FAQ

It covers 12,255 EIC Accelerator full proposal applications across 51 countries, 15 sectors, and the 2021-2026 period.

The dataset records 2,797 GO decisions and 9,458 NO-GO decisions.

The article identifies EISMEA as the source of the dataset.

The dataset covers full proposal applications with GO and NO-GO decisions across country, sector, gender, and year dimensions.

The success rate is calculated as GO decisions divided by GO plus NO-GO decisions.

2,797 GO decisions divided by 12,255 total full proposal applications gives the article's 22.8% overall success rate.

The dataset includes 12,255 full proposal applications.

These applications are the denominator used for the overall Step 2 success rate.

A total of 2,797 full proposals received a GO decision.

These are the successful Step 2 outcomes in the dataset.

A total of 9,458 full proposals received a NO-GO decision.

That corresponds to a 77.2% NO-GO rate across the full dataset.

The overall full proposal success rate is 22.8%.

The article frames this as selective but not lottery-level selective.

The article reports 4.4 applications per GO overall.

That ratio comes from 12,255 applications and 2,797 GO decisions.

The dataset covers 51 countries.

The country success table in the article focuses on countries with at least 5 applications.

The dataset covers 15 sectors.

The sector table compares application volume, GO decisions, NO-GO decisions, success rate, and applications per GO.

The dataset covers 2021-2026.

The article treats 2026 as partial-year data and warns against reading it as a complete-year benchmark.

The full proposal stage is the Step 2 selection point where startup funding interest turns into detailed selection math.

The article uses the data to show how country, sector, gender, and year context shape the odds after Step 1.

A 22.8% success rate means roughly one GO decision for every 4.4 submitted full proposals.

The article states that strong applicants have a real path to a GO decision, while weak execution, poor fit, or crowded positioning can quickly reduce the odds.

Among countries with at least 5 applications, the top five success rates are Armenia, Netherlands, Sweden, France, and Denmark.

Their success rates are 50.0%, 30.0%, 28.9%, 28.8%, and 28.7%.

Armenia leads the table with a 50.0% success rate, but it has only 6 applications.

The article says the more durable signal comes from higher-volume countries such as the Netherlands, Sweden, France, and Denmark.

The top five countries by application volume are Germany, Israel, France, Spain, and Italy.

Together they account for 5,710 of 12,255 applications.

Germany, Israel, France, Spain, and Italy account for 46.6% of all applications.

The article uses this to show that full proposal activity is concentrated in a small group of large applicant countries.

EU-27 applicants submitted 9,294 applications and achieved a 23.8% success rate.

Non-EU or associated applicants submitted 2,961 applications and achieved a 19.8% success rate.

Space has the highest sector success rate in the table at 26.4%.

Engineering & Tech follows at 26.1%, Agriculture at 25.8%, Health at 25.6%, and Biotechnology at 25.0%.

The lowest sector success rates are Education & Culture at 12.3%, Consumer Products at 14.0%, Security at 14.8%, and Transport & Mobility at 14.8%.

The article says proposals in lower-rate sectors need sharper positioning, stronger proof, and fewer avoidable weaknesses.

Health is the largest sector by application count.

It records 3,881 applications, 995 GO decisions, 2,886 NO-GO decisions, and a 25.6% success rate.

The article finds a strong representation imbalance but not a meaningful aggregate success-rate disadvantage for female applicants.

Female applicants have a 23.3% success rate compared with 22.8% for male applicants.

Female applicants represent 16.6% of male-plus-female applications.

The article treats representation as the main gender issue in the aggregate data.

2024 reached a 35.8% full proposal success rate.

That level is not repeated in 2025 or in the partial 2026 data.

The article states that 2026 is partial-year data.

It should be used as a current signal, not as a complete-year performance benchmark.

The article gives applicants three lessons: country context matters, sector choice matters, and year-by-year conditions matter.

It ends by saying the full proposal is winnable but not forgiving, so applicants need evidence, market logic, team credibility, risk clarity, and a proposal that is easy to evaluate.

Yes. This FAQ collection is attached to source post 5303.

The answers are drawn from the article on EIC Accelerator Step 2 full proposal statistics.

The overall NO-GO rate is 77.2%.

That is based on 9,458 NO-GO decisions out of 12,255 full proposal applications.

Applications per GO converts an abstract success rate into a practical planning ratio.

The overall ratio is 4.4 applications per GO, while country and sector ratios show where the selection environment is easier or harder.

Country success rates are useful for benchmarking, but they do not determine an individual applicant result.

The article treats country context as one planning signal alongside proposal quality, sector fit, market logic, and evidence strength.

Sector success rates show different competitive profiles, not automatic acceptance or rejection.

The article says lower-rate sectors need especially clear positioning, stronger proof, and fewer avoidable weaknesses.

Applicants should treat 2024 and partial 2026 with special care for opposite reasons.

2024 is an unusually high success-rate year, while 2026 is partial-year data and should not be treated as a complete-year benchmark.

France, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, Spain, Finland, and Denmark combine meaningful volume with success rates at or above the overall dataset rate.

The article uses these countries to show that large applicant pools can still perform strongly when the ecosystem and proposal quality are strong.

Israel, Italy, the United Kingdom, Poland, Portugal, and Türkiye are high or mid-volume examples below the overall 22.8% rate.

The article uses this pattern to show that volume alone does not create stronger Step 2 conversion.

Health is the largest sector with 3,881 applications and 995 GO decisions.

It also dominates many country specialisation rows, making it one of the clearest structural patterns in the article.

The aggregate gender data does not prove that female applicants are less competitive at Step 2.

The article separates representation from competitiveness because female applicants are underrepresented while their aggregate success rate is slightly above the male rate.

Advisors can use the data to benchmark country context, sector difficulty, applications-per-GO efficiency, and current-year expectations.

The article supports using those benchmarks to pressure-test proposal positioning before submission.

The main risk is treating the full proposal as winnable without making the evidence package evaluator-proof.

The article says the strongest applicants need serious evidence, defensible market logic, team credibility, a clean risk narrative, and a proposal that is easy to evaluate.

Armenia recorded 6 applications, 3 GO decisions, and 3 NO-GO decisions.

Its full proposal success rate is 50.0%, ranking 1st in the country success table used by the article.

Armenia recorded 2.0 applications per GO.

The same row shows a 50.0% NO-GO rate based on 3 NO-GO decisions out of 6 applications.

Armenia's success rate is 50.0%.

That is 27.2 percentage points above the overall full proposal success rate of 22.8%. Armenia contributes 0.1% of all GO decisions in the dataset.

Netherlands recorded 813 applications, 244 GO decisions, and 569 NO-GO decisions.

Its full proposal success rate is 30.0%, ranking 2nd in the country success table used by the article.

Netherlands recorded 3.3 applications per GO.

The same row shows a 70.0% NO-GO rate based on 569 NO-GO decisions out of 813 applications.

Netherlands's success rate is 30.0%.

That is 7.2 percentage points above the overall full proposal success rate of 22.8%. Netherlands contributes 8.7% of all GO decisions in the dataset.

Sweden recorded 736 applications, 213 GO decisions, and 523 NO-GO decisions.

Its full proposal success rate is 28.9%, ranking 3rd in the country success table used by the article.

Sweden recorded 3.5 applications per GO.

The same row shows a 71.1% NO-GO rate based on 523 NO-GO decisions out of 736 applications.

Sweden's success rate is 28.9%.

That is 6.1 percentage points above the overall full proposal success rate of 22.8%. Sweden contributes 7.6% of all GO decisions in the dataset.

France recorded 1,172 applications, 338 GO decisions, and 834 NO-GO decisions.

Its full proposal success rate is 28.8%, ranking 4th in the country success table used by the article.

France recorded 3.5 applications per GO.

The same row shows a 71.2% NO-GO rate based on 834 NO-GO decisions out of 1,172 applications.

France's success rate is 28.8%.

That is 6.0 percentage points above the overall full proposal success rate of 22.8%. France contributes 12.1% of all GO decisions in the dataset.

Denmark recorded 435 applications, 125 GO decisions, and 310 NO-GO decisions.

