Frequently Asked Questions

Yes—there are small grants like the Manufacturing SME grant (€50,000) and a handicraft support call with a total of €970,000 aimed at consortia supporting traditional crafts and tourism. These are suitable for early-stage manufacturing startups or small craft businesses, especially in low-economic zones seeking seed funding or capacity building. Check the call specifics for consortium requirements and eligible activities before applying.

Low Power Edge AI Chips focuses on semiconductors and AI for sectors like telecoms, autonomy, industrial automation, and healthcare with grants starting at about €1 million. Next-generation Edge AI Chips targets prototypes at TRL 6-7 integrating advanced tech (non-volatile memory, neuromorphic, 3D integration, photonics) with funding between €1 million and €5 million. Applicants should prepare technical roadmaps, consortium partners with fabrication or integration expertise, and evidence of TRL progression.

AID4SME Open Call 1 funds European AI, data-driven, and robotics SMEs to improve competitiveness and support the green transition. Small grants of up to €150,000 are available, ideal for proof-of-concept, pilot deployments, or scaling tech. SMEs should emphasize clear impact on competitiveness, environmental benefits, and a realistic implementation plan.

The Operational Digital Platforms call, which sounded promising for cross-border digital infrastructure, was canceled on short notice. If you were preparing an application, stop work and monitor the Funding & Tenders Portal or Subsdy for any follow-up notices or reissued calls. Keep your materials handy: canceled calls sometimes reappear in revised form.

ERC Starting Grants target early-career Principal Investigators starting independent research teams and offer up to €1.5 million. ERC Synergy Grants fund collaborative teams of two to four PIs with up to €10 million over six years for ambitious joint research. Early-career researchers and established teams with high-risk, high-gain projects should review ERC eligibility, host institution requirements, and proposal expectations carefully.

Several notable calls were added in July including CyberSecDome (AI/VR cybersecurity up to €120K), multiple semiconductor and edge AI chip calls (starting around €1M and up to €5M), Urban Mobility learning projects (up to €700K each), AID4SME Open Call 1 (SME-focused AI grants up to €150K), and various smaller or niche grants like handicraft support and manufacturing SME awards. There are also ERC Starting and Synergy Grants mentioned for researchers. Subscribers can find full lists and links on Subsdy.com/News.

The sSOI call offers grants over €1 million and focuses on developing and standardizing Process Design Kits (PDKs) based on validated sSOI data. The deadline is in November, giving applicants time to assemble proposals and partners. Make sure to read the call for detailed deliverable requirements and validation/standardization criteria before applying.

CyberSecDome targets companies or consortia developing AI- and VR-based cybersecurity solutions, which typically means SMEs, startups, or partnerships with research/industry partners. Grants are available up to €120,000 per project. Check the specific call text on the Funding & Tenders Portal for eligibility details like consortium rules, legal entities, and required documents.

Organizations working on learning experiences in urban mobility—such as training providers, universities, EIT partners, and consortia—should consider this grant. It funds high-quality, impact-oriented, and financially sustainable learning formats and offers up to €700,000 per project from a €4 million pool. Proposals should show strong educational impact, scalability, and leverage of EIT Urban Mobility’s network.

Yes — interviews (Step 3) will remain but will only occur after every second Step 2 deadline, resulting in three interview weeks per year. Step 2 itself will have six submission deadlines (first Wednesday every second month). So you can submit more often but should plan for fewer interview windows.

EICAIC is a pilot competition aimed at early-stage tech innovations aligned with EIC-defined technology challenges. It has a two-stage model: a first-stage viability grant (~€300,000) and a second-stage prototyping grant (~€2.5 million), with 2026 funding focused mainly on first-stage awards. Expect a 10-page proposal format and an April 2026 deadline for the first round.

Pathfinder grant caps are increasing — individual grants can now reach up to €4.5 million, offering larger support for deep-tech research and early-stage technology development. Applicants should consider scaling project scope and budgets to take advantage of higher maximum funding while keeping objectives and deliverables tightly defined.

In 2026 the program budget is about €4 million, mostly for Stage One winners (roughly 13 winners at maximum grant sizes). The 2027 budget is planned to expand to €25 million to support Stage Two winners as well as new Stage One awardees. Stage Two funding depends on successful completion of Stage One, so budgeting and scheduling should reflect that staged progression.

The 2026 draft introduces major changes to the EIC Accelerator evaluation (more technical due diligence and extra sub-steps), increases Step 2 deadlines from two to six per year, brings back ranking for interview selection, raises Pathfinder grant ceilings, and creates a new pilot grant program called EIC Advanced Innovation Challenges (EICAIC). All changes are currently draft and subject to final publication at year end.

Instead of a simple GO/NO GO, applications will be ranked which reduces the number of interview invites and concentrates interviews on the stronger candidates. Interview invitations will be issued at roughly 2–2.5x the available budget, implying post-interview success rates around 40–50%. This should improve interview success probability for those invited.

