We write EIC Accelerator proposals with deep expertise.
Three projects at a time. Every word written by the founder.
Five questions. Thirty seconds. We'll tell you where you stand.
From the European Innovation Council to your bank account, EIC Accelerator funding passes through a defined chain of institutions. Understanding each layer tells you who your proposal is really written for.
The EIC Accelerator funds deep tech innovation under both open and challenge-specific calls. We know the logic of each — the evidence standards, the impact framing, the language that wins at jury stage.
The Open call funds any innovation in any sector that demonstrates genuine technological breakthrough, high market potential, and ambition to scale across Europe and globally. This is the widest aperture — and the most competitive.
Evaluators in the Open call apply particularly intense scrutiny to the market entry strategy and scale-up pathway. An innovation that cannot demonstrate a credible path to European and global market leadership will not pass Step 2 regardless of technical merit.
Diagnostics, therapeutics, digital health, medical devices. Regulatory pathway planning is non-negotiable — proposals without a credible MDR/IVD/EMA strategy are dismissed as technically immature regardless of clinical data quality.
Synthetic biology, genomics, novel therapeutics, agritech at the life science frontier. Evaluators expect both scientific rigour and a clear articulation of the technology readiness trajectory. TRL justification must be watertight.
AI-driven platforms, novel algorithms, quantum software, data infrastructure. The evaluator challenge is determining genuine breakthrough versus incremental improvement. Your unique technological advantage must be stated with precision, not marketing language.
Hardware-intensive innovations with substantial IP and long development cycles. Proposals must demonstrate team credibility with both the technology and the industrial ecosystem — pure research lineage is not sufficient.
Green hydrogen, next-gen solar, battery technologies, carbon capture. The innovation must be genuinely breakthrough — incremental efficiency improvements will not pass the novelty test. The climate impact pathway must be quantified.
Circular economy solutions, food system innovation, sustainable materials, precision agriculture. Proposals need to show systemic impact — not just a better product, but a shift in how an industry operates.
Technologies with both civil and defence applications. Under the Strategic Technologies for Europe Platform, increasing priority is placed on European technological sovereignty. The dual-use framing must be genuine — the commercial market narrative cannot be an afterthought.
New Space ventures, satellite constellations, Earth observation applications, space-enabled services. European Strategic Space Alliance priorities shape evaluator expectations. Commercial viability in a sector dominated by US players is the central challenge to address.
The EIC Accelerator operates a three-step evaluation process. Your project is assessed by different people using different criteria at each stage. Failing to understand this distinction is one of the most common reasons strong innovations are rejected.
A short pitch assessed by remote experts in minutes. The single question: is there enough here to justify reading a full proposal? Nuance doesn't survive Step 1. Clarity, boldness, and a memorable thesis do. This is not a condensed version of Step 2 — it is a different document for a different audience.
The full 45-page proposal assessed against Excellence, Impact, and Implementation by at least three remote evaluators. This is where proposals are won through precision, not ambition. Every claim must be evidenced. Every gap the evaluator spots becomes a rejection reason. There is no averaging out of a weak criterion score.
A panel of senior innovation experts — investors, scientists, entrepreneurs — conducts a 60-minute interview with the team. The written proposal is background. What is assessed here is the team's ability to defend their thesis under pressure, handle scepticism, and demonstrate founder conviction. This is where excellent proposals die without preparation.
The EIC Accelerator differs from almost every other EU instrument. If your understanding comes from Horizon 2020 SME Instrument experience — or from ERDF — there are fundamental things you need to unlearn.
The EIC Accelerator runs multiple cut-off dates per year. Step 1 applications can be submitted at any time, but Step 2 cut-offs are fixed — missing them means waiting months for the next opportunity. These illustrate the typical annual cadence.
Illustrative examples only. Always verify current cut-off dates and Work Programme priorities via the EIC Portal (eic.ec.europa.eu) and the official Horizon Europe Work Programme.
Each country's startup ecosystem, NCP quality, and competitive environment shapes the EIC Accelerator journey differently. Click a country to understand the landscape.
The EIC Accelerator grant funds 70% of eligible project costs for SMEs. The remaining 30% must come from your own resources. Use this to understand your financing structure before you commit.
The 70% grant rate applies to SMEs for eligible direct costs. Equity investment is a separate process subject to EIC Fund due diligence and negotiation. These figures are indicative — always confirm with the published Work Programme and call documentation.
EIC Accelerator proposals are assessed by three entirely different groups across three stages. Understanding who they are, how they think, and what they are looking for is the single most underused advantage in EIC application strategy.
Step 1 reviewers are typically domain experts reviewing dozens of short applications per sitting. They are asking one question: is this worth reading further? Proposals that open with a paragraph of context rather than a thesis are eliminated before the evaluator reaches the interesting content.
The full proposal is assessed by at least three independent remote experts against Excellence, Impact, and Implementation. Each criterion is scored separately. A proposal that is extraordinary on Excellence but weak on Implementation will still fail. There is no averaging out of a poor criterion score.
The jury panel is composed of senior professionals — venture capitalists, serial entrepreneurs, industry leaders. They think like investors, not grant officers. They probe weaknesses in your business model, challenge your market size assumptions, and test whether you can defend your thesis under fire. The 45-page proposal becomes almost irrelevant.
EIC evaluators are briefed on the Work Programme's specific challenge areas and strategic priorities before assessing proposals. They will spot immediately when your innovation claim doesn't match the frontier of the field. Generic breakthrough language is transparent. Specific, documented novelty is what scores.
Popular EIC calls receive thousands of applications. Evaluators have limited time per proposal. A full application that is difficult to navigate — dense paragraphs, buried evidence, unclear logical flow — costs evaluators effort. That effort creates friction, and friction creates doubt. Clarity is competitive advantage.
EIC evaluators are specifically briefed to identify overblown market claims, weak IP positions, unvalidated technology assumptions, and founder teams without the credibility to execute. What they rarely find — and are always looking for — is a project with genuine breakthrough evidence and a founder who can defend it.
These are not edge cases. They appear in the majority of unsuccessful bids. Every one is avoidable.
Both options are built around EIC Accelerator calls. No packages, no tiers, no upsells.
You have a draft. We go through it the way an EIC evaluator and jury member would — Excellence, Impact, Implementation, and the jury interview angle. What comes back is structured for the specific call, the specific evaluator profile, and no other application.
We take the lead from Step 1 through Step 3 preparation — building the application from scratch, written for this Work Programme, this cut-off, and no other. Includes jury interview coaching.
Every project follows the same sequence. No shortcuts, no hand-offs.
EU Grant Studio exists because the grant writing industry has a quality problem. Most firms scale by hiring junior writers and running 30+ projects simultaneously. The result: generic applications that could have been written for any company in any sector. Because they were.
We took the opposite path. Every EIC Accelerator application is written by the founder — someone with focused experience in this programme, who has studied how evaluators score, how juries question, and what makes a thesis that holds up at the interview stage. The project cap of three ensures each application receives the time and depth of attention the EIC process demands.
This isn't the right fit for everyone. If you need an application in two weeks, or your project sits outside the EIC Accelerator's scope, a larger generalist firm will serve you better. But if you have an EIC call in front of you and want it built by someone who has made this their sole area of work — we should talk.
We take on three projects at a time. If a slot is open and your project fits, you'll hear within 48 hours.