Frequently Asked Questions

Using well-known and easily understood acronyms can be acceptable, but avoid using obscure or overly technical acronyms that may confuse evaluators. Clarity is key, so err on the side of spelling things out if necessary.

Focus on the broader industry or European impact of your project. Examples include creating a circular economy, mitigating climate change, increasing renewables penetration, or developing new treatments for diseases. Highlight the benefits to society and the economy.

The title is extremely important as it's often the first thing evaluators see. A strong title can pique their interest and encourage them to delve deeper into your proposal. It sets the stage for everything else.

While a catchy title can be appealing, prioritize clarity and descriptiveness. Ensure the title accurately reflects the project's core offering and impact. A clear title is more effective than a clever but vague one.

The introduction should include the Unique Selling Points (USPs) of your innovation, the inefficiencies of competing technologies, the difficulties of realizing a disruptive technology, and the reasons why the EU should care about the problem you are addressing.

The introduction should highlight the gap between the EU's goals and the current reality. It should illustrate how your innovation bridges this gap, providing a solution to a problem that aligns with EU priorities and addresses a critical need.

Before writing the introduction, thoroughly research and understand the market, trends, policies, and financial pressures related to your innovation. This context is crucial for effectively demonstrating the relevance and impact of your project to the EU.

The introduction significantly shapes the overall impression of your proposal. A well-crafted introduction establishes plausibility and highlights the potential impact of your project, making it more likely to resonate with evaluators.

If proposals receive identical scores, the ranking is prioritized based on the 'Impact' criterion first, followed by the 'Excellence' criterion, and then gender balance. This highlights the importance of a strong impact statement in your application.

Blended finance refers to a funding package that combines both grant funding and equity investment from the EIC. This approach allows companies to access both non-dilutive funding and long-term investment.

MedTech is already highly represented in Open Calls, so the EIC doesn't need to allocate specific Challenge budgets to it. Challenge budgets are often reserved for very specific MedTech applications or other technology areas.

MedTech/Healthcare dominates the EIC Accelerator Open Calls. Biopharma is the second most funded industry, making up over 56% of all funded companies in these two segments.

Challenge Calls are *often* less competitive than Open Calls, but this isn't guaranteed. The competitiveness depends on the specific challenge and the number of high-quality applications received.

Energy and MedTech/Healthcare are the most funded industries within the EIC Accelerator Challenges. Other well-represented industries include Battery, Quantum technology, and Semiconductors.

The concentration of funding in top countries like France and Germany raises concerns that the EIC Accelerator may be reinforcing existing wealth disparities. It prompts questions about whether funding should be directed more towards regions with less access to capital.

France, Germany, and the Netherlands have secured the highest number of EIC Accelerator awards between 2021 and 2024. These top 3 countries account for a significant portion of the total funding allocated.

Due to the complexity of the EIC Accelerator application process, many companies rely on consultants. However, the cost of these services can be a barrier for startups in lower-GDP countries.

While the EIC Accelerator prioritizes DeepTech, disruptive innovations can also be successful. Companies with excellent technologies that demonstrate a potential for significant market impact have a chance of receiving funding.

Over 70% of applicants hire consultants to prepare their EIC Accelerator applications, highlighting the complexity and time-consuming nature of the process. While not mandatory, the obscure guidelines and demanding requirements often lead applicants to seek professional assistance to improve their chances of success.

Around 60% of high-scoring but rejected proposals are implemented at a smaller scale, often relying on private financing or a combination of private and public funds. This suggests that even strong projects struggle to secure funding without EIC support, highlighting the EIC's potential role in supporting truly non-bankable ventures.

Focus on clearly articulating why your project needs EIC funding, even though the 'non-bankability' criterion has been officially removed. Highlight the de-risking effect the grant and equity components will have for outside investors. Also, ensure your team has strong presentation and communication skills for the interview stage.

The evaluation process has been described as unpredictable, with some applicants reporting a sense of randomness in project selection. Resubmitted proposals with minimal changes sometimes succeed, while others fail despite high quality. While feedback has improved, consistency in evaluation remains a challenge.

The EIC Accelerator primarily supports technology-driven projects with a strong focus on optics, robotics, energy, health, and climate tech. These industries align with the EIC's broader mission of funding disruptive innovations that address societal challenges and promote European competitiveness.

The EIC has set targets for female participation and has adjusted its definition of what constitutes a female-led company. This includes considering CTO and CSO positions, not just CEO. However, some argue that changing the definition of the goal is not the same as reaching the goal and could potentially create unintended consequences.

The EIC Accelerator is complex, and many applicants hire consultants. However, applicants should be aware that consultancies can exploit the complexity, and overstate chances of success.

The EIC Accelerator provides up to €2.5 million in grant funding and up to €15 million in equity investment, totaling a potential €17.5 million per project for startups and SMEs.

The EIC faces conflicts between maximizing success for political appearances, focusing on high-risk DeepTech, and increasing female participation. Prioritizing diversity and fast success might lead to avoiding high-risk projects, potentially harming the DeepTech ecosystem.