Its full proposal success rate is 28.7%, ranking 5th in the country success table used by the article.

Denmark recorded 3.5 applications per GO.

The same row shows a 71.3% NO-GO rate based on 310 NO-GO decisions out of 435 applications.

Denmark's success rate is 28.7%.

That is 5.9 percentage points above the overall full proposal success rate of 22.8%. Denmark contributes 4.5% of all GO decisions in the dataset.

Belgium recorded 270 applications, 75 GO decisions, and 195 NO-GO decisions.

Its full proposal success rate is 27.8%, ranking 6th in the country success table used by the article.

Belgium recorded 3.6 applications per GO.

The same row shows a 72.2% NO-GO rate based on 195 NO-GO decisions out of 270 applications.

Belgium's success rate is 27.8%.

That is 5.0 percentage points above the overall full proposal success rate of 22.8%. Belgium contributes 2.7% of all GO decisions in the dataset.

Norway recorded 383 applications, 102 GO decisions, and 281 NO-GO decisions.

Its full proposal success rate is 26.6%, ranking 7th in the country success table used by the article.

Norway recorded 3.8 applications per GO.

The same row shows a 73.4% NO-GO rate based on 281 NO-GO decisions out of 383 applications.

Norway's success rate is 26.6%.

That is 3.8 percentage points above the overall full proposal success rate of 22.8%. Norway contributes 3.6% of all GO decisions in the dataset.

Ireland recorded 350 applications, 91 GO decisions, and 259 NO-GO decisions.

Its full proposal success rate is 26.0%, ranking 8th in the country success table used by the article.

Ireland recorded 3.8 applications per GO.

The same row shows a 74.0% NO-GO rate based on 259 NO-GO decisions out of 350 applications.

Ireland's success rate is 26.0%.

That is 3.2 percentage points above the overall full proposal success rate of 22.8%. Ireland contributes 3.3% of all GO decisions in the dataset.

Austria recorded 305 applications, 77 GO decisions, and 228 NO-GO decisions.

Its full proposal success rate is 25.2%, ranking 9th in the country success table used by the article.

Austria recorded 4.0 applications per GO.

The same row shows a 74.8% NO-GO rate based on 228 NO-GO decisions out of 305 applications.

Austria's success rate is 25.2%.

That is 2.4 percentage points above the overall full proposal success rate of 22.8%. Austria contributes 2.8% of all GO decisions in the dataset.

Finland recorded 492 applications, 123 GO decisions, and 369 NO-GO decisions.

Its full proposal success rate is 25.0%, ranking 10th in the country success table used by the article.

Finland recorded 4.0 applications per GO.

The same row shows a 75.0% NO-GO rate based on 369 NO-GO decisions out of 492 applications.

Finland's success rate is 25.0%.

That is 2.2 percentage points above the overall full proposal success rate of 22.8%. Finland contributes 4.4% of all GO decisions in the dataset.

Germany recorded 1,383 applications, 346 GO decisions, and 1,037 NO-GO decisions.

Its full proposal success rate is 25.0%, ranking 11th in the country success table used by the article.

Germany recorded 4.0 applications per GO.

The same row shows a 75.0% NO-GO rate based on 1,037 NO-GO decisions out of 1,383 applications.

Germany's success rate is 25.0%.

That is 2.2 percentage points above the overall full proposal success rate of 22.8%. Germany contributes 12.4% of all GO decisions in the dataset.

Spain recorded 1,026 applications, 244 GO decisions, and 782 NO-GO decisions.

Its full proposal success rate is 23.8%, ranking 12th in the country success table used by the article.

Spain recorded 4.2 applications per GO.

The same row shows a 76.2% NO-GO rate based on 782 NO-GO decisions out of 1,026 applications.

Spain's success rate is 23.8%.

That is 1.0 percentage points above the overall full proposal success rate of 22.8%. Spain contributes 8.7% of all GO decisions in the dataset.

Switzerland recorded 183 applications, 43 GO decisions, and 140 NO-GO decisions.

Its full proposal success rate is 23.5%, ranking 13th in the country success table used by the article.

Switzerland recorded 4.3 applications per GO.

The same row shows a 76.5% NO-GO rate based on 140 NO-GO decisions out of 183 applications.

Switzerland's success rate is 23.5%.

That is 0.7 percentage points above the overall full proposal success rate of 22.8%. Switzerland contributes 1.5% of all GO decisions in the dataset.

Estonia recorded 124 applications, 29 GO decisions, and 95 NO-GO decisions.

Its full proposal success rate is 23.4%, ranking 14th in the country success table used by the article.

Estonia recorded 4.3 applications per GO.

The same row shows a 76.6% NO-GO rate based on 95 NO-GO decisions out of 124 applications.

Estonia's success rate is 23.4%.

That is 0.6 percentage points above the overall full proposal success rate of 22.8%. Estonia contributes 1.0% of all GO decisions in the dataset.

Iceland recorded 54 applications, 12 GO decisions, and 42 NO-GO decisions.

Its full proposal success rate is 22.2%, ranking 15th in the country success table used by the article.

Iceland recorded 4.5 applications per GO.

The same row shows a 77.8% NO-GO rate based on 42 NO-GO decisions out of 54 applications.

Iceland's success rate is 22.2%.

That is 0.6 percentage points below the overall full proposal success rate of 22.8%. Iceland contributes 0.4% of all GO decisions in the dataset.

United Kingdom recorded 840 applications, 168 GO decisions, and 672 NO-GO decisions.

Its full proposal success rate is 20.0%, ranking 16th in the country success table used by the article.

United Kingdom recorded 5.0 applications per GO.

The same row shows a 80.0% NO-GO rate based on 672 NO-GO decisions out of 840 applications.

United Kingdom's success rate is 20.0%.

That is 2.8 percentage points below the overall full proposal success rate of 22.8%. United Kingdom contributes 6.0% of all GO decisions in the dataset.

Czech Republic recorded 62 applications, 12 GO decisions, and 50 NO-GO decisions.

Its full proposal success rate is 19.4%, ranking 17th in the country success table used by the article.

Czech Republic recorded 5.2 applications per GO.

The same row shows a 80.6% NO-GO rate based on 50 NO-GO decisions out of 62 applications.

Czech Republic's success rate is 19.4%.

That is 3.4 percentage points below the overall full proposal success rate of 22.8%. Czech Republic contributes 0.4% of all GO decisions in the dataset.

Israel recorded 1,284 applications, 246 GO decisions, and 1,038 NO-GO decisions.

Its full proposal success rate is 19.2%, ranking 18th in the country success table used by the article.

Israel recorded 5.2 applications per GO.

The same row shows a 80.8% NO-GO rate based on 1,038 NO-GO decisions out of 1,284 applications.

Israel's success rate is 19.2%.

That is 3.6 percentage points below the overall full proposal success rate of 22.8%. Israel contributes 8.8% of all GO decisions in the dataset.

Luxembourg recorded 69 applications, 13 GO decisions, and 56 NO-GO decisions.

Its full proposal success rate is 18.8%, ranking 19th in the country success table used by the article.

Luxembourg recorded 5.3 applications per GO.

The same row shows a 81.2% NO-GO rate based on 56 NO-GO decisions out of 69 applications.

Luxembourg's success rate is 18.8%.

That is 4.0 percentage points below the overall full proposal success rate of 22.8%. Luxembourg contributes 0.5% of all GO decisions in the dataset.

Portugal recorded 193 applications, 36 GO decisions, and 157 NO-GO decisions.

Its full proposal success rate is 18.7%, ranking 20th in the country success table used by the article.

Portugal recorded 5.4 applications per GO.

The same row shows a 81.3% NO-GO rate based on 157 NO-GO decisions out of 193 applications.

Portugal's success rate is 18.7%.

That is 4.1 percentage points below the overall full proposal success rate of 22.8%. Portugal contributes 1.3% of all GO decisions in the dataset.

Lithuania recorded 73 applications, 12 GO decisions, and 61 NO-GO decisions.

Its full proposal success rate is 16.4%, ranking 21st in the country success table used by the article.

