EIC Accelerator is one of the most competitive innovation funding instruments in the world, with overall success rates typically in the mid single digits. For CFOs and founders, understanding why proposals fail is essential if you want to justify the time, cash and governance exposure that a submission entails.
This article unpacks the most common failure modes seen in EIC Accelerator bids and sets out practical ways to de risk your next submission.
What EIC Accelerator Is Really Evaluating
EIC Accelerator provides a mix of non dilutive grants and equity investment for high impact, high risk innovations that are close to market. The 2025 EIC Work Programme allocates more than EUR 1.4 billion across EIC instruments, with a substantial share reserved for the Accelerator and its challenge calls.
The selection process is explicitly investment like. Proposals pass through three steps:
- Short proposal
- Full proposal
- Jury interview with EIC experts and investors
At the full proposal stage, evaluators assess three criteria: excellence, impact and implementation, and each criterion receives a GO or NO GO. A single NO GO is enough to reject the application.
The outcome is a brutal success profile. For the 2024 calls, around 2,180 applications produced 139 funded companies, an overall success rate of about 6.4 percent. Analysis of recent calls suggests that once you factor in all stages, the true success rate from first approach to award is likely below 5 percent.
For a CFO signing off partner time, co funding and board attention, it is not enough to be technically strong. You have to understand why good companies still fail and how to shift the odds.
Why EIC Accelerator Proposals Fail
Weak commercialisation strategy
EIC Accelerator is about scale up, not research. Yet many proposals still read like R&D projects, with pages of technical depth and only a cursory section on markets. Evaluators and jury members report recurring weaknesses:
- Vague definition of target segments and buying centres
- Limited evidence of customer validation or willingness to pay
- Over optimistic adoption curves that ignore sales cycles and regulation
- Generic statements about “global markets” with no route to early beachheads
The official EIC guidance makes clear that evaluators expect a robust commercialisation plan, with realistic revenue projections, credible pricing and a go to market strategy that matches the team and resources.
Underpowered financials and funding strategy
Another frequent failure mode is a financial case that would not pass internal investment committee scrutiny. Typical issues include:
- Budgets that do not cover the true cost of development, regulatory work and launch
- No clear link between requested grant, equity ticket and overall funding runway
- Co funding sources that are either not committed or not realistic
- Cash flow profiles that ignore working capital and procurement realities
CFOs reviewing evaluator feedback on rejected bids often find that the numbers section undermined otherwise strong technology. Evaluators expect the financial story to match the ambition of the innovation and the scale of EU capital on offer.
Insufficient proof of traction and scalability
Many applicants describe impressive prototypes but offer little evidence that the innovation can scale commercially. Rejections often cite:
- Thin data on pilots or paid trials
- Weak unit economics or customer lifetime value rationale
- Minimal explanation of how margins improve with scale
- No plan for internationalisation beyond a line on “EU expansion”
Even at grant stage, EIC behaves like a sophisticated growth investor. Evaluators want to see that the core business model has been pressure tested, not just that the technology works in a lab.
Poor freedom to operate and IP strategy
In sectors such as life sciences, deep tech hardware and AI, freedom to operate and IP positioning are critical. Common weaknesses include:
- No structured freedom to operate search or external opinion
- Over reliance on a single patent rather than a layered portfolio
- Unclear ownership of background IP between spin out, university and founders
- Limited thinking about defensive publications or trade secrets
EIC assessors need comfort that public money is not being committed to a project that will later be blocked by litigation or licensing disputes. Thin or generic IP sections are a regular reason for NO GO decisions, especially in crowded technology spaces.
Misaligned risk narrative
The programme is designed for high risk, high impact innovation, yet many applications either:
- Downplay risk to appear “safe”, which contradicts the policy logic, or
- Describe risk in generic terms without showing concrete mitigation
A sophisticated evaluator expects a balanced risk narrative. The innovation should be too risky for conventional lenders, but the proposal should also show rigorous planning around technical, regulatory, market and supply chain risk. Applications that either ignore risk or drown the reader in unprioritised risk lists often fail.
Weak fit with the work programme and EU added value
Funded projects are not selected in a vacuum. They have to align with call texts, challenge priorities and the broader EIC and EU policy agenda, including strategic technologies and autonomy.
Frequent misalignments include:
- Proposals that ignore explicit challenge themes
- Limited explanation of why the innovation should be funded at EU level rather than nationally
- Thin treatment of European value chains, partners and spill over benefits
A proposal can score reasonably on excellence but still miss out because its EU added value is not compelling compared with other projects.
Implementation that does not inspire confidence
Finally, many proposals fall down on the Implementation criterion. Symptoms are:
- Work packages that are either too vague or far too detailed to be credible
- Gantt charts that ignore regulatory lead times or long hardware cycles
- Teams that are strong technically but light on domain commercial leadership
- Partner roles that are unclear or tokenistic
Given the three stage process and limited number of permissible resubmissions, EIC is increasingly unforgiving of implementation risk. After three unsuccessful attempts at any stage, an applicant is barred from further submissions for the rest of the programme, which makes early failures particularly costly.
How To De Risk Your Next EIC Accelerator Submission
For a CFO or board member, the objective is not simply to submit a compliant application, it is to treat EIC as one component of a wider capital allocation strategy. The following steps help de risk that decision.
