Frequently Asked Questions

While there isn't a direct evaluation criterion specifically for the 'narrative' itself, the overall impression, plausibility, and impact of the project are all assessed. A well-crafted narrative significantly contributes to a positive evaluation across these areas.

When proposals receive the same overall score, the EIC prioritizes them based on the impact criterion first, then the excellence criterion, and finally gender balance. This makes a strong impact section, driven by a compelling introduction, even more critical.

Rewrite your introduction as many times as necessary until you are confident that it perfectly reflects the impact of your innovation. It's not uncommon to revise it multiple times to ensure it effectively sets up the rest of the proposal.

The introduction is crucial for demonstrating the impact of your innovation. It should clearly articulate the problem your innovation solves and the positive changes it will bring about, aligning with the EU's priorities and needs. A weak introduction can significantly undermine your impact score.

It means demonstrating how the problem your innovation addresses aligns with the EU's strategic goals, policies, and priorities. Show how solving this problem will contribute to the EU's overall objectives and benefit its citizens.

Avoid focusing on easily addressed aspects of the problem if they don't highlight the true impact of your innovation. Don't shy away from addressing the core challenges and demonstrating how your solution directly tackles them, even if it's more difficult to articulate.

You need to clearly show the gap between what the EU wants to achieve and what is currently preventing them from achieving it. Your innovation should be presented as the solution that bridges this gap, addressing a critical need and delivering significant benefits.

MedTech is less represented in Challenge Calls because it already dominates the Open Calls. The EIC doesn't need to allocate additional Challenge budgets to MedTech since many general MedTech innovations are already funded through the Open Call.

Blended finance is also the most common funding type in EIC Accelerator Open Calls. There is a slightly increased interest in blended finance in Open Calls compared to Challenge Calls.

The EIC Accelerator offers funding through Open and Challenge Calls. Open Calls are broader in scope, while Challenge Calls target specific technological areas defined annually by the EIC. Both offer grants and equity, but Challenge Calls are often less competitive due to their focused nature.

Challenge Calls can be more attractive because they generally face less competition than Open Calls. This increased focus can improve the chances of a successful grant proposal, making them a preferred option for some applicants.

The analysis used data from official EIC releases, downloadable databases from CORDIS, and the EIC Accelerator Data Hub. However, the EIC Accelerator Data Hub was found to contain inaccuracies, so the analysis primarily relied on CORDIS and official EIC data.

Energy and MedTech/Healthcare are the most frequently funded industries within the EIC Accelerator Challenges. Other well-represented industries include Battery, Quantum technology, and Semiconductors, aligning with the EIC's focus areas.

MedTech/Healthcare dominates the EIC Accelerator Open Calls, representing a significant portion of funded companies. Biopharma is the second most funded industry. This reflects the high number of MedTech companies in the deep tech ecosystem.

The EIC Accelerator typically provides up to €2.5 million in grant funding and up to €15 million in equity financing per project. This applies to both Challenge and Open Calls, offering a total potential funding of €17.5 million.

The EIC Accelerator Challenges change annually. Each new EIC Accelerator Work Programme outlines the specific technological Challenges for that year, including their budget allocations. This means a Challenge relevant in one submission round might not be available in the next.

Blended finance (combining grant and equity) is the most popular funding type in EIC Accelerator Challenges, followed by grant-first funding. There's a slightly higher interest in grant-first support in Challenges compared to Open Calls, potentially reflecting the riskier nature of Challenge projects.

The EIC Accelerator, funded by the European Innovation Council and European Commission, supports SMEs and startups with high-risk, DeepTech innovations. It provides funding to scale operations globally, offering up to €2.5 million in grant and €15 million in equity financing per project.

France, Germany, and the Netherlands have consistently secured the most EIC Accelerator funding between 2021 and 2024. These top 3 countries account for over 40% of all funded companies, highlighting a concentration of funding in specific regions.

The EIC Accelerator offers several funding options: blended finance (grant and equity), grant-first, grant-only, and equity-only. Blended finance is the most popular option, while equity-only is the least common due to specific application restrictions and company preferences.

Grant-first funding involves receiving grant funding initially, followed by potential equity investment. It's often used for high-risk projects, particularly in the MedTech and Healthcare sectors, to mitigate risks before equity is deployed and to attract private investors later on.

The EU and EIC are committed to supporting widening countries, but execution remains challenging. A general lack of excellent companies compared to other regions can lead to fewer applications and, consequently, less funding allocated to these countries.

The EIC Accelerator is primarily designed for Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SMEs) and startups based in EU member states and countries associated with Horizon Europe. This includes countries like Ukraine, Israel, and Tunisia, but success rates vary significantly between countries.

MedTech/Healthcare, Biopharma, and Energy are the leading industries funded by the EIC Accelerator. These sectors align with the program's focus on DeepTech and scientific advancements, representing over 50% of the total EIC Accelerator winners.

Grant-only funding is less popular due to increased scrutiny during the evaluation process and the difficulty in justifying it within the proposal. Many UK companies have opted for grant-only due to equity restrictions, contributing significantly to the overall grant-only funding allocation.

DeepTech is a core focus of the EIC Accelerator, with a preference for scientific projects over broader innovations. However, disruptive innovations in various industries can also be successful if they demonstrate excellent technology during the evaluation process.