Lithuania recorded 6.1 applications per GO.

The same row shows a 83.6% NO-GO rate based on 61 NO-GO decisions out of 73 applications.

Lithuania's success rate is 16.4%.

That is 6.4 percentage points below the overall full proposal success rate of 22.8%. Lithuania contributes 0.4% of all GO decisions in the dataset.

Italy recorded 845 applications, 136 GO decisions, and 709 NO-GO decisions.

Its full proposal success rate is 16.1%, ranking 22nd in the country success table used by the article.

Italy recorded 6.2 applications per GO.

The same row shows a 83.9% NO-GO rate based on 709 NO-GO decisions out of 845 applications.

Italy's success rate is 16.1%.

That is 6.7 percentage points below the overall full proposal success rate of 22.8%. Italy contributes 4.9% of all GO decisions in the dataset.

Bulgaria recorded 96 applications, 15 GO decisions, and 81 NO-GO decisions.

Its full proposal success rate is 15.6%, ranking 23rd in the country success table used by the article.

Bulgaria recorded 6.4 applications per GO.

The same row shows a 84.4% NO-GO rate based on 81 NO-GO decisions out of 96 applications.

Bulgaria's success rate is 15.6%.

That is 7.2 percentage points below the overall full proposal success rate of 22.8%. Bulgaria contributes 0.5% of all GO decisions in the dataset.

Slovakia recorded 44 applications, 6 GO decisions, and 38 NO-GO decisions.

Its full proposal success rate is 13.6%, ranking 24th in the country success table used by the article.

Slovakia recorded 7.3 applications per GO.

The same row shows a 86.4% NO-GO rate based on 38 NO-GO decisions out of 44 applications.

Slovakia's success rate is 13.6%.

That is 9.2 percentage points below the overall full proposal success rate of 22.8%. Slovakia contributes 0.2% of all GO decisions in the dataset.

Croatia recorded 25 applications, 3 GO decisions, and 22 NO-GO decisions.

Its full proposal success rate is 12.0%, ranking 25th in the country success table used by the article.

Croatia recorded 8.3 applications per GO.

The same row shows a 88.0% NO-GO rate based on 22 NO-GO decisions out of 25 applications.

Croatia's success rate is 12.0%.

That is 10.8 percentage points below the overall full proposal success rate of 22.8%. Croatia contributes 0.1% of all GO decisions in the dataset.

Hungary recorded 114 applications, 12 GO decisions, and 102 NO-GO decisions.

Its full proposal success rate is 10.5%, ranking 26th in the country success table used by the article.

Hungary recorded 9.5 applications per GO.

The same row shows a 89.5% NO-GO rate based on 102 NO-GO decisions out of 114 applications.

Hungary's success rate is 10.5%.

That is 12.3 percentage points below the overall full proposal success rate of 22.8%. Hungary contributes 0.4% of all GO decisions in the dataset.

Poland recorded 339 applications, 35 GO decisions, and 304 NO-GO decisions.

Its full proposal success rate is 10.3%, ranking 27th in the country success table used by the article.

Poland recorded 9.7 applications per GO.

The same row shows a 89.7% NO-GO rate based on 304 NO-GO decisions out of 339 applications.

Poland's success rate is 10.3%.

That is 12.5 percentage points below the overall full proposal success rate of 22.8%. Poland contributes 1.3% of all GO decisions in the dataset.

Latvia recorded 51 applications, 5 GO decisions, and 46 NO-GO decisions.

Its full proposal success rate is 9.8%, ranking 28th in the country success table used by the article.

Latvia recorded 10.2 applications per GO.

The same row shows a 90.2% NO-GO rate based on 46 NO-GO decisions out of 51 applications.

Latvia's success rate is 9.8%.

That is 13.0 percentage points below the overall full proposal success rate of 22.8%. Latvia contributes 0.2% of all GO decisions in the dataset.

Slovenia recorded 62 applications, 6 GO decisions, and 56 NO-GO decisions.

Its full proposal success rate is 9.7%, ranking 29th in the country success table used by the article.

Slovenia recorded 10.3 applications per GO.

The same row shows a 90.3% NO-GO rate based on 56 NO-GO decisions out of 62 applications.

Slovenia's success rate is 9.7%.

That is 13.1 percentage points below the overall full proposal success rate of 22.8%. Slovenia contributes 0.2% of all GO decisions in the dataset.

Greece recorded 91 applications, 8 GO decisions, and 83 NO-GO decisions.

Its full proposal success rate is 8.8%, ranking 30th in the country success table used by the article.

Greece recorded 11.4 applications per GO.

The same row shows a 91.2% NO-GO rate based on 83 NO-GO decisions out of 91 applications.

Greece's success rate is 8.8%.

That is 14.0 percentage points below the overall full proposal success rate of 22.8%. Greece contributes 0.3% of all GO decisions in the dataset.

Romania recorded 68 applications, 5 GO decisions, and 63 NO-GO decisions.

Its full proposal success rate is 7.4%, ranking 31st in the country success table used by the article.

Romania recorded 13.6 applications per GO.

The same row shows a 92.6% NO-GO rate based on 63 NO-GO decisions out of 68 applications.

Romania's success rate is 7.4%.

That is 15.4 percentage points below the overall full proposal success rate of 22.8%. Romania contributes 0.2% of all GO decisions in the dataset.

Türkiye recorded 126 applications, 9 GO decisions, and 117 NO-GO decisions.

Its full proposal success rate is 7.1%, ranking 32nd in the country success table used by the article.

Türkiye recorded 14.0 applications per GO.

The same row shows a 92.9% NO-GO rate based on 117 NO-GO decisions out of 126 applications.

Türkiye's success rate is 7.1%.

That is 15.7 percentage points below the overall full proposal success rate of 22.8%. Türkiye contributes 0.3% of all GO decisions in the dataset.

Ukraine recorded 30 applications, 2 GO decisions, and 28 NO-GO decisions.

Its full proposal success rate is 6.7%, ranking 33rd in the country success table used by the article.

Ukraine recorded 15.0 applications per GO.

The same row shows a 93.3% NO-GO rate based on 28 NO-GO decisions out of 30 applications.

Ukraine's success rate is 6.7%.

That is 16.1 percentage points below the overall full proposal success rate of 22.8%. Ukraine contributes 0.1% of all GO decisions in the dataset.

Serbia recorded 19 applications, 1 GO decisions, and 18 NO-GO decisions.

Its full proposal success rate is 5.3%, ranking 34th in the country success table used by the article.

Serbia recorded 19.0 applications per GO.

The same row shows a 94.7% NO-GO rate based on 18 NO-GO decisions out of 19 applications.

Serbia's success rate is 5.3%.

That is 17.5 percentage points below the overall full proposal success rate of 22.8%. Serbia contributes 0.0% of all GO decisions in the dataset.

Cyprus recorded 38 applications, 1 GO decisions, and 37 NO-GO decisions.

Its full proposal success rate is 2.6%, ranking 35th in the country success table used by the article.

Cyprus recorded 38.0 applications per GO.

The same row shows a 97.4% NO-GO rate based on 37 NO-GO decisions out of 38 applications.

Cyprus's success rate is 2.6%.

That is 20.2 percentage points below the overall full proposal success rate of 22.8%. Cyprus contributes 0.0% of all GO decisions in the dataset.

Malta recorded 18 applications, 0 GO decisions, and 18 NO-GO decisions.

Its full proposal success rate is 0.0%, ranking 36th in the country success table used by the article.

Malta recorded no GO decisions, so the article does not assign an applications-per-GO efficiency ratio.

The same row shows a 100.0% NO-GO rate based on 18 NO-GO decisions out of 18 applications.

Malta's success rate is 0.0%.

That is 22.8 percentage points below the overall full proposal success rate of 22.8%. Malta contributes 0.0% of all GO decisions in the dataset.

Montenegro recorded 5 applications, 0 GO decisions, and 5 NO-GO decisions.

Its full proposal success rate is 0.0%, ranking 37th in the country success table used by the article.

