open to all fields, a clear thematic focus emerges when analyzing the portfolio of funded projects. Even within the Open calls, and reinforced by the Challenge topics from 2021-2023, funding has consistently gravitated towards three strategic areas:
- Health and Medical Technologies: This is arguably the most dominant sector. Analysis of funded projects consistently shows a high share for health-related innovations. The 2024 results highlight projects like HeartWise's implantable circulatory support system as exemplary. The Challenge topics frequently targeted health, with calls for medical devices, RNA therapies, and micro-nano-bio devices for medical applications.
- Green and Environmental Innovation: Projects addressing climate change and sustainability are another key priority. The 2024 results feature FOREVER-WATER, a project developing a chemical-free system for destroying "forever chemicals" (PFAS). Challenge topics have included clean energy technologies and environmental intelligence.
- Digital and Microelectronics: Deep-tech digital solutions are a third pillar. The UPSPRING project, funded in 2024, aims to create ultra-low-power chips to reduce energy consumption in microelectronics by a factor of up to 1,000. Strategic challenges have targeted green digital devices and chip-scale optical frequency combs.
This thematic concentration reflects the EU's overarching policy priorities of the green and digital transitions, as well as ensuring public health and resilience.
4.5. Case Study: iSMILE - The Full EIC Journey
The idealised EIC pipeline—from foundational science to market-ready company—is perfectly illustrated by the success story of the iSMILE project and its associated scale-up company, QubeDot. It is the first project to have successfully completed the full EIC journey.
The journey began with the ChipScope project, funded under the EIC Pathfinder programme in 2016. This project developed a demonstrator for gallium nitride-based microLED technology, recognizing its potential for applications like chip-based microscopy. The project successfully concluded in 2020, achieving its low-TRL research objectives.
Building directly on these results, the SMILE project received funding from the EIC Transition programme from 2020 to 2023. This grant allowed the partners to mature the technology, perform comprehensive market research, and build a network of potential end-users. During this phase, the scale-up company QubeDot was able to solidify its business case.
Finally, with a validated technology and a clear market demand, QubeDot applied for and was selected to receive full blended finance support (grant and equity) from the EIC Accelerator following the November 2023 cut-off. The project, now named iSMILE, is focused on scaling up production to meet rising market demand.
This case study is a powerful demonstration of the EIC's intended logic. The Pathfinder grant funded the initial high-risk research. The Transition grant bridged the "valley of death," de-risking the technology and developing the business case. The Accelerator grant is now providing the capital for commercial scale-up. It exemplifies how the EIC's structured pathway can nurture a deep-tech innovation from a laboratory concept into a growing European company.
Section 5: The Future Trajectory - EIC Transition in FP10 and Beyond
The EIC Transition programme is not a static entity. Its future will be shaped by lessons learned during its implementation under Horizon Europe, by the strategic direction set for the EU's next Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (FP10, 2028-2034), and by the powerful external forces of global competition and geopolitics. Analysis of recent policy documents, expert reports, and institutional recommendations provides a clear indication of the programme's likely evolution.
5.1. Lessons from the Rear-View Mirror: The Horizon Europe Interim Evaluation
The performance of the EIC during its first years under Horizon Europe has been the subject of intense scrutiny, with official evaluations providing critical feedback. The EIC Impact Reports for 2023 and 2025, along with the European Parliament's assessment of Horizon Europe's implementation, paint a picture of significant successes coupled with persistent challenges.
On the success side, the EIC has proven to be a powerful engine for attracting private capital. The EIC Fund has demonstrated a leverage effect of over €3 in follow-on private investment for every €1 of public equity it invests. The portfolio of EIC-backed companies is growing rapidly in value, now including over 150 "Centaurs" (valuation >€100 million) and several "Unicorns" (valuation >€1 billion). These companies show impressive growth in employment and revenue following EIC support. The pipeline is also functioning, with Pathfinder and Transition projects generating over 1,300 innovations and leading to the creation of more than 100 spinout companies.
However, these reports also highlight significant challenges. A major concern is the persistent investment gap between Europe and the United States; overall deep-tech investment in the EU remains at about one-third of the US level. European venture funds are smaller, and there is a particular scarcity of later-stage scale-up funding. Internally, the EIC has been criticized for significant administrative burdens and a "time-to-grant" that is often longer than under Horizon 2020 and exceeds the Commission's own targets. These lessons will be crucial in shaping the design of the EIC's instruments in FP10.
