The EIC Accelerator funding (grant and equity, with blended financing option) by the European Commission (EC) and European Innovation Council (EIC) awards up to €2.5 million in grant and €10 million in equity financing per project (€12.5 million total) and is designed for startups and Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SME), often supported by professional writers, freelancers or consultants.

This article is part of a series that contains suggestions for the EIC and the EIC Board regarding various improvements to the evaluation process (see ChatEIC).

Risk

Risk is a difficult criterion because it is counterintuitive. It is usually best to give no more than 8 risks in a Step 2 proposal (4 technical, 4 commercial) that are rather vague but with strong mitigations. It is also best to avoid real-world risks or market risks (i.e., product-market-fit) since these will just lead to criticisms.

From experience, risks are not realistic in grant proposals since they are like a hot potato. They must be there, but they should not be looked at for too long.

“High-risk” is also a very subjective and undefined term since it does not specify what is too high and what is too low (i.e., proper boundaries). This allows evaluators to reject applicants because of risks, which, in turn, makes applicants hide their risks better. Evaluators might suggest adding better risk mitigations, but having strong risk mitigations in place turns a high risk into a low risk.

If there is a high risk that a bridge pillar breaks, then the risk is high. If there are 5 risk-mitigation pillars around to step in at any time, then the risk becomes low. A mitigated risk is a low risk and is not a high risk.

The more transparent the applicant is regarding risks, the less likely they are to reach the interview, especially groundbreaking DeepTech businesses that create very difficult things.

High risk should not be a way of assessing the company in Step 3, but it should be replaced with other factors that are more descriptive. The Jury should not consider the risk itself but the circumstances surrounding it, especially for DeepTech:

Is this a DeepTech company with a clear capital need? (high development costs, cannot be bootstrapped, will need more time to market)
- Risk equivalent = Cashflow problems, ongoing investor reliance.
Is there a race between just a small number of competitors trying to be the category winner?
- Risk equivalent = Betting on the right one or maybe the only European option. Intense pressure from an incumbent with much more capital and reach.
Does Europe lack the ecosystem to nurture successes? (lacking manufacturing, technology, infrastructure)
- Risk equivalent = Even if the company has perfect execution and superior technology, the lack of an ecosystem might be a risk that can lead to failure. Examples are the lack of compute (AI superclusters, datacenters), high electricity costs, semiconductor fabs, GMP MedTech manufacturers, etc.
Is the value chain not existing yet?
- Risk equivalent = Even with a great product and pricing, there might be technical limitations to scaling. An example is the second-life battery value chain or recycling, where the value proposition is clear, but the value chain for collecting end-of-life materials and the quality control might not be there yet.

There are more examples, but these are very realistic circumstances that the EIC should consider more than the idea of high risks. There is no need to view technology developments or scaling as risky. DeepTech brings certain risks along with it, so the requirement to look for high risks is unnecessary.

The examples above are also all risks that should be funded since they are DeepTech aligned and of clear EU interest. Other risks, like the potential for benchmarks not being reached, integrations failing, etc., are too generic and can happen to any company. It should not be a way for a non-DeepTech company to sell itself as high-risk, since this is not aligned with the EIC’s goals.

Jury Members and Domain Expertise

Airbnb has a simple feature after a stay: Rate the accommodation publicly through a review (i.e., the ESR) and then send a non-public message to your host. The EIC could use the same approach. The ESR is sent to applicants, and then a short list of questions by the Step 2 evaluators is sent to the Jury members.

Since not all Step 2 applicants will make it to the jury, every Step 2 evaluator should simply add 1 or 2 questions just in case.

Why this could make sense: The Step 2 evaluators usually have some type of domain expertise and can easily come up with 1 or 2 good questions in less than a minute. The jury (maybe) lacks domain expertise but has enough judgment to ask a technical question and then see how the interviewee will respond.

It is a simple and low-cost addition that could solve a few problems for the jury at once.

Equity Adjustments

The EIC Accelerator (formerly SME Instrument) has offered €2.5 million grants for over ten years, and the limit has not increased despite substantial inflation during that time. As a likely consequence, most companies aim for the maximum grant amount (about €2.3 million on average per winner), and it is reasonable that the jury is not allowed to change this amount since they could only reduce it.