Montenegro recorded no GO decisions, so the article does not assign an applications-per-GO efficiency ratio.

The same row shows a 100.0% NO-GO rate based on 5 NO-GO decisions out of 5 applications.

Montenegro's success rate is 0.0%.

That is 22.8 percentage points below the overall full proposal success rate of 22.8%. Montenegro contributes 0.0% of all GO decisions in the dataset.

Tunisia recorded 9 applications, 0 GO decisions, and 9 NO-GO decisions.

Its full proposal success rate is 0.0%, ranking 38th in the country success table used by the article.

Tunisia recorded no GO decisions, so the article does not assign an applications-per-GO efficiency ratio.

The same row shows a 100.0% NO-GO rate based on 9 NO-GO decisions out of 9 applications.

Tunisia's success rate is 0.0%.

That is 22.8 percentage points below the overall full proposal success rate of 22.8%. Tunisia contributes 0.0% of all GO decisions in the dataset.

Armenia ranks 37th by full proposal application volume among the countries listed in the article's country success table.

It submitted 6 applications, representing 0.0% of all full proposal applications in the dataset.

Armenia recorded 3 NO-GO decisions and a 50.0% NO-GO rate.

Those NO-GO decisions represent 0.0% of all NO-GO decisions in the full proposal dataset.

Armenia is counted in the non-EU / associated grouping used by the article.

Armenia's 50.0% success rate is measured against a 19.8% benchmark for that grouping. That is 30.2 percentage points above the overall full proposal success rate of 19.8%.

Armenia ranks 1st by applications-per-GO efficiency among countries with at least one GO decision.

Its efficiency value is 2.0 applications per GO, based on 3 GO decisions.

Netherlands ranks 7th by full proposal application volume among the countries listed in the article's country success table.

It submitted 813 applications, representing 6.6% of all full proposal applications in the dataset.

Netherlands recorded 569 NO-GO decisions and a 70.0% NO-GO rate.

Those NO-GO decisions represent 6.0% of all NO-GO decisions in the full proposal dataset.

Netherlands is counted in the EU-27 member grouping used by the article.

Netherlands's 30.0% success rate is measured against a 23.8% benchmark for that grouping. That is 6.2 percentage points above the overall full proposal success rate of 23.8%.

Netherlands ranks 2nd by applications-per-GO efficiency among countries with at least one GO decision.

Its efficiency value is 3.3 applications per GO, based on 244 GO decisions.

Sweden ranks 8th by full proposal application volume among the countries listed in the article's country success table.

It submitted 736 applications, representing 6.0% of all full proposal applications in the dataset.

Sweden recorded 523 NO-GO decisions and a 71.1% NO-GO rate.

Those NO-GO decisions represent 5.5% of all NO-GO decisions in the full proposal dataset.

Sweden is counted in the EU-27 member grouping used by the article.

Sweden's 28.9% success rate is measured against a 23.8% benchmark for that grouping. That is 5.1 percentage points above the overall full proposal success rate of 23.8%.

Sweden ranks 5th by applications-per-GO efficiency among countries with at least one GO decision.

Its efficiency value is 3.5 applications per GO, based on 213 GO decisions.

France ranks 3rd by full proposal application volume among the countries listed in the article's country success table.

It submitted 1,172 applications, representing 9.6% of all full proposal applications in the dataset.

France recorded 834 NO-GO decisions and a 71.2% NO-GO rate.

Those NO-GO decisions represent 8.8% of all NO-GO decisions in the full proposal dataset.

France is counted in the EU-27 member grouping used by the article.

France's 28.8% success rate is measured against a 23.8% benchmark for that grouping. That is 5.0 percentage points above the overall full proposal success rate of 23.8%.

France ranks 4th by applications-per-GO efficiency among countries with at least one GO decision.

Its efficiency value is 3.5 applications per GO, based on 338 GO decisions.

Denmark ranks 10th by full proposal application volume among the countries listed in the article's country success table.

It submitted 435 applications, representing 3.5% of all full proposal applications in the dataset.

Denmark recorded 310 NO-GO decisions and a 71.3% NO-GO rate.

Those NO-GO decisions represent 3.3% of all NO-GO decisions in the full proposal dataset.

Denmark is counted in the EU-27 member grouping used by the article.

Denmark's 28.7% success rate is measured against a 23.8% benchmark for that grouping. That is 4.9 percentage points above the overall full proposal success rate of 23.8%.

Denmark ranks 3rd by applications-per-GO efficiency among countries with at least one GO decision.

Its efficiency value is 3.5 applications per GO, based on 125 GO decisions.

Belgium ranks 15th by full proposal application volume among the countries listed in the article's country success table.

It submitted 270 applications, representing 2.2% of all full proposal applications in the dataset.

Belgium recorded 195 NO-GO decisions and a 72.2% NO-GO rate.

Those NO-GO decisions represent 2.1% of all NO-GO decisions in the full proposal dataset.

Belgium is counted in the EU-27 member grouping used by the article.

Belgium's 27.8% success rate is measured against a 23.8% benchmark for that grouping. That is 4.0 percentage points above the overall full proposal success rate of 23.8%.

Belgium ranks 6th by applications-per-GO efficiency among countries with at least one GO decision.

Its efficiency value is 3.6 applications per GO, based on 75 GO decisions.

Norway ranks 11th by full proposal application volume among the countries listed in the article's country success table.

It submitted 383 applications, representing 3.1% of all full proposal applications in the dataset.

Norway recorded 281 NO-GO decisions and a 73.4% NO-GO rate.

Those NO-GO decisions represent 3.0% of all NO-GO decisions in the full proposal dataset.

Norway is counted in the non-EU / associated grouping used by the article.

Norway's 26.6% success rate is measured against a 19.8% benchmark for that grouping. That is 6.8 percentage points above the overall full proposal success rate of 19.8%.

Norway ranks 8th by applications-per-GO efficiency among countries with at least one GO decision.

Its efficiency value is 3.8 applications per GO, based on 102 GO decisions.

Ireland ranks 12th by full proposal application volume among the countries listed in the article's country success table.

It submitted 350 applications, representing 2.9% of all full proposal applications in the dataset.

Ireland recorded 259 NO-GO decisions and a 74.0% NO-GO rate.

Those NO-GO decisions represent 2.7% of all NO-GO decisions in the full proposal dataset.

Ireland is counted in the EU-27 member grouping used by the article.

Ireland's 26.0% success rate is measured against a 23.8% benchmark for that grouping. That is 2.2 percentage points above the overall full proposal success rate of 23.8%.

Ireland ranks 7th by applications-per-GO efficiency among countries with at least one GO decision.

Its efficiency value is 3.8 applications per GO, based on 91 GO decisions.

Austria ranks 14th by full proposal application volume among the countries listed in the article's country success table.

It submitted 305 applications, representing 2.5% of all full proposal applications in the dataset.

Austria recorded 228 NO-GO decisions and a 74.8% NO-GO rate.

Those NO-GO decisions represent 2.4% of all NO-GO decisions in the full proposal dataset.

Austria is counted in the EU-27 member grouping used by the article.

Austria's 25.2% success rate is measured against a 23.8% benchmark for that grouping. That is 1.4 percentage points above the overall full proposal success rate of 23.8%.

Austria ranks 9th by applications-per-GO efficiency among countries with at least one GO decision.

Its efficiency value is 4.0 applications per GO, based on 77 GO decisions.

Finland ranks 9th by full proposal application volume among the countries listed in the article's country success table.

It submitted 492 applications, representing 4.0% of all full proposal applications in the dataset.

Finland recorded 369 NO-GO decisions and a 75.0% NO-GO rate.

Those NO-GO decisions represent 3.9% of all NO-GO decisions in the full proposal dataset.

Finland is counted in the EU-27 member grouping used by the article.

Finland's 25.0% success rate is measured against a 23.8% benchmark for that grouping. That is 1.2 percentage points above the overall full proposal success rate of 23.8%.

Finland ranks 10th by applications-per-GO efficiency among countries with at least one GO decision.

Its efficiency value is 4.0 applications per GO, based on 123 GO decisions.

