EIC Accelerator is built for single start-ups, SMEs and, in some cases, small midcaps — it does not require a consortium — with a market-creating innovation and genuine scale-up ambition. Unlike most Horizon Europe instruments, it runs through three sequential stages, and a proposal that clears the written steps still has to survive a live jury interview — so the evaluation criteria are applied twice, on paper and in the room.
Who this is for
- Startups and SMEs preparing a Step 1 short proposal or Step 2 full application
- Founders who have cleared Step 2 and are preparing for the Step 3 jury interview
- Companies deciding between grant-only, blended finance (grant + equity) or investment-only support
How EIC Accelerator proposals are actually scored
As with the rest of the EIC, applications are assessed against Excellence, Impact and Implementation — but delivered across three distinct stages:| Stage | What it evaluates |
|---|---|
| Step 1 — Short proposal | A short written application plus pitch deck and video pitch, assessed pass/fail against Excellence, Impact and Implementation by remote evaluators; no ranking score. |
| Step 2 — Full proposal | A detailed business plan scored 1–5 per criterion by remote evaluators, covering the innovation's technical credibility, market and scale-up strategy, freedom to operate, and the team's ability to execute. |
| Step 3 — Jury interview | A pitch and Q&A in front of a jury of investors and entrepreneurs, who reach a binary GO/NO GO decision informed by Excellence, Impact and Implementation and by how convincingly the team defends the plan live. |
Where EIC Accelerator proposals lose points
Recurring weaknesses evaluators flag across all three Accelerator steps:
Market-creating claim isn't substantiated
The proposal asserts a new market without demonstrating why existing solutions can't address the same need, or without credible market-sizing evidence.
Freedom-to-operate and IP position left vague
No clear answer to who owns the core IP, whether it's protectable, and how the company would defend its position against fast-followers.
Financials don't match the ambition
Revenue projections and the funding ask aren't tied to a credible, milestone-based use of funds, which undermines confidence at Step 2 and invites hard questions at Step 3.
Team can't answer for the plan in the interview
The person presenting can't speak confidently to technical, commercial or financial details outside their own function — a strong signal to jurors that the plan wasn't genuinely owned by the whole team.
Frequently asked
Do I have to take the equity component?
No. Applicants can request grant-only support, blended finance (grant + equity) from the outset, or investment-only support through the EIC Fund. The EIC Fund's investment decision is separate from the grant evaluation, but jurors do assess whether the company is a credible fit for equity investment when blended or investment-only funding is requested.
What happens if I fail Step 1 or Step 2?
You can typically reapply in a later cutoff after addressing the reviewers' feedback, though there may be a resubmission cooling-off period depending on the current Work Programme rules. GrantGenix evaluation is often most useful precisely before a resubmission.
How is the Step 3 interview scored?
Per the EIC Work Programme, Step 3 uses a binary GO/NO GO decision rather than a numeric re-score. The jury weighs the same Excellence, Impact and Implementation criteria as Step 2, informed by how convincingly the team defends the plan live. A strong Step 2 score does not guarantee a GO at Step 3.
Can GrantGenix help me prepare for the jury interview itself?
GrantGenix's AI Evaluation focuses on your written Step 1/Step 2 materials. For interview preparation and live pitch practice, book an Expert Review consultation with a GrantGenix advisor.