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 3 of the series and explores the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in the evaluation of EIC Accelerator grant proposals (see ChatEIC). Part 1 and Part 2 can be found here.

The Luxury of Virtuous Criteria

When the EIC designed its evaluation criteria, it was definitely not with DeepTech companies and the reality of startups in mind. Most EIC Accelerator winners raise money during the application process since it takes at least 8+ months to obtain funding. Another paradox is that companies that cannot raise money without the EIC will not be funded by the EIC. The narrative that the EIC funds companies through their valley of death is, at best, wishful thinking and, at worst, deception, as will be evident below.

Engineering and physics-heavy companies, and especially startups, often have female staff ratios of under 10%, while female founders are even more rare. That is the reality of startups in DeepTech.

The EIC has outlined criteria that are either not realistic or are outright counterproductive. Many of these criteria are highly generic, which means they are unnecessary and should be removed from the application process. Every consultant or professional writer knows that some sections require no input from the actual applicant since they must be fine-tuned to what the EIC wants to hear and not the reality of the company.

Evaluators know that they have to assess these criteria with more lenience, but they are official criteria nonetheless. Some of these criteria were discussed in Part 1 of the series.

What Should AI Evaluation Criteria Look Like?

Using AI for the evaluation is both a challenge and an opportunity. The challenge lies in the EIC having to be honest with itself about what it actually wants to fund, while the opportunity is that they will have the greatest application process known to bureaucracy.

What the EIC Accelerator actually wants to fund is not what the criteria would make you believe. In 2024, at a time when the budget was reduced, success rates were low, the markets crashed, and investors were hesitant, the EIC should have doubled down on funding companies in need: Companies with no funding that were right in the middle of the valley of death.

Yet, it funded a company through a grant as it raised €135 million in its Series C investment round. The funding round was announced 2 days after the EIC grant results were publicized, meaning that the term sheet was on the table for months before that, and the EIC Jury was well aware of it.

Double Funding Standards

Does a company that secured a fresh €135 million in funding need a €2.5 million grant? The EIC does think so since its president not only reposted the Series C announcement highlighting the additional EIC grant they would obtain, but also visited the company for a photo opportunity later on. Albeit Nearfield Instruments, the company that raised the €135 million Series C and received EIC Accelerator Step 3 approval within days, is based in the Netherlands, the same country the EIC Board president is from, which facilitates a visit due to the proximity.

Note: The EIC Board president does not make investment decisions and is not involved in the selection process of companies. He is likewise actively engaging EIC Accelerator beneficiaries in most EU countries without preferential treatment of any nationality or company size.

Nonetheless, it turns out that the EIC now crowds in private market investors before they even fund companies. A similar thing happened before, but in hindsight, that case is dwarfed in comparison.

There is obviously nothing wrong with funding such a company since it is likely well-deserved, but it should be clear how such a funding decision fits into the EIC’s mission. The EIC makes the rules but these same rules should be communicated to the applicants.

Out With Inconsistency, In With Realism

The EIC can make any funding decision it likes since it is their funding to distribute, albeit taxpayer-funded and subject to bureaucratic oversight, but it should be communicated to applicants what is acceptable and what is not.

Funding a company that raised €135 million within days is fine if the EIC can properly communicate why the EIC contribution was necessary and if it is aligned with the EIC criteria. Evaluators should likewise know that a €135 million funding round should not be a critical point for new applicants. Based on experience, they will criticize applicants who expect to raise far less funding if that is disclosed in a proposal.

If the EIC cannot explain how such a case fits the rules, then the criteria should change.

The criteria should reflect what the EIC actually funds and not what the EIC should fund, since there is a clear gap between the two. This does not mean that the EIC has to open-source its AI evaluation process, but it means that there should be zero cases where a company clearly does not fit the EIC’s mission of funding DeepTech. In the words of the EIC Board President (see Digging Deep):

“The easiest one definition I have for DeepTech is that in DeepTech you have a deep valley of death and so you have a valley of death that is long, so it takes three, four, five, six years of fundamental development, of technological development before you have a pilot that you can show. So what the EIC does is provide the capital to survive those deep valleys, and that’s the difference with, let’s say, the normal startup that normally will have a turnover within six months or a year.”