Germany ranks 1st by full proposal application volume among the countries listed in the article's country success table.

It submitted 1,383 applications, representing 11.3% of all full proposal applications in the dataset.

Germany recorded 1,037 NO-GO decisions and a 75.0% NO-GO rate.

Those NO-GO decisions represent 11.0% of all NO-GO decisions in the full proposal dataset.

Germany is counted in the EU-27 member grouping used by the article.

Germany's 25.0% success rate is measured against a 23.8% benchmark for that grouping. That is 1.2 percentage points above the overall full proposal success rate of 23.8%.

Germany ranks 11th by applications-per-GO efficiency among countries with at least one GO decision.

Its efficiency value is 4.0 applications per GO, based on 346 GO decisions.

Spain ranks 4th by full proposal application volume among the countries listed in the article's country success table.

It submitted 1,026 applications, representing 8.4% of all full proposal applications in the dataset.

Spain recorded 782 NO-GO decisions and a 76.2% NO-GO rate.

Those NO-GO decisions represent 8.3% of all NO-GO decisions in the full proposal dataset.

Spain is counted in the EU-27 member grouping used by the article.

Spain's 23.8% success rate is measured against a 23.8% benchmark for that grouping. It matches the overall full proposal success rate of 23.8%.

Spain ranks 12th by applications-per-GO efficiency among countries with at least one GO decision.

Its efficiency value is 4.2 applications per GO, based on 244 GO decisions.

Switzerland ranks 17th by full proposal application volume among the countries listed in the article's country success table.

It submitted 183 applications, representing 1.5% of all full proposal applications in the dataset.

Switzerland recorded 140 NO-GO decisions and a 76.5% NO-GO rate.

Those NO-GO decisions represent 1.5% of all NO-GO decisions in the full proposal dataset.

Switzerland is counted in the non-EU / associated grouping used by the article.

Switzerland's 23.5% success rate is measured against a 19.8% benchmark for that grouping. That is 3.7 percentage points above the overall full proposal success rate of 19.8%.

Switzerland ranks 14th by applications-per-GO efficiency among countries with at least one GO decision.

Its efficiency value is 4.3 applications per GO, based on 43 GO decisions.

Estonia ranks 19th by full proposal application volume among the countries listed in the article's country success table.

It submitted 124 applications, representing 1.0% of all full proposal applications in the dataset.

Estonia recorded 95 NO-GO decisions and a 76.6% NO-GO rate.

Those NO-GO decisions represent 1.0% of all NO-GO decisions in the full proposal dataset.

Estonia is counted in the EU-27 member grouping used by the article.

Estonia's 23.4% success rate is measured against a 23.8% benchmark for that grouping. That is 0.4 percentage points below the overall full proposal success rate of 23.8%.

Estonia ranks 13th by applications-per-GO efficiency among countries with at least one GO decision.

Its efficiency value is 4.3 applications per GO, based on 29 GO decisions.

Iceland ranks 28th by full proposal application volume among the countries listed in the article's country success table.

It submitted 54 applications, representing 0.4% of all full proposal applications in the dataset.

Iceland recorded 42 NO-GO decisions and a 77.8% NO-GO rate.

Those NO-GO decisions represent 0.4% of all NO-GO decisions in the full proposal dataset.

Iceland is counted in the non-EU / associated grouping used by the article.

Iceland's 22.2% success rate is measured against a 19.8% benchmark for that grouping. That is 2.4 percentage points above the overall full proposal success rate of 19.8%.

Iceland ranks 15th by applications-per-GO efficiency among countries with at least one GO decision.

Its efficiency value is 4.5 applications per GO, based on 12 GO decisions.

United Kingdom ranks 6th by full proposal application volume among the countries listed in the article's country success table.

It submitted 840 applications, representing 6.9% of all full proposal applications in the dataset.

United Kingdom recorded 672 NO-GO decisions and a 80.0% NO-GO rate.

Those NO-GO decisions represent 7.1% of all NO-GO decisions in the full proposal dataset.

United Kingdom is counted in the non-EU / associated grouping used by the article.

United Kingdom's 20.0% success rate is measured against a 19.8% benchmark for that grouping. That is 0.2 percentage points above the overall full proposal success rate of 19.8%.

United Kingdom ranks 16th by applications-per-GO efficiency among countries with at least one GO decision.

Its efficiency value is 5.0 applications per GO, based on 168 GO decisions.

Czech Republic ranks 26th by full proposal application volume among the countries listed in the article's country success table.

It submitted 62 applications, representing 0.5% of all full proposal applications in the dataset.

Czech Republic recorded 50 NO-GO decisions and a 80.6% NO-GO rate.

Those NO-GO decisions represent 0.5% of all NO-GO decisions in the full proposal dataset.

Czech Republic is counted in the EU-27 member grouping used by the article.

Czech Republic's 19.4% success rate is measured against a 23.8% benchmark for that grouping. That is 4.4 percentage points below the overall full proposal success rate of 23.8%.

Czech Republic ranks 17th by applications-per-GO efficiency among countries with at least one GO decision.

Its efficiency value is 5.2 applications per GO, based on 12 GO decisions.

Israel ranks 2nd by full proposal application volume among the countries listed in the article's country success table.

It submitted 1,284 applications, representing 10.5% of all full proposal applications in the dataset.

Israel recorded 1,038 NO-GO decisions and a 80.8% NO-GO rate.

Those NO-GO decisions represent 11.0% of all NO-GO decisions in the full proposal dataset.

Israel is counted in the non-EU / associated grouping used by the article.

Israel's 19.2% success rate is measured against a 19.8% benchmark for that grouping. That is 0.6 percentage points below the overall full proposal success rate of 19.8%.

Israel ranks 18th by applications-per-GO efficiency among countries with at least one GO decision.

Its efficiency value is 5.2 applications per GO, based on 246 GO decisions.

Luxembourg ranks 24th by full proposal application volume among the countries listed in the article's country success table.

It submitted 69 applications, representing 0.6% of all full proposal applications in the dataset.

Luxembourg recorded 56 NO-GO decisions and a 81.2% NO-GO rate.

Those NO-GO decisions represent 0.6% of all NO-GO decisions in the full proposal dataset.

Luxembourg is counted in the EU-27 member grouping used by the article.

Luxembourg's 18.8% success rate is measured against a 23.8% benchmark for that grouping. That is 5.0 percentage points below the overall full proposal success rate of 23.8%.

Luxembourg ranks 19th by applications-per-GO efficiency among countries with at least one GO decision.

Its efficiency value is 5.3 applications per GO, based on 13 GO decisions.

Portugal ranks 16th by full proposal application volume among the countries listed in the article's country success table.

It submitted 193 applications, representing 1.6% of all full proposal applications in the dataset.

Portugal recorded 157 NO-GO decisions and a 81.3% NO-GO rate.

Those NO-GO decisions represent 1.7% of all NO-GO decisions in the full proposal dataset.

Portugal is counted in the EU-27 member grouping used by the article.

Portugal's 18.7% success rate is measured against a 23.8% benchmark for that grouping. That is 5.1 percentage points below the overall full proposal success rate of 23.8%.

Portugal ranks 20th by applications-per-GO efficiency among countries with at least one GO decision.

Its efficiency value is 5.4 applications per GO, based on 36 GO decisions.

Lithuania ranks 23rd by full proposal application volume among the countries listed in the article's country success table.

It submitted 73 applications, representing 0.6% of all full proposal applications in the dataset.

Lithuania recorded 61 NO-GO decisions and a 83.6% NO-GO rate.

Those NO-GO decisions represent 0.6% of all NO-GO decisions in the full proposal dataset.

Lithuania is counted in the EU-27 member grouping used by the article.

Lithuania's 16.4% success rate is measured against a 23.8% benchmark for that grouping. That is 7.4 percentage points below the overall full proposal success rate of 23.8%.

Lithuania ranks 21st by applications-per-GO efficiency among countries with at least one GO decision.

Its efficiency value is 6.1 applications per GO, based on 12 GO decisions.

Italy ranks 5th by full proposal application volume among the countries listed in the article's country success table.

