The EIC Accelerator full proposal is the second competitive stage of the application process. An information request to the European Commission produced a more detailed dataset than the figures normally announced after individual calls, making it possible to compare Step 2 success rates by year, country and sector from 2021 onward.
Across the reviewed period, more than 12,000 full proposals produced approximately 3,000 GO decisions. The resulting aggregate success rate is about 22%, although the annual rate has changed sharply as the wider evaluation process has evolved.
Step 2 Success Rates by Year
| Year | Approximate Step 2 success rate | Direction |
|---|---|---|
| 2021 | 18% | Initial rate after the redesigned Accelerator launched |
| 2022 | 21% | Moderate increase |
| 2023 | 24% | Continued increase |
| 2024 | 35% | Peak in the reviewed period |
| 2025 | 14% | Sharp decline |
| 2026 | Approximately 10% | Full proposals became substantially more selective |
A stage-specific success rate should never be read in isolation. The EIC Accelerator is a funnel consisting of the short proposal, full proposal and jury assessment. When one stage becomes more selective, another can become less selective because a smaller and stronger group reaches the next gate.
That relationship is visible in the recent data. Step 2 success rates fell while the final interview success rate rose toward approximately 40% to 50%. This creates a more rational applicant journey: the largest reduction happens before companies incur the cost and effort of final interview preparation, while those invited to the jury have materially stronger odds.
Which Countries Submit the Most Full Proposals?
Germany leads the Step 2 dataset by proposal volume, followed by Israel, France and Spain. Their approximate success rates demonstrate again that submission volume and conversion performance are not the same measurement.
- Germany: approximately 25%
- Israel: approximately 19%
- France: approximately 28%
- Spain: approximately 23%
- Italy: approximately 16%
Germany combines high application volume with a success rate above the overall average, while France performs particularly strongly among the large applicant countries. Italy, which leads Step 1 by volume, converts a smaller share of its Step 2 proposals.
Countries With the Highest Step 2 Success Rates
Armenia records the highest percentage in the data at approximately 50%, but its small proposal volume prevents a direct comparison with the major applicant countries. Among countries with more substantial participation, the Netherlands performs strongly at approximately 30%, followed by Sweden at roughly 29%, with France, Denmark and Belgium also near the top.
The pattern is particularly strong among northern and central European countries. These results can reflect several factors, including the maturity of the national innovation ecosystem, experience with European funding, applicant quality and the availability of specialised support.
Countries With No Step 2 GO Decisions
The dataset also includes countries with Step 2 applications but no successful proposals, including Malta, Tunisia, Montenegro, Bosnia and Herzegovina, North Macedonia and South Africa. As with Step 1, non-associated companies can appear in the process if they intend to establish an eligible entity before the applicable eligibility deadline.
Zero-percent results based on a small number of applications should be treated as descriptive data rather than a durable national ranking. Eighteen unsuccessful proposals can identify a historical outcome, but they cannot establish how a much larger future cohort would perform.
Step 2 Applications by Sector
Health again leads the sector data, followed by ICT, engineering and technology. MedTech and biotechnology companies often present the scientific origins, intellectual property, long development cycles, regulatory work and financing gap that fit naturally with the programme.
Software remains one of the largest groups by application volume despite having a less automatic connection to laboratory research or physical intellectual property. A software applicant therefore needs to explain what makes its technology technically defensible, difficult to reproduce and capable of creating a genuinely new market rather than functioning as an easily copied digital service.
Energy, transport, food, construction, agriculture, buildings and real estate also appear in the data. The range confirms that there is no single mandatory EIC Accelerator industry: the individual company's technology, timing, market momentum and European strategic relevance remain more important than its category label.
How to Interpret the 22% Aggregate Rate
- It is a historical average, not a forecast: the annual rate moved from 35% to approximately 10% within two years.
- It is only one part of the funnel: applicants must combine Step 1, Step 2 and interview odds to understand the overall probability.
- Small samples distort rankings: a high percentage based on a few applications is not comparable with a high-volume country.
- Proposal quality and programme fit remain decisive: country and sector averages do not determine the result of an individual application.
For the complete tables and deeper analysis of sector-country combinations, gender data and yearly trends, see the full EIC Accelerator Step 2 statistics.