Treat EIC as a quasi Series B investment process
Position the bid internally as if you were preparing an investment memorandum. That means:
- A clear investment thesis in one page
- Articulated use of funds for each tranche of grant and equity
- An exit or strategic optionality story, even if you are pre revenue
- Scenario analysis on project delay and cost overrun
Analysis from advisory firms such as FI Group, which supports UK scale ups on EIC and other EU grants, indicates that the most competitive dossiers read like investor grade documents, not purely technical grant applications.
Build an integrated financial model, not a spreadsheet appendix
Link the project budget to:
- Your existing P&L and cash flow forecasts
- Co funding commitments and future equity rounds
- Sensitivity on pricing, volumes and time to market
For CFOs, one practical discipline is to insist that the EIC model passes the same scrutiny as any internal capex or M&A proposal. If you would not approve the model for internal investment, it is not ready for EIC.
Upgrade the commercialisation evidence base
Instead of relying on pipeline anecdotes, build a structured evidence pack:
- Signed pilot agreements and letters of intent
- Data from trials showing performance, customer value and willingness to pay
- A worked example of unit economics at scale
- A realistic sales funnel, including sales cycle and churn assumptions
Present the commercial path in the language of value creation and payback, not only in terms of “market potential”.
Tighten IP and freedom to operate
Before submission, CFOs and CTOs should jointly review:
- Freedom to operate search outcomes and any red flags
- Patent family strategy, including continuation, divisional filings and jurisdictions
- Contractual clarity over background IP and future improvements
If there are gaps, address them early or explain clearly in the proposal how they will be mitigated using part of the budget.
Align explicitly with EIC work programme priorities
Map your narrative to the Work Programme language:
- Reference specific challenges and policy goals that your innovation supports
- Explain why EU level intervention is necessary
- Highlight European partners, value chains and cross border deployment plans
This is not box ticking. In a portfolio with limited budget and pressure to back strategic technologies, alignment is a real differentiator. European Innovation Council+1
Use resubmissions and rebuttals strategically
Given the cap on unsuccessful attempts, you cannot treat early submissions as low cost experiments. Treat evaluator comments as structured market intelligence and adjust your overall funding strategy accordingly. If feedback repeatedly questions commercial viability or fit with EIC priorities, it may be better to pivot towards national grants or innovation loans rather than continue resubmitting. rasph.com+1
Draw on external reviewers and specialist advisers
National Contact Points, specialist grant advisers and peer CFOs with EIC experience can stress test your draft. External review often picks up:
- Implicit assumptions that are obvious internally but invisible to evaluators
- Conflicting signals across work packages, budgets and risk narratives
- Gaps between your funding ask and your organisational readiness
Further reading on the role of funding advisers in structuring bids is available from European innovation grants specialists such as FI Group’s funding advisers’ guidance.
Common CFO Challenges And How To Address Them
Time and resource drain
Mitigation: Treat EIC as a strategic project with a clear owner, gated milestones and a stop rule if eligibility or fit prove weak.
Balancing dilution and non dilutive capital
Mitigation: Model blended finance alongside equity rounds, showing board members the impact on runway, valuation and control.
Co funding and cash flow risk
Mitigation: Align EIC timing with other instruments such as national grants, innovation loans and R&D tax relief, so that co funding does not create unmanageable liquidity pressure.
Portfolio fit and risk concentration
Mitigation: Position EIC within a broader funding roadmap, avoiding over dependence on a single large, binary outcome grant.
Governance and reporting complexity
Mitigation: Build reporting capacity into the budget from the start and confirm that finance, project management and compliance functions can support EIC level audit requirements.
FAQ
Before committing significant senior time, many boards ask similar questions about EIC Accelerator failure and resubmission risk. The answers below provide a high level view that CFOs can use in board packs.
What is the typical EIC Accelerator success rate?
Across the 2024 calls, around 6 to 7 percent of full applications were funded, and once you consider the short proposal stage the overall success rate from initial approach to award is likely below 5 percent. This is why rigorous internal screening is essential before you invest heavily in a bid.
How many times can we resubmit an EIC Accelerator proposal?
Current rules limit you to three unsuccessful submissions in total, across any stages of the process. After three NO GO outcomes, you are barred from submitting again to EIC Accelerator for the rest of the Horizon Europe programme. This cap makes early learning and disciplined go or no go decisions particularly important.
Does a high score guarantee funding?
No. Because the budget is finite and the programme is oversubscribed, even high scoring proposals can be rejected if they are ranked below the funding cut off, or if the portfolio already contains similar projects. In that sense EIC behaves more like an institutional investor allocating a constrained fund than a purely merit based grant scheme.
How much internal effort does a competitive full proposal require?
Experienced applicants report that preparing a serious full proposal and interview typically requires several person months of effort across technical, commercial, finance and legal teams, spread over eight to twelve weeks. Treating the process as a side project is a reliable way to underperform.
When should a company decide not to pursue EIC Accelerator?
If your innovation is still at early research stages, does not yet have a clear commercial path, or repeatedly receives feedback that questions fit with EIC priorities, it may be more rational to focus on national grants, innovation loans or more flexible investor conversations. For many SMEs, the opportunity cost of misaligned EIC bids is higher than the headline grant figures suggest.