It submitted 845 applications, representing 6.9% of all full proposal applications in the dataset.

Italy recorded 709 NO-GO decisions and a 83.9% NO-GO rate.

Those NO-GO decisions represent 7.5% of all NO-GO decisions in the full proposal dataset.

Italy is counted in the EU-27 member grouping used by the article.

Italy's 16.1% success rate is measured against a 23.8% benchmark for that grouping. That is 7.7 percentage points below the overall full proposal success rate of 23.8%.

Italy ranks 22nd by applications-per-GO efficiency among countries with at least one GO decision.

Its efficiency value is 6.2 applications per GO, based on 136 GO decisions.

Bulgaria ranks 21st by full proposal application volume among the countries listed in the article's country success table.

It submitted 96 applications, representing 0.8% of all full proposal applications in the dataset.

Bulgaria recorded 81 NO-GO decisions and a 84.4% NO-GO rate.

Those NO-GO decisions represent 0.9% of all NO-GO decisions in the full proposal dataset.

Bulgaria is counted in the EU-27 member grouping used by the article.

Bulgaria's 15.6% success rate is measured against a 23.8% benchmark for that grouping. That is 8.2 percentage points below the overall full proposal success rate of 23.8%.

Bulgaria ranks 23rd by applications-per-GO efficiency among countries with at least one GO decision.

Its efficiency value is 6.4 applications per GO, based on 15 GO decisions.

Slovakia ranks 30th by full proposal application volume among the countries listed in the article's country success table.

It submitted 44 applications, representing 0.4% of all full proposal applications in the dataset.

Slovakia recorded 38 NO-GO decisions and a 86.4% NO-GO rate.

Those NO-GO decisions represent 0.4% of all NO-GO decisions in the full proposal dataset.

Slovakia is counted in the EU-27 member grouping used by the article.

Slovakia's 13.6% success rate is measured against a 23.8% benchmark for that grouping. That is 10.2 percentage points below the overall full proposal success rate of 23.8%.

Slovakia ranks 24th by applications-per-GO efficiency among countries with at least one GO decision.

Its efficiency value is 7.3 applications per GO, based on 6 GO decisions.

Croatia ranks 33rd by full proposal application volume among the countries listed in the article's country success table.

It submitted 25 applications, representing 0.2% of all full proposal applications in the dataset.

Croatia recorded 22 NO-GO decisions and a 88.0% NO-GO rate.

Those NO-GO decisions represent 0.2% of all NO-GO decisions in the full proposal dataset.

Croatia is counted in the EU-27 member grouping used by the article.

Croatia's 12.0% success rate is measured against a 23.8% benchmark for that grouping. That is 11.8 percentage points below the overall full proposal success rate of 23.8%.

Croatia ranks 25th by applications-per-GO efficiency among countries with at least one GO decision.

Its efficiency value is 8.3 applications per GO, based on 3 GO decisions.

Hungary ranks 20th by full proposal application volume among the countries listed in the article's country success table.

It submitted 114 applications, representing 0.9% of all full proposal applications in the dataset.

Hungary recorded 102 NO-GO decisions and a 89.5% NO-GO rate.

Those NO-GO decisions represent 1.1% of all NO-GO decisions in the full proposal dataset.

Hungary is counted in the EU-27 member grouping used by the article.

Hungary's 10.5% success rate is measured against a 23.8% benchmark for that grouping. That is 13.3 percentage points below the overall full proposal success rate of 23.8%.

Hungary ranks 26th by applications-per-GO efficiency among countries with at least one GO decision.

Its efficiency value is 9.5 applications per GO, based on 12 GO decisions.

Poland ranks 13th by full proposal application volume among the countries listed in the article's country success table.

It submitted 339 applications, representing 2.8% of all full proposal applications in the dataset.

Poland recorded 304 NO-GO decisions and a 89.7% NO-GO rate.

Those NO-GO decisions represent 3.2% of all NO-GO decisions in the full proposal dataset.

Poland is counted in the EU-27 member grouping used by the article.

Poland's 10.3% success rate is measured against a 23.8% benchmark for that grouping. That is 13.5 percentage points below the overall full proposal success rate of 23.8%.

Poland ranks 27th by applications-per-GO efficiency among countries with at least one GO decision.

Its efficiency value is 9.7 applications per GO, based on 35 GO decisions.

Latvia ranks 29th by full proposal application volume among the countries listed in the article's country success table.

It submitted 51 applications, representing 0.4% of all full proposal applications in the dataset.

Latvia recorded 46 NO-GO decisions and a 90.2% NO-GO rate.

Those NO-GO decisions represent 0.5% of all NO-GO decisions in the full proposal dataset.

Latvia is counted in the EU-27 member grouping used by the article.

Latvia's 9.8% success rate is measured against a 23.8% benchmark for that grouping. That is 14.0 percentage points below the overall full proposal success rate of 23.8%.

Latvia ranks 28th by applications-per-GO efficiency among countries with at least one GO decision.

Its efficiency value is 10.2 applications per GO, based on 5 GO decisions.

Slovenia ranks 27th by full proposal application volume among the countries listed in the article's country success table.

It submitted 62 applications, representing 0.5% of all full proposal applications in the dataset.

Slovenia recorded 56 NO-GO decisions and a 90.3% NO-GO rate.

Those NO-GO decisions represent 0.6% of all NO-GO decisions in the full proposal dataset.

Slovenia is counted in the EU-27 member grouping used by the article.

Slovenia's 9.7% success rate is measured against a 23.8% benchmark for that grouping. That is 14.1 percentage points below the overall full proposal success rate of 23.8%.

Slovenia ranks 29th by applications-per-GO efficiency among countries with at least one GO decision.

Its efficiency value is 10.3 applications per GO, based on 6 GO decisions.

Greece ranks 22nd by full proposal application volume among the countries listed in the article's country success table.

It submitted 91 applications, representing 0.7% of all full proposal applications in the dataset.

Greece recorded 83 NO-GO decisions and a 91.2% NO-GO rate.

Those NO-GO decisions represent 0.9% of all NO-GO decisions in the full proposal dataset.

Greece is counted in the EU-27 member grouping used by the article.

Greece's 8.8% success rate is measured against a 23.8% benchmark for that grouping. That is 15.0 percentage points below the overall full proposal success rate of 23.8%.

Greece ranks 30th by applications-per-GO efficiency among countries with at least one GO decision.

Its efficiency value is 11.4 applications per GO, based on 8 GO decisions.

Romania ranks 25th by full proposal application volume among the countries listed in the article's country success table.

It submitted 68 applications, representing 0.6% of all full proposal applications in the dataset.

Romania recorded 63 NO-GO decisions and a 92.6% NO-GO rate.

Those NO-GO decisions represent 0.7% of all NO-GO decisions in the full proposal dataset.

Romania is counted in the EU-27 member grouping used by the article.

Romania's 7.4% success rate is measured against a 23.8% benchmark for that grouping. That is 16.4 percentage points below the overall full proposal success rate of 23.8%.

Romania ranks 31st by applications-per-GO efficiency among countries with at least one GO decision.

Its efficiency value is 13.6 applications per GO, based on 5 GO decisions.

Türkiye ranks 18th by full proposal application volume among the countries listed in the article's country success table.

It submitted 126 applications, representing 1.0% of all full proposal applications in the dataset.

Türkiye recorded 117 NO-GO decisions and a 92.9% NO-GO rate.

Those NO-GO decisions represent 1.2% of all NO-GO decisions in the full proposal dataset.

Türkiye is counted in the non-EU / associated grouping used by the article.

Türkiye's 7.1% success rate is measured against a 19.8% benchmark for that grouping. That is 12.7 percentage points below the overall full proposal success rate of 19.8%.

Türkiye ranks 32nd by applications-per-GO efficiency among countries with at least one GO decision.

Its efficiency value is 14.0 applications per GO, based on 9 GO decisions.

Ukraine ranks 32nd by full proposal application volume among the countries listed in the article's country success table.

It submitted 30 applications, representing 0.2% of all full proposal applications in the dataset.