Step 2 will include dedicated technical due diligence via an external expert, shifting it toward a conversation/assessment rather than pure essay grading. There's an added sub-stage structure (informally 2A for technical due diligence/interview and 2B for regular remote evaluation), plus a revised Step 2 template and new annexes. Expect more interaction and possibly more work spreading across these sub-stages.

No — the changes discussed are based on a leaked draft and remain preliminary. The EIC is expected to publish the official 2026 Work Program at the end of the year, at which point rules, templates, deadlines, and evaluation procedures will be final. Keep watching official EIC channels and the Work Program release for the confirmed details and any template updates.

Program Managers who set the technical challenges are slated to take part in the EICAIC evaluation process, which differs from previous EIC practice of separating program steering from evaluation. This could concentrate influence and raise conflict-of-interest concerns, so applicants should monitor final rules and be prepared to document alignment to challenge priorities transparently.

Prepare clear, concise technical documentation and annexes that allow an external expert to assess technology readiness and novelty quickly. Have supporting data, IP status, validation experiments, and team technical credentials ready for remote questioning. Expect a technical interview focused on feasibility, risks, and mitigation rather than long narrative responses alone.

Treat grants as a numbers game: submit multiple high-quality applications and tailor each to the call evaluation criteria. Make your proposal clear, outcome-focused and evidence-based; include user letters, commercialization plans and measurable KPIs. Learn from rejections by requesting feedback, iterating on weaknesses, and maintaining a pipeline of submissions to mitigate single-application risk.

Use the EU Funding & Tenders Portal for official call texts, eligibility, budgets and deadlines, and follow Subsdy News as a curated source that tracks additions and expiries. Bookmark the specific call pages, subscribe to alerts and maintain a calendar with buffer time for consortium formation and proposal drafting. For complex calls, consider engaging a proposal consultant or a project partner early to accelerate preparation.

The Innovative Space-Based Applications call targets TRL 7–9, meaning systems should be prototype-demonstrated in operational environments up to near-commercial readiness. Demonstrate TRL via past tests, field trials, validation plans and a clear path to deployment. Include evidence such as test reports, pilot agreements, user validation letters and roadmap to market adoption.

Yes—programs like FFplus cover 100% of eligible direct costs up to set caps (e.g., €200k for main SME) with no financial contribution required, so you don’t dilute equity. Ensure your project fits the call scope and budget rules, and prepare detailed cost breakdowns and technical plans for compute and data needs. Be ready to comply with reporting and IP rules defined by the consortium or grant.

Service contracts procure defined services for an EU body (coordination, events, training) rather than funding research or product development. You bid to deliver outputs described in the contract and are paid according to contractual terms, often with performance deliverables and reporting obligations. Treat them like a commercial procurement: demonstrate capacity, past experience and a clear delivery plan.

Very important: many space calls require partners from at least two different EU Member States or Associated Countries and expect complementary expertise (industry, R&D, end-users). Build partners who can credibly deliver technical, operational and market impact parts of the project, and formalise roles early to speed proposal writing. Evaluators reward well-balanced consortia with clear responsibilities and cross-border collaboration.

WASABI funds 12-month experiments to develop AI assistance technologies improving efficiency and human–AI collaboration, with access to Digital Innovation Hubs. Prepare concrete use cases (onboarding, interfaces, conversational AI) and plans for pilot deployment and evaluation in manufacturing settings. Emphasise expected productivity gains, worker impact and integration with existing processes.

Prioritise calls that match your core expertise, realistic TRL and resource capacity, and those with favourable funding levels and timelines. Apply to multiple aligned calls to improve odds, but avoid spreading yourself too thin—focus on 3–5 high-fit opportunities and use standardized project components (objectives, impact, work packages) to speed up applications. Track deadlines closely since many calls are added and expire rapidly.

A lump sum grant awards a fixed amount for completing defined tasks and deliverables rather than reimbursing actual costs. You must meet milestones and deliverables exactly as described to receive payments, so draft a realistic workplan and budget allocation that align with those milestones. Lump sums simplify accounting but require strict adherence to the grant’s scope and outputs.

Check each call's target beneficiaries in the call text: SMEs, startups, universities, research organisations, public authorities or mixed consortia. Pay attention to mandatory requirements like minimum TRL, cross-border partners, or sector focus (space, AI, soil, seaweed). If you match the listed beneficiary types and meet the specific eligibility criteria, you can prepare an application or join a consortium.

The remaining Step 1 deadlines for 2025 are September 2, October 7, November 4, and December 2. Submit on one of these dates if you want to target the early 2026 Step 2 rounds. Monitor the official EIC pages because dates could be updated when the work program is published.

Step 1 evaluations typically take about six weeks, so a submission on October 7 would yield results around November 25. That timing determines whether you can meet the January 7 Step 2 deadline; aim to have Step 1 results in hand before investing heavily in Step 2 to avoid wasted effort.

The draft suggests a shorter template for Step 2 in 2026, but the EIC has previously added hidden requirements, so actual workload may remain equal or increase. Plan for similar or greater effort than 2025 by allocating time for additional documentation, financial detail, and impact justification. Build flexibility into your timeline to absorb last-minute requirement changes.