Regarding the EIC Fund equity, the situation is different, and it would be preferable if the jury could change the amounts for a variety of reasons. Companies might reach the interview without being aware of the crowd-in factor, the co-investor requirements, the EU interests, or they might have made more progress in their fundraising efforts since submission. Instead of being outright rejected due to an unfitting equity amount, the jury (or EIB representative) should have the power to adjust the equity amount during or after the interview.

Why is this necessary? The grant funding has no strings attached, and the diligence process is straightforward. The equity funding is complicated.

It has a crowd-in factor, different tranches, negotiations, coordination with lead investors, and, most importantly, policy goals (i.e., strategic control, board seats). It makes sense to allow the EIC Jury or EIB representatives to adjust the equity to fit their needs, since that is what the EIB will do later on anyway.

It is also often advisable for EIC Accelerator applicants to request less equity because of these points. A company should not be rejected because of the equity amount, and the EIC should be able to reduce or increase it to fit their mission and budget.

Even today, the general rule for EIC Accelerator applicants is: If you ask for a grant, you will get the exact grant amount you requested. If you ask for equity, let’s see what you will get and when.

The EIC Fund already uses tranches, which means that the total amount that has been approved will likely be split into different funding rounds, while they also have a flexibility amount that allows them to change the equity amount later on. Since the EIC Fund and the EIB advisors will be able to make changes later on anyway, it would be in the interest of applicants to allow the EIC Jury to do the same in the earlier stages if the alternative would be a rejection due to technicalities.

Based on experience, applicants are generally confused about equity requests and amounts anyway, with most of their focus being on the grant component.

This article was last modified on May 4, 2025 @ 09:15

These tips are not only useful for European startups, professional writers, consultants and Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SME) but are generally recommended when writing a business plan or investor documents.

Deadlines: Post-Horizon 2020, the EIC Accelerator accepts Step 1 submissions now while the deadlines for the full applications (Step 2) under Horizon Europe are:

Step 1
- Open now: Apply as soon as possible to be eligible for the next Step 2 submission deadline
  - Proposals are sent for evaluation on the first Tuesday of every month
Step 2 (closing 17:00 Brussels Time)
- 1^st cut-off 2025: -
- 2^nd cut-off 2025: March 12^th 2025
- 3^rd cut-off 2025: -
- 4^th cut-off 2025: October 1^st 2025
Step 3
- 1^st cut-off 2025: -
- 2^nd cut-off 2025: TBD
- 3^rd cut-off 2025: -
- 4^th cut-off 2025: TBD

The Step 1 applications must be submitted weeks in advance of Step 2. The next EIC Accelerator cut-off for Step 2 (full proposal) can be found here. After Brexit, UK companies can still apply to the EIC Accelerator under Horizon Europe albeit with non-dilutive grant applications only - thereby excluding equity-financing.

Contact: You can reach out to us via this contact form to work with a professional consultant.

AI Grant Writer: ChatEIC is a fully automated EIC Accelerator grant proposal writer: Get it here.

EU, UK & US Startups: Alternative financing options for EU, UK and US innovation startups are the EIC Pathfinder (combining Future and Emerging Technologies - FET Open & FET Proactive) with €4M per project, Thematic Priorities, European Innovation Partnerships (EIP), Innovate UK with £3M (for UK-companies only) as well as the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) grants with $1M (for US-companies only).

Any more questions? View the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) section.

Want to see all articles? They can be found here.

For Updates: Join this Newsletter!

Get ChatEIC - The EIC Accelerator Grant Writer here:

by Stephan Segler, PhD
Professional Grant Consultant at Segler Consulting

General information on the EIC Accelerator template, professional grant writing and how to prepare a successful application can be found in the following articles:

A Quick FTO Guide for EIC Accelerator Applicants in a Rush

2023 Budget Allocations for EIC Pathfinder, Transition and Accelerator

Developing the Unique Selling Points (USP) for the EIC Accelerator

Explaining the Resubmission Process for the EIC Accelerator

A Short but Comprehensive Explanation of the EIC Accelerator

EIC Accelerator Success Cases

Deciding Between EIC Pathfinder, Transition and Accelerator

A Winning Candidate for the EIC Accelerator

EIC Accelerator Interview Preparation Process: Scripting the Pitch (Part 1)