Frequently Asked Questions

While scores are equally weighted, selection ranking prioritizes impact first when scores tie, so impact can decide funding. The introduction is the best place to showcase impact because it frames the whole proposal and influences evaluators' perceptions of plausibility. A compelling impact narrative increases your chance to stand out among many similar-scoring proposals.

Include enough market, trend and policy context in the introduction to justify the problem's urgency and relevance to the EU. Reserve detailed market analyses, competitor benchmarking and policy citations for later sections, but reference key evidence in the intro to support your narrative. The goal is to make reviewers want to read the supporting details.

Don’t write a generic or easy-to-write intro that avoids addressing impact or EU relevance (the 'searching under the streetlight' pitfall). Avoid vague claims, unsupported market statements, and failing to link the problem to EU priorities. Also avoid overloading with technical detail—save depth for later sections.

Have reviewers unfamiliar with the project read the intro and ask them to summarize the problem, the proposed solution and the EU benefit. If their summaries match your intended message and they naturally understand why the innovation is needed, the intro succeeds. Iterate until external readers consistently arrive at the same conclusions.

Include the problem statement, target customers, market trends, policy drivers, and projected impact (e.g., jobs, revenue, emissions reduction). Emphasize why competitors can't solve it and quantify the potential EU benefit where possible. Keep it concise but evidence-based so reviewers can readily connect it to the impact criterion.

Start by clearly describing the problem in EU-relevant terms (economic, social, regulatory or strategic). Show why current solutions fail and present your innovation as the missing link that avoids negative repercussions. Tie benefits to EU priorities and use concrete examples or data to make the story plausible and urgent.

The introduction sets the narrative and frames every other section of the proposal, linking the technology to market needs, policy context and EU priorities. A strong introduction highlights the unique selling points, the problem's urgency, and the impact if no solution is deployed. Reviewers often form first impressions from it, so it influences perceived plausibility and impact scores.

Rewrite it until the narrative cleanly links your innovation to the EU's needs and your other sections flow from it; this often means multiple iterations. Test readability with third parties and refine based on feedback until the problem, solution and impact are crystal clear. Prioritize clarity and alignment over stylistic flourishes.

Define the desired EU outcome (policy goal, market need) and the threat or cost of inaction, then show precisely how your innovation bridges that gap. Use quantifiable impacts or scenarios to illustrate consequences if your solution doesn't exist. Keep the explanation clear and tied to measurable benefits.

Although the explicit ‘non-bankability’ criterion was removed, the EIC still asks applicants to explain why they need EIC support; projects that recently raised large private rounds may face scrutiny or be deprioritized. Be transparent about how EIC funding uniquely de-risks or accelerates your project and avoid applying if you can clearly self-fund the next critical milestones.

Prepare a tight, fluent pitch in English, rehearse answers to common objections about market, team and commercialization, and practice delivery with critical listeners to reduce ‘likeability’ bias. Bring concrete evidence (customers, LOIs, technical validation) and ensure your team members who speak at the interview are authoritative and practiced in Q&A.

Ensure consistency: align your Step 1/2 written case with the interview narrative, provide clear, objective evidence for claims (technical validation, customers, financials), and preempt typical rejection reasons like small team size or unclear commercialization. Track feedback across attempts, and if possible work with advisors who have insights into how evaluators and juries judge technical versus commercial risk.

Most successful applicants do use consultants—surveys report over 70% hiring external help—because the application is lengthy and specialized. If you lack experience with the template or storytelling for high-risk DeepTech, budgeting for a seasoned consultant can reduce avoidable mistakes and save time, but choose one with proven EIC track record and insist on clear deliverables.

Many rejected but high-scoring proposals implement parts of their projects via private financing or smaller-scale efforts, but lack of alternative funding often halts full deployment. If rejected, immediately use evaluator feedback to target other public or private sources, consider staged development, and keep documentation to support stronger re-submission or investor conversations.

Historically, the process has shown considerable randomness: well-scored proposals have been rejected and later accepted with minimal changes. To mitigate risk, expect re-submissions may be necessary, document feedback carefully, and focus on clear technical milestones, team strength and commercialization pathway rather than relying solely on reviewer sympathy.

The EIC has set targets and broadened definitions of female-led roles, which can influence selection priorities. If you are a female founder, highlight leadership impact; if not, focus on demonstrable excellence in DeepTech and explain how your team and governance support inclusion without relying on superficial KPI gaming.

Not necessarily—case studies show many projects reached TRL8 but lacked evidence of large-scale commercialization within two years. Treat initial EIC funding as validation to continue development, build commercialization support into your plan, and set realistic multi-year milestones since DeepTech often needs longer than two years to scale.

Delays stem from structural setup issues, legal transitions under Horizon Europe and learning curves within the Fund’s administration. Expect grant disbursements sooner than equity; plan cash runway and milestones accordingly and avoid relying on equity to start critical scale-up activities until the financing agreement is signed and funds are transferred.

The EIC Accelerator offers up to €2.5 million in grants and up to €15 million in equity per project, for a combined maximum of €17.5 million. Grants are generally paid more reliably and faster than equity tranches, as equity investments have frequently experienced administrative delays.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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 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 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.

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.