Ukraine recorded 28 NO-GO decisions and a 93.3% NO-GO rate.

Those NO-GO decisions represent 0.3% of all NO-GO decisions in the full proposal dataset.

Ukraine is counted in the non-EU / associated grouping used by the article.

Ukraine's 6.7% success rate is measured against a 19.8% benchmark for that grouping. That is 13.1 percentage points below the overall full proposal success rate of 19.8%.

Ukraine ranks 33rd by applications-per-GO efficiency among countries with at least one GO decision.

Its efficiency value is 15.0 applications per GO, based on 2 GO decisions.

Serbia ranks 34th by full proposal application volume among the countries listed in the article's country success table.

It submitted 19 applications, representing 0.2% of all full proposal applications in the dataset.

Serbia recorded 18 NO-GO decisions and a 94.7% NO-GO rate.

Those NO-GO decisions represent 0.2% of all NO-GO decisions in the full proposal dataset.

Serbia is counted in the non-EU / associated grouping used by the article.

Serbia's 5.3% success rate is measured against a 19.8% benchmark for that grouping. That is 14.5 percentage points below the overall full proposal success rate of 19.8%.

Serbia ranks 34th by applications-per-GO efficiency among countries with at least one GO decision.

Its efficiency value is 19.0 applications per GO, based on 1 GO decisions.

Cyprus ranks 31st by full proposal application volume among the countries listed in the article's country success table.

It submitted 38 applications, representing 0.3% of all full proposal applications in the dataset.

Cyprus recorded 37 NO-GO decisions and a 97.4% NO-GO rate.

Those NO-GO decisions represent 0.4% of all NO-GO decisions in the full proposal dataset.

Cyprus is counted in the EU-27 member grouping used by the article.

Cyprus's 2.6% success rate is measured against a 23.8% benchmark for that grouping. That is 21.2 percentage points below the overall full proposal success rate of 23.8%.

Cyprus ranks 35th by applications-per-GO efficiency among countries with at least one GO decision.

Its efficiency value is 38.0 applications per GO, based on 1 GO decisions.

Malta ranks 35th by full proposal application volume among the countries listed in the article's country success table.

It submitted 18 applications, representing 0.1% of all full proposal applications in the dataset.

Malta recorded 18 NO-GO decisions and a 100.0% NO-GO rate.

Those NO-GO decisions represent 0.2% of all NO-GO decisions in the full proposal dataset.

Malta is counted in the EU-27 member grouping used by the article.

Malta's 0.0% success rate is measured against a 23.8% benchmark for that grouping. That is 23.8 percentage points below the overall full proposal success rate of 23.8%.

Malta has no applications-per-GO efficiency rank because it recorded zero GO decisions.

The country row records 18 applications and 18 NO-GO decisions.

Montenegro ranks 38th by full proposal application volume among the countries listed in the article's country success table.

It submitted 5 applications, representing 0.0% of all full proposal applications in the dataset.

Montenegro recorded 5 NO-GO decisions and a 100.0% NO-GO rate.

Those NO-GO decisions represent 0.1% of all NO-GO decisions in the full proposal dataset.

Montenegro is counted in the non-EU / associated grouping used by the article.

Montenegro's 0.0% success rate is measured against a 19.8% benchmark for that grouping. That is 19.8 percentage points below the overall full proposal success rate of 19.8%.

Montenegro has no applications-per-GO efficiency rank because it recorded zero GO decisions.

The country row records 5 applications and 5 NO-GO decisions.

Tunisia ranks 36th by full proposal application volume among the countries listed in the article's country success table.

It submitted 9 applications, representing 0.1% of all full proposal applications in the dataset.

Tunisia recorded 9 NO-GO decisions and a 100.0% NO-GO rate.

Those NO-GO decisions represent 0.1% of all NO-GO decisions in the full proposal dataset.

Tunisia is counted in the non-EU / associated grouping used by the article.

Tunisia's 0.0% success rate is measured against a 19.8% benchmark for that grouping. That is 19.8 percentage points below the overall full proposal success rate of 19.8%.

Tunisia has no applications-per-GO efficiency rank because it recorded zero GO decisions.

The country row records 9 applications and 9 NO-GO decisions.

Health recorded 3,881 applications, 995 GO decisions, and 2,886 NO-GO decisions.

Its full proposal success rate is 25.6%.

Health recorded 3.9 applications per GO.

That efficiency view is based on 3,881 applications and 995 GO decisions.

Health's success rate is 25.6%.

That is 2.8 percentage points above the overall full proposal success rate of 22.8%. The sector accounts for 35.6% of all GO decisions in the dataset.

Female applicants represent 20.4% of applications in Health.

The same row reports a 29.3% female success rate and a 24.9% male success rate.

ICT recorded 1,879 applications, 330 GO decisions, and 1,549 NO-GO decisions.

Its full proposal success rate is 17.6%.

ICT recorded 5.7 applications per GO.

That efficiency view is based on 1,879 applications and 330 GO decisions.

ICT's success rate is 17.6%.

That is 5.2 percentage points below the overall full proposal success rate of 22.8%. The sector accounts for 11.8% of all GO decisions in the dataset.

Female applicants represent 13.0% of applications in ICT.

The same row reports a 15.3% female success rate and a 17.9% male success rate.

Engineering & Tech recorded 1,577 applications, 411 GO decisions, and 1,166 NO-GO decisions.

Its full proposal success rate is 26.1%.

Engineering & Tech recorded 3.8 applications per GO.

That efficiency view is based on 1,577 applications and 411 GO decisions.

Engineering & Tech's success rate is 26.1%.

That is 3.3 percentage points above the overall full proposal success rate of 22.8%. The sector accounts for 14.7% of all GO decisions in the dataset.

Female applicants represent 11.4% of applications in Engineering & Tech.

The same row reports a 18.5% female success rate and a 27.0% male success rate.

Energy recorded 1,069 applications, 250 GO decisions, and 819 NO-GO decisions.

Its full proposal success rate is 23.4%.

Energy recorded 4.3 applications per GO.

That efficiency view is based on 1,069 applications and 250 GO decisions.

Energy's success rate is 23.4%.

That is 0.6 percentage points above the overall full proposal success rate of 22.8%. The sector accounts for 8.9% of all GO decisions in the dataset.

Female applicants represent 10.5% of applications in Energy.

The same row reports a 17.9% female success rate and a 24.0% male success rate.

Biotechnology recorded 757 applications, 189 GO decisions, and 568 NO-GO decisions.

Its full proposal success rate is 25.0%.

Biotechnology recorded 4.0 applications per GO.

That efficiency view is based on 757 applications and 189 GO decisions.

Biotechnology's success rate is 25.0%.

That is 2.2 percentage points above the overall full proposal success rate of 22.8%. The sector accounts for 6.8% of all GO decisions in the dataset.

Female applicants represent 26.9% of applications in Biotechnology.

The same row reports a 23.8% female success rate and a 25.5% male success rate.

Env. Sciences recorded 639 applications, 158 GO decisions, and 481 NO-GO decisions.

Its full proposal success rate is 24.7%.

Env. Sciences recorded 4.0 applications per GO.

That efficiency view is based on 639 applications and 158 GO decisions.

Env. Sciences's success rate is 24.7%.

That is 1.9 percentage points above the overall full proposal success rate of 22.8%. The sector accounts for 5.6% of all GO decisions in the dataset.

Female applicants represent 20.8% of applications in Env. Sciences.

The same row reports a 27.5% female success rate and a 23.9% male success rate.

Transport & Mobility recorded 546 applications, 81 GO decisions, and 465 NO-GO decisions.

Its full proposal success rate is 14.8%.

Transport & Mobility recorded 6.7 applications per GO.

That efficiency view is based on 546 applications and 81 GO decisions.

Transport & Mobility's success rate is 14.8%.

That is 8.0 percentage points below the overall full proposal success rate of 22.8%. The sector accounts for 2.9% of all GO decisions in the dataset.

Female applicants represent 8.3% of applications in Transport & Mobility.

The same row reports a 8.9% female success rate and a 15.6% male success rate.