If rejected, rapidly implement reviewer feedback and use the next available Step 1 deadline (e.g., November 4 after an October 7 attempt) to resubmit. Prioritize the changes that directly impact scoring criteria and enlist colleagues or external reviewers to speed up quality improvements. Keep the Step 2 timeline in mind—don’t start full Step 2 work until you have a confirmed Step 1 pass unless you can spare the effort.

Always check the official EIC website and the published work program for the definitive list of deadlines and any updates. The blog referenced links to the deadlines; bookmark those pages and subscribe to EIC newsletters or alerts so you receive changes as the work program is finalized. Rely on official sources rather than leaked drafts for final planning.

Submitting on October 7 gives you the best balance between getting results in time and having a resubmission window. If you fail to reach the 75% threshold, you can quickly revise and resubmit for the November 4 deadline. If you're approved, you'll still have time to prepare a strong Step 2 for the January 7 deadline without rushing.

The leaked draft shows six Step 2 deadlines in 2026, with the first one on January 7. More frequent deadlines give more opportunities to apply but concentrate work at year-end and early January. Use the extra rounds as contingency planning for resubmissions or staggered applications, but be ready for a busy end-of-year push.

If evaluations take only five weeks, a December 2 Step 1 submission might yield results before January 7, but that’s unlikely due to the holiday season and typical processing times. Plan as if December results will arrive too late and prefer October or November submissions to ensure you have time for Step 2 preparation or resubmission if needed.

Generally no — preparing Step 2 in full before Step 1 approval risks wasting time if you fail to progress. Instead, prepare key materials and gather data now (financials, team bios, commercialization plan draft) so you can accelerate Step 2 work once you have Step 1 approval. Only begin full Step 2 completion if you have strong confidence in passing or can allocate extra resources.

Map backward from the January 7 Step 2 deadline: set internal milestones for Step 1 submission (ideally Oct 7) and allow time for resubmission if needed. Allocate dedicated staff for proposal writing, financials, and pitch deck preparation now, and reserve buffer days for reviewer feedback and administrative checks. Consider hiring temporary support (grant writers, financial modelers) for the crunch period.

Include how you will reach customers and make sales—distribution channels, sales partners, acquisition cycles, pricing model and key partnerships. Mention specific partners or channels (e.g., distributors, integrators, pilot customers) to evidence reach. Keep it concise but concrete: evaluators want to see a credible route to revenue, not high-level marketing talk.

Mitigations should be thorough and practical: steps, timelines, responsibilities and contingency options. Evaluators penalize unaddressed or superficial risks, so show depth rather than long risk narratives. Multiple well-mitigated risks demonstrate you understand and can manage project threats.

Implement reviewer feedback promptly, explicitly state 100% commitments for core staff, include a short commercial strategy with distribution partners, and add a compact risk section with strong mitigations. Emphasize commercial experience in team bios even for researchers, and provide LOIs or partner mentions to show traction. These small, concrete changes address common evaluator concerns.

Step 1 is competitive but binary—projects can pass despite weaknesses if other sections are strong. Evaluators still note concerns (commitment, commercial strategy, risks) to flag issues for Step 2. Treat those comments as priorities: fix them for Step 2 because a single unresolved issue can cause rejection later.

Translate technical roles into commercial strengths: highlight team members' experience in scaling, industry partnerships, product launches or business development. Add concrete examples like past collaborations, pilot customers, production scaling or revenue-generating activities. If a role lacks commercial history, show how you'll cover it with partners or hires.

Yes—evaluators often expect risks and mitigation despite the template omission. List several realistic risks and pair each with a clear, practical mitigation plan. Keep risk descriptions short and make the mitigation details robust to show you can manage downside.

You should not ignore explicit reviewer feedback, especially on things flagged as critical (e.g., 100% commitment). Implement changes or document a compelling reason for not doing so, since evaluators notice inconsistencies. Ignoring major warnings increases risk, even if you pass Step 1.

Commercial strategy explains how you will actually sell and distribute the product (sales channels, partnerships, go-to-market steps). Marketing strategy focuses on awareness and demand generation (content, conferences, ads). For EIC Step 1, emphasize commercial mechanisms—who will buy, how they will buy, and who helps you deliver it.

Team commitment is critical—evaluators treat part-time involvement as a red flag. State clear percent commitments for each core member and ensure these match any reviewer feedback you receive. If an advisor or non-core contributor is part-time, label them as such and explain how day-to-day delivery is covered.

AI tools can generate high-quality drafts quickly and help with research, structure and templates, but a human reviewer adds value by catching context-specific issues (commitment, tone, subtle evaluator expectations). Combine ChatEIC drafts with a personalized review to increase your chances of passing. The human review often spots overlooked feedback and tailors messaging for Step 2.

Success rates are likely to vary by Step 2 deadline, with earlier deadlines in a Step 3 segment possibly having higher pass rates than the later ones. If quotas get filled before a later Step 2 is considered for interviews, that later round could see a lower success rate. Plan your submission timing strategically rather than assuming uniform chances across all deadlines.