The EIC should publish detailed, anonymous information regarding the reasons for rejecting applications, especially after the interview stage. This would provide clearer guidance and improve the consistency of the evaluation process.

Delays in equity investments are primarily due to structural difficulties and the inexperience of EU operatives in managing the fund, rather than issues caused by the beneficiaries themselves. The transition of the Fund under Horizon Europe also introduced legal complexities.

The EIC has set targets for female participation and adjusted criteria for what constitutes a female-led company. However, there are concerns that changing the definition of the goal might not be as effective as increasing the number of female applicants.

The AI system can be set up with instructions saved as plain text, allowing for easy modification. Feedback from the board and jury can be quickly integrated by simply changing these instructions. This approach allows for rapid iteration and refinement of the evaluation process.

AI should only be fully integrated when it demonstrates higher quality evaluations than human evaluators. Early testing can involve inviting top AI picks that were initially rejected by human evaluators to see if the Jury approves, providing a real-world comparison.

In the long term, AI can be used to engage applicants by automatically sending questions for clarification and streamlining the application process. The template could be replaced by a short cheat sheet followed by AI Q&A, potentially reducing unnecessary content and making the application process more efficient.

Yes, a hybrid approach is possible. AI outputs could be used as a dashboard that highlights the pros and cons of a project for human evaluators. The AI could act as the initial evaluators, with the human evaluator making the final decision, leveraging the strengths of both AI and human judgment.

Useful additions could include connecting the AI to patent databases and allowing web searches for market, competitor, science, and IP analysis. Image recognition could also be incorporated if deemed necessary. These features would enhance the AI's ability to assess the viability and potential of submitted projects.

The software backend can use version control via a private repository, making it easy to change providers if needed. This separates the software from the sensitive proposal data, allowing the EIC to retain control over the evaluation process while maintaining flexibility in choosing contractors.

It's recommended to use a European company that runs an open-source Large Language Model (LLM) locally. This approach keeps sensitive Intellectual Property (IP) within Europe and avoids sending it to the US or China. Running the LLM on EU servers provides an extra layer of security.

The most important KPI is the interview success rate. A higher success rate indicates that the initial evaluation steps are effectively filtering out weaker projects. AI integration aims to improve this rate, ensuring that only the most promising projects proceed to the interview stage.

AI offers several benefits, including the ability to perform infinite evaluations instantly, refine filtering based on board and jury feedback, and maintain a perfect record of evaluation decisions. This leads to increased Step 3 success rates and decreased Step 1 and 2 rates, improving the overall quality of the evaluation process.

Yes, by shifting the focus from large equity investments to smaller top-up grants, the EIC could fund significantly more companies. The high equity budget could be reallocated to provide more initial grants, expanding the reach of the EIC Accelerator program.

Data suggests the EIC Accelerator's budget allocation is shifting towards equity investments, even though grants are awarded to more companies. The equity budget has consistently been larger than the grant budget, indicating a growing focus on VC-type investments.

The concern is that grants, which are a strong incentive for outside investors, are becoming a smaller portion of the budget. This is happening even though most applicants still seek grant funding. Grants are seen as a better way to attract private investment compared to the EIC acting as a co-investor.

Grant+ provides a direct financial benefit to outside investors, acting as a 'VC dowry' and incentivizing them to invest. Unlike equity, grants are non-dilutive, meaning companies don't have to give up ownership. This approach could attract more investors and streamline the funding process.

The EIC could manage the financing process more directly with Grant+, reducing reliance on external entities like the EIB for VC-type investments. The EIB would primarily coordinate the timing of the top-up grants once funding milestones are met, leading to a more streamlined process.

Grant+ is a proposed alternative to blended finance, where companies receive the standard €2.5 million grant with the option for additional 'top-up' grants based on future funding rounds and milestones. These top-up grants, ranging from €1-3 million, would act as a discount for outside investors.

The EIC Accelerator program, funded by the European Commission and European Innovation Council, provides grants and equity financing to startups and SMEs. It offers up to €2.5 million in grant funding and €15 million in venture financing per project, supporting innovative companies with high growth potential.

Timing is crucial because it indicates a strong potential for future business opportunity and product-market fit. Factors like regulatory trends, technological breakthroughs, or increased market demand can create a favorable environment for a company's success.

The EIC generally seeks dynamic, young companies (often under 10 years old) that are timely and exhibit high growth potential. They prioritize companies presenting a time-limited opportunity to invest in a promising innovation with significant market potential.

The EIC will assess how a company has utilized past financing to determine its ability to manage resources effectively and achieve milestones. A history of inefficient spending or failure to demonstrate progress can negatively impact the application.

Look for companies with a long history of development but little to no revenue, a lack of customer demand, and a tendency to start and stop development based on funding availability. Their business plans often overemphasize technology and IP while neglecting customer needs and practical market strategies.