Agriculture recorded 497 applications, 128 GO decisions, and 369 NO-GO decisions.

Its full proposal success rate is 25.8%.

Agriculture recorded 3.9 applications per GO.

That efficiency view is based on 497 applications and 128 GO decisions.

Agriculture's success rate is 25.8%.

That is 3.0 percentage points above the overall full proposal success rate of 22.8%. The sector accounts for 4.6% of all GO decisions in the dataset.

Female applicants represent 17.1% of applications in Agriculture.

The same row reports a 28.6% female success rate and a 25.5% male success rate.

Construction recorded 311 applications, 58 GO decisions, and 253 NO-GO decisions.

Its full proposal success rate is 18.6%.

Construction recorded 5.4 applications per GO.

That efficiency view is based on 311 applications and 58 GO decisions.

Construction's success rate is 18.6%.

That is 4.2 percentage points below the overall full proposal success rate of 22.8%. The sector accounts for 2.1% of all GO decisions in the dataset.

Female applicants represent 9.7% of applications in Construction.

The same row reports a 20.0% female success rate and a 18.6% male success rate.

Food & Beverages recorded 265 applications, 54 GO decisions, and 211 NO-GO decisions.

Its full proposal success rate is 20.4%.

Food & Beverages recorded 4.9 applications per GO.

That efficiency view is based on 265 applications and 54 GO decisions.

Food & Beverages's success rate is 20.4%.

That is 2.4 percentage points below the overall full proposal success rate of 22.8%. The sector accounts for 1.9% of all GO decisions in the dataset.

Female applicants represent 20.9% of applications in Food & Beverages.

The same row reports a 25.5% female success rate and a 19.2% male success rate.

Consumer Products recorded 258 applications, 36 GO decisions, and 222 NO-GO decisions.

Its full proposal success rate is 14.0%.

Consumer Products recorded 7.2 applications per GO.

That efficiency view is based on 258 applications and 36 GO decisions.

Consumer Products's success rate is 14.0%.

That is 8.8 percentage points below the overall full proposal success rate of 22.8%. The sector accounts for 1.3% of all GO decisions in the dataset.

Female applicants represent 22.2% of applications in Consumer Products.

The same row reports a 12.3% female success rate and a 14.5% male success rate.

Space recorded 216 applications, 57 GO decisions, and 159 NO-GO decisions.

Its full proposal success rate is 26.4%.

Space recorded 3.8 applications per GO.

That efficiency view is based on 216 applications and 57 GO decisions.

Space's success rate is 26.4%.

That is 3.6 percentage points above the overall full proposal success rate of 22.8%. The sector accounts for 2.0% of all GO decisions in the dataset.

Female applicants represent 10.7% of applications in Space.

The same row reports a 13.0% female success rate and a 27.7% male success rate.

Security recorded 169 applications, 25 GO decisions, and 144 NO-GO decisions.

Its full proposal success rate is 14.8%.

Security recorded 6.8 applications per GO.

That efficiency view is based on 169 applications and 25 GO decisions.

Security's success rate is 14.8%.

That is 8.0 percentage points below the overall full proposal success rate of 22.8%. The sector accounts for 0.9% of all GO decisions in the dataset.

Female applicants represent 9.6% of applications in Security.

The same row reports a 6.2% female success rate and a 15.9% male success rate.

Education & Culture recorded 138 applications, 17 GO decisions, and 121 NO-GO decisions.

Its full proposal success rate is 12.3%.

Education & Culture recorded 8.1 applications per GO.

That efficiency view is based on 138 applications and 17 GO decisions.

Education & Culture's success rate is 12.3%.

That is 10.5 percentage points below the overall full proposal success rate of 22.8%. The sector accounts for 0.6% of all GO decisions in the dataset.

Female applicants represent 31.9% of applications in Education & Culture.

The same row reports a 9.1% female success rate and a 13.8% male success rate.

Public Sector Innov. recorded 52 applications, 8 GO decisions, and 44 NO-GO decisions.

Its full proposal success rate is 15.4%.

Public Sector Innov. recorded 6.5 applications per GO.

That efficiency view is based on 52 applications and 8 GO decisions.

Public Sector Innov.'s success rate is 15.4%.

That is 7.4 percentage points below the overall full proposal success rate of 22.8%. The sector accounts for 0.3% of all GO decisions in the dataset.

Female applicants represent 24.5% of applications in Public Sector Innov..

The same row reports a 16.7% female success rate and a 10.8% male success rate.

Health ranks 1st by full proposal application volume among the 15 sectors.

It accounts for 31.7% of all full proposal applications in the dataset.

Health ranks 4th by sector success rate.

Its success rate is 25.6%, compared with the overall full proposal rate of 22.8%.

Health recorded 2,886 NO-GO decisions and a 74.4% NO-GO rate.

Those NO-GO decisions represent 30.5% of all NO-GO decisions in the dataset.

Health contributes 3,881 of 12,255 full proposal applications.

It contributes 995 of 2,797 GO decisions, so it is 35.6% of all successful Step 2 outcomes.

ICT ranks 2nd by full proposal application volume among the 15 sectors.

It accounts for 15.3% of all full proposal applications in the dataset.

ICT ranks 10th by sector success rate.

Its success rate is 17.6%, compared with the overall full proposal rate of 22.8%.

ICT recorded 1,549 NO-GO decisions and a 82.4% NO-GO rate.

Those NO-GO decisions represent 16.4% of all NO-GO decisions in the dataset.

ICT contributes 1,879 of 12,255 full proposal applications.

It contributes 330 of 2,797 GO decisions, so it is 11.8% of all successful Step 2 outcomes.

Engineering & Tech ranks 3rd by full proposal application volume among the 15 sectors.

It accounts for 12.9% of all full proposal applications in the dataset.

Engineering & Tech ranks 2nd by sector success rate.

Its success rate is 26.1%, compared with the overall full proposal rate of 22.8%.

Engineering & Tech recorded 1,166 NO-GO decisions and a 73.9% NO-GO rate.

Those NO-GO decisions represent 12.3% of all NO-GO decisions in the dataset.

Engineering & Tech contributes 1,577 of 12,255 full proposal applications.

It contributes 411 of 2,797 GO decisions, so it is 14.7% of all successful Step 2 outcomes.

Energy ranks 4th by full proposal application volume among the 15 sectors.

It accounts for 8.7% of all full proposal applications in the dataset.

Energy ranks 7th by sector success rate.

Its success rate is 23.4%, compared with the overall full proposal rate of 22.8%.

Energy recorded 819 NO-GO decisions and a 76.6% NO-GO rate.

Those NO-GO decisions represent 8.7% of all NO-GO decisions in the dataset.

Energy contributes 1,069 of 12,255 full proposal applications.

It contributes 250 of 2,797 GO decisions, so it is 8.9% of all successful Step 2 outcomes.

Biotechnology ranks 5th by full proposal application volume among the 15 sectors.

It accounts for 6.2% of all full proposal applications in the dataset.

Biotechnology ranks 5th by sector success rate.

Its success rate is 25.0%, compared with the overall full proposal rate of 22.8%.

Biotechnology recorded 568 NO-GO decisions and a 75.0% NO-GO rate.

Those NO-GO decisions represent 6.0% of all NO-GO decisions in the dataset.

Biotechnology contributes 757 of 12,255 full proposal applications.

It contributes 189 of 2,797 GO decisions, so it is 6.8% of all successful Step 2 outcomes.

Env. Sciences ranks 6th by full proposal application volume among the 15 sectors.

It accounts for 5.2% of all full proposal applications in the dataset.

Env. Sciences ranks 6th by sector success rate.

Its success rate is 24.7%, compared with the overall full proposal rate of 22.8%.

Env. Sciences recorded 481 NO-GO decisions and a 75.3% NO-GO rate.

Those NO-GO decisions represent 5.1% of all NO-GO decisions in the dataset.

Env. Sciences contributes 639 of 12,255 full proposal applications.

It contributes 158 of 2,797 GO decisions, so it is 5.6% of all successful Step 2 outcomes.

Transport & Mobility ranks 7th by full proposal application volume among the 15 