Did this particular company need €2.5 million to survive? That is quite unlikely. But for many rejected DeepTech startups, on the other hand, this grant would have been life-changing.

Realistic Criteria: Cut The BS

The current structuring of EIC Accelerator evaluation criteria into excellence, impact, and implementation is not a very useful way to think about companies. This is because these categories are quite general, and it is not very clear what should be included and what should not. While there is always going to be an overlap, there is a better way for AI to evaluate proposals in a more structural fashion.

Criterion 1: Technology

The first and by far most important criterion for the EIC should be the technology. The EIC Accelerator is looking for a very particular kind of technology called DeepTech, which is why this has to be the beginning of any evaluation process. Key subcriteria can include the scientific nature, the complexity, the maturity, and the novelty of the technology.

This criterion should likewise include the assessment of the technical feasibility and the overall description of its past developments that led to the current prototype, as well as information on testing, piloting, and demonstrations, including clinical trials for MedTech.

Other aspects that should be included are the general value chain participants such as suppliers, infrastructure providers, and other partners, as well as information on certifications and patents.

Criterion 2: Opportunity

The second most important criterion should be the opportunity, since no technology is of any use if no one wants to buy or use it. The only reason the opportunity comes in second is because the EIC is preoccupied with the DeepTech nature of the company, which renders the actual opportunity a second priority. The opportunity includes the overall market potential, financial projections, customer traction, and the general commercialization plan.

The opportunity is basically a way to sell the idea to investors, who want to know if this company has the ability to become the outlier that can capture the market. It will also detail customer relationships, commercial partners, and the general approach to capturing the opportunity.

The section will also detail the pain points in the world and in the industry niche in great detail to highlight the problem in a comprehensive manner, as well as the timing and urgency to commercialize the product.

Criterion 3: Team

The team comes in third place since it is an important aspect of assessing the success chances of a company. If the team seems competent and highly capable, investors will have confidence in them, which is why this section highlights the team’s backgrounds and track record. However, the AI evaluation should be integrated with care since having experience and past affiliations with large companies is not always a good way to assess DeepTech, as many founders come straight from university.

It is therefore a good idea to have a more lenient AI assessment when it comes to past accomplishments in favor of domain expertise (i.e., science and technology), a strong network (i.e., institutional, advisors, industry partners).

This section should likewise include information on hiring plans, employee incentives, cap table, and governance (i.e., advisory board, board of directors, informal advisors).

Criterion 4: EU Relevance

While this section is not last on the list, it should be by far the shortest since it is often too generic to make a narrative EU-aligned. However, it is still an important consideration since the EIC is a bureaucratic body controlled by the European Commission and is thereby subject to its rules and policies.

This section should define the relevance of the technology and implementation to Europe, with a focus on the current policies in the region, the insufficiencies of European markets, and the impact the innovation can have on Europe (i.e., climate, industry, citizens).

Criterion 5: Developments

Lastly, there should be a separate evaluation of the developments proposed under the EIC Accelerator since this is what the grant proposal is specifically for and what evaluators have the power to grant or reject. It contains the conventional work packages, tasks, and budget allocations for the EIC Accelerator project, but certain aspects should be simplified to avoid redundant or meaningless sections.

It is generally confusing to require both milestones and deliverables as part of the project since these are often interchangeable. To simplify the process, milestones should be removed and replaced with deliverables to have a single way of tracking and validating progress. This makes sense since both milestones and deliverables are designed to do the same thing – tracking and validating progress.

All the risks should likewise be included in this section since it will be simpler to have them all summarized in the same section instead of splitting them into work package risks and general risks, as is currently done in the official EIC Accelerator Step 2 template. In the end, all risks are work package risks since the work packages encompass the entire project. Even long-term commercialization risks must be part of the project if the EIC Accelerator truly aims to help companies scale.

The AI Critic

After restructuring the evaluation criteria into more sensible categories that are easier for AI systems to process and aiming to minimize overlaps in evaluations, the next challenge is integrating an AI evaluation process.

Should the AI be used to go through checklists like current evaluators do, or should there be a more holistic view? Should individual criteria be weighted differently, or should each contribute equally to approving or rejecting an applicant? Which shortcomings can be overlooked, and which are dealbreakers?

This will be discussed in Part 4 of this series.

This article was last modified on Apr 19, 2025 @ 05:30

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)