Due to the complexity of the EIC Accelerator application process, many companies use consultants to prepare their proposals. However, the cost of these services can be a barrier for startups in low-GDP countries, potentially impacting their chances of success.

The EIC Accelerator generally allows for only two attempts before a freezing period is reached, but there are exceptions. If rejected in Step 3, you might receive a direct invitation to the next Step 3 interview without needing to resubmit Step 2, offering another chance for funding.

The EIC Accelerator uses a 3-step evaluation process to select startups and SMEs. It involves multiple stages of review and culminates in an interview (Step 3) for the most promising applicants. Successful applicants can receive up to €2.5 million in grant funding and €15 million in equity financing.

In October 2021, 19% of companies applying to Step 2 were invited to Step 3 interviews. Of those interviewed, 47% were successful, resulting in an overall success rate of 9% for the EIC Accelerator, excluding Step 1. This means that only a small percentage of initial applicants ultimately receive funding.

France, Germany, Israel, Spain, and the Netherlands had the most winning companies in the EIC Accelerator for October 2021. Success rates in the Step 3 interviews for these top countries ranged from 48% to 57%. Other countries showed significantly higher variability in their success rates.

A 'direct invitation' means that applicants rejected in a previous Step 3 interview are re-invited to the next Step 3 interview without needing to resubmit for Step 2. These applicants have a significantly higher chance of success compared to standard invitations.

The data presented is limited by the small sample size and the specific focus of the Work Programme for that year. This means that the success rates of certain industries and countries may not be indicative of long-term trends or future funding opportunities.

Unfortunately, applicants from Portugal, Hungary, and Slovenia experienced a 100% rejection rate in the Step 3 interviews. This occurred despite these applicants having passed both Step 1 and Step 2, highlighting the unpredictable nature of the final interview stage.

Companies receiving direct invitations to the Step 3 interviews had a much higher success rate. In the October 2021 interviews, 82% of companies with direct invitations were successful, compared to only 45% for those invited through the standard Step 2 submission process.

The EIC should publish anonymized data on team size, financing status, revenue range, and customer numbers of successful applicants. This would allow prospective applicants to gain a more realistic understanding of their chances of success. Simplified data on Step 2 success chances based on industries and team sizes would also be beneficial.

Due to the focus on Digital Health and Green Deal technologies, health-related projects saw exceptionally high participation and funding rates in 2021. DeepTech projects in health, engineering, environment, agriculture, energy, and BioTech also performed well. The transport sector, however, had a lower funding rate.

Delays in equity investments have been attributed to structural difficulties and the inexperience of EU operatives in managing the fund. While grant payments have been processed relatively effectively, the equity component has faced challenges, hindering the timely disbursement of funds to beneficiaries.

Success in the interview requires strong personal skills, including English fluency, presentation abilities, and communication skills. There's also a 'likeability' factor, where agreeable and friendly speakers may be favored, which can be a disadvantage for those with a more disagreeable style.

Historically, many funded projects required 3 to 5 submissions before being successful. This suggests a degree of randomness in the process, where eligible projects may be rejected due to evaluator or jury selection rather than inherent flaws in the proposal.

The EIC has set mandatory targets for female participation. They have also broadened the definition of a female-led company to include CTO and CSO positions, not just the CEO. Some suggest that increasing the number of female applicants could be a more sustainable approach.

The EIC is increasing its reliance on National Contact Points (NCPs) to improve communication. They are also making data sharing mandatory on the EIC platform for all applicants. Publishing detailed, anonymous rejection reasons could also help provide superior guidance to future applicants.

The EIC Accelerator provides startups and SMEs with up to €2.5 million in grant funding and up to €15 million in equity financing per project, totaling a potential €17.5 million. This blended financing aims to support high-risk, high-impact innovations that may not be easily funded through traditional means.

While the EIC promotes DeepTech, its selection criteria increasingly favor commercial success, potentially conflicting with the long-term, high-risk nature of DeepTech investments. The EIC's focus on short-term KPIs and commercialization may lead it to prioritize less risky ventures over truly disruptive innovations.

Despite claims that the new application system saves time and effort, many find the current process significantly longer and more complex than the 2020 system. This has increased reliance on consultants, and success rates have fallen to similarly low levels as before.

The evaluation process has been described as unpredictable, with a sense of randomness in project selection. Some beneficiaries have reported success with resubmitted proposals containing minimal changes, undermining the credibility of the evaluation process.

The 'non-bankability' criterion, which referred to companies unable to secure private funding due to high risk, has been removed from the official EIC Work Programme and evaluation criteria. However, the application still asks why EIC funding is needed, reflecting the spirit of the removed rule.

It's not entirely clear if the EIC is attracting private investments or if private investors are attracting the EIC. There are instances where companies raised substantial capital before or during the EIC Accelerator approval process, suggesting the EIC might be piggybacking on private markets while also investing in disruptive technologies.

The EIC Accelerator focuses on very technical fields, often including hardware developments, in areas like health, energy, computing, and space technology. These are often DeepTech companies that are developing disruptive technologies. While riskier than pure software companies, these sectors are prioritized for their potential impact.

No, EU member states and associated countries are not equally represented in the EIC's portfolio. This is partly due to varying startup ecosystems and the challenges faced by low-GDP countries in creating cutting-edge DeepTech startups. Some countries naturally have a stronger presence in the EIC portfolio.