5.2. Charting the Course for FP10: An Ambitious Future
The preparatory discussions for FP10 are already well underway, with influential reports from experts and institutions outlining an ambitious vision for the future of EU research and innovation, with the EIC at its core.
A near-universal recommendation is the need for a substantially larger budget for FP10. The expert report chaired by Manuel Heitor and the European Parliament's resolution on Horizon Europe implementation both call for an FP10 budget in the range of €200 billion to €220 billion, a significant increase from Horizon Europe's €95.5 billion. Within this expanded budget, the EIC and the European Research Council (ERC) are consistently identified as priority recipients for increased funding to address their chronic oversubscription and low success rates.
Structural reforms for the EIC are also on the table. To enhance its agility and allow it to operate with the speed and predictability of a private venture capital fund, there are strong recommendations to explore a new, tailor-made legal and institutional setting for the EIC, potentially establishing it as an independent EU body. This would strengthen its autonomy and shield it from some of the administrative rigidities of the standard Framework Programme rules.
Crucially for the EIC Transition, the European Parliament's resolution explicitly recommends that its activities in FP10 should be open to proposals based on results from any FP project, regardless of which programme part funded the original research. This would make the broad eligibility criteria introduced in 2024 a permanent feature, cementing Transition's role as a central, cross-cutting maturation fund for the entire Framework Programme.
5.3. The Geopolitical Imperative: Strategic Autonomy and Dual-Use
The future of EIC Transition is being shaped less by internal programmatic logic and more by high-level external pressures, namely the EU's drive for "strategic autonomy" and the new geopolitical reality. The desire to reduce critical dependencies on third countries, particularly in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic and the war in Ukraine, has become a central driver of EU policy.
This geopolitical imperative is leading to a strong push for the EU to better support the development of dual-use technologies—those with both civilian and defence applications. A series of recent expert reports and a Commission White Paper have advocated for creating more synergies between civil and defence R&I and providing dedicated support for dual-use projects. These top-down political priorities will inevitably cascade into funding instruments, and the EIC, as the EU's primary innovation engine, is the natural home for this strategic funding.
This trend is already visible in the 2024 EIC Transition programme, which for the first time allows proposals based on results from the European Defence Fund. This is likely a precursor to a more integrated approach in FP10, where EIC Transition will be explicitly tasked with helping to mature technologies critical for Europe's security and technological sovereignty. The programme is evolving from being an instrument of purely research and innovation policy to becoming a tool of industrial and security policy as well.
5.4. Concluding Analysis: The Future Role of EIC Transition
Synthesizing these trends allows for a series of predictions about the future evolution and role of the EIC Transition programme.
Prediction 1: Survival and Growth. The programme will undoubtedly survive into FP10 and is highly likely to see a significant budget increase, in line with the broader institutional support for the EIC as a critical tool for European competitiveness.
Prediction 2: Permanent Broad Mandate. The expanded eligibility criteria introduced in 2024 will become a permanent feature. This will solidify Transition's role as a general-purpose, mid-TRL maturation fund for the entire Framework Programme, not just a niche instrument serving the EIC's internal pipeline. It will be the go-to programme for any promising result from any part of the FP that needs support to cross the "valley of death."
Prediction 3: Increased Strategic Direction. The programme will face growing pressure to demonstrate its contribution to the EU's strategic autonomy. This will likely manifest in a re-emergence of "Challenge" calls focused on specific strategic technologies like critical raw materials, semiconductors, quantum computing, AI, and dual-use applications. The budget share of the fully bottom-up "Open" call may shrink relative to these top-down, strategically defined priorities.
This points to a fundamental tension that will define the future of EIC Transition. It sits at the fault line of a major debate over the soul of EU R&I funding. On one hand, the academic community and proponents of basic science argue that true breakthroughs emerge from unfettered, bottom-up, curiosity-driven research, and that FP10 must rebalance funding towards this philosophy. This view favors a broad, open EIC pipeline. On the other hand, policymakers and industrial strategists contend that Europe must direct its resources to solve specific societal challenges and build strategic industrial capabilities. This view favors targeted, challenge-driven calls.
The EIC Transition, by its very nature, must serve both masters. It is tasked with taking the outputs of bottom-up research and aligning them with the top-down strategic goals of the Union. Its final challenge will be to manage this inherent contradiction: to maintain its effectiveness as a bridge for all types of innovation while simultaneously serving as a key instrument for building Europe's technological sovereignty in an increasingly complex and competitive world. The most probable future is a continued, and perhaps increasingly tense, hybrid model that attempts to balance these competing philosophies.