EIC success rates: the grant consultant’s dirty little secret

Success rates in highly competitive programs such as the EIC Accelerator used to be a closely guarded secret: every consultant had their own estimates, but discussing them openly was often avoided.

Disclaimer: I have worked since 2014 with deep tech companies as investor and coach at Da Vinci Labs and as innovation funding consultant at Zaz Ventures. Since 2019, my team and I have assisted 130 deep tech companies in securing funding through the EIC Accelerator programme.

What is meant by success rate?

The success rate is essentially calculated by dividing the number of cases that secure funding under a specific programme by the total number of submissions made under that programme.

For programmes with multiple stages like the EIC Accelerator, which involves three steps (short application, full application, and interview), calculating the success rate can be more complex. It requires considering the entire sequence of these three steps as a single submission, and resubmission at any stage of the process should be counted as a new, separate submission.

To make it simpler and more transparent, you could request that the consultancy provide their success rates for each individual step of the process: the short application, the full application, and the interview. This detailed breakdown can offer a clearer picture of their effectiveness at each stage of the EIC Accelerator application process.

However, times have changed, and there's now a competitive trend among consultants to showcase the highest success rates in the industry for the EIC Accelerator, as one single number, without context.

This race leads to claims of extraordinarily high success rates, which seem incredulous when the average success rate for such programs is around 7-8%.

Do I hear 50% on the right? Do I hear 65% on the left? Do I hear 71% in the back of the room?

However, misinforming prospective applicants (intentionally or not) about the odds of securing funding is specifically forbidden by the EIC's code of conduct. So what is going on there?

The disparity between claimed success rates and the actual average can be attributed to a number of tactics:

• Using small data samples: consultants may base their success rates on a very small number of cases, which don't provide a statistically significant sample. For instance, one might claim a 67% success rate because 2 out of 3 applications were successful.
  
  
• Not including resubmissions: since applications can be resubmitted multiple times, some consultants might count a series of resubmissions that eventually lead to successful funding as a single submitted and won case. This approach can artificially inflate the success rate by omitting the initial failed attempts, because one case submitted 3 times before succeeding still counts as 100% success rate.
  
  
• Cherry-picking: some consultants selectively exclude certain cases from their success rate calculations. They might, for example, calculate their “won” cases as those who reached the interview stage, arguing that the subsequent stages are beyond their control. To verify whether a case successfully secured funding, you can refer to the official EIC database here.
  
  
• Massaging the numbers: inflating success rates by including funding from other programs, such as national funds associated with the Seal of Excellence, is another tactic. However, these funds are not uniformly accessible across all countries, skewing the success rate representation. A consultancy may also count a case as a success when multiple consultancies were involved, and the consultancy in question only contributed to part of the process (such as providing support during the interview phase).
  
  
• Misrepresenting the data: consultants may use success rate percentages from earlier programs with historically higher success rates than current ones, creating a misleading comparison. Another common issue is counting standalone step 1 short application submissions, which do not directly correlate with actual funding, as successful attempts.
  
  
• Outright lying: sadly, some consultants simply fabricate their success rates. This is particularly problematic because these rates are often unverifiable, allowing false claims to go unchecked.

These mechanisms collectively contribute to the inflated success rates touted by some consultants, misinforming prospective applicants about the odds of securing funding through programs like the EIC Accelerator.

This is a serious issue that is governed by the EIC’s new code of conduct: consultancies cannot claim artificially inflated success rates.

A much needed reality-check

A reality check using a substantial and statistically significant dataset provides a more accurate picture of the success rates for EIC Accelerator applications.

The data, gathered anonymously by members of the European Association of Innovation Consultants (EAIC) in 2022, represents a significant portion (11%) of all submissions, totaling 338 cases.

The insights from this dataset reveal the following:

• EAIC members' performance: on average, EAIC members significantly outperformed the average success rate of the program. They achieved success rates that were 3x higher than the program's average rate of 7%.
  
  
• Top EAIC consultants' success rates: the data indicated that the most proficient consultants achieved success rates between 25-30%, still an impressive feat, considering it is about 4x the program's average success rate.
  
  
• General EAIC consultant performance: the majority of consultants reached success rates ranging between 12-15%, a performance that is 2x the program's average success rate.

These figures suggest that while there might be some instances of overstatement or misleading representation in the industry, there are consultants genuinely achieving remarkable success rates. However, their success rates are still grounded in a more realistic range compared to the inflated figures sometimes touted.

This data underscores the importance of a nuanced and data-driven understanding of success rates in highly competitive programs like the EIC Accelerator.

How can you verify success rate claims?

To discern the authenticity of success rate claims and navigate through potential misrepresentations, consider adopting the following strategies:

1. Inquire about the data sample size and period: when a consultancy quotes a success rate, request specific details about the size of the data sample and the time frame it encompasses. This information can provide context and help you understand the representativeness and relevance of the data.
   
   
2. Confirm the nature of "won" cases: ensure that the cases considered "won" are indeed successfully funded projects under the EIC Accelerator, that all resubmissions of these cases (including failed ones) have been taken into account in the success rate, and that the consultancy supported the entire process (not only the interview step). Be wary of claims that include cases merely invited to interviews or those funded through national mechanisms like the Seal of Excellence (SoE), as these can inflate perceived success rates.
   
   
3. Request raw data: if a consultant claims an exceptionally high success rate (i.e. above 40% for EIC Accelerator), you can ask for raw data, i.e. an exhaustive list of all companies they claim to have assisted in securing funding (this is also a great way to check references!)
   
   
4. Assess the consultancy team's capacity: evaluate the size of the consultant team against their claimed success rates. An excellent individual consultant might typically handle 4-6 EIC Accelerator applications per year, with an expectation of winning a third of these cases. Therefore, if a team of 10 full-time EIC consultants claims a 50% success rate with only 5 cases won in a year, the math doesn't add up, indicating possible exaggeration.
   
   
5. Verify whether the consultancy is willing to operate on a "success fee only" basis: if their success rate is indeed as high as claimed, it would be economically feasible for them to adopt this model.

By carefully scrutinizing the data, context, and capacity of the consultancy team, you will be able to better evaluate the credibility of their success rate claims and make a more informed decision about the consultancy you want to work with.

In conclusion, remember that success rates aren't the sole factor to consider when selecting a consultancy. Applying for the EIC Accelerator is an extensive and complex journey, typically extending over an average of 18 months. Therefore, it's crucial to choose consultants who demonstrate perseverance and genuine enthusiasm for your project. Additionally, ensuring a good rapport and chemistry between your team and the consultancy team is equally important for a successful collaboration!

Personal anecdote: I recall a time when a client called to inform me that they were opting for a competitor's services because this consultancy purportedly had "twice my success rate”. To address this, I proposed sharing my complete raw data set, detailing all cases submitted over the previous two years along with their outcomes. The client took the time to review this data and then requested the same level of detailed information from the competing consultancy. Within 24 hours, the client reached out to me again, this time to request that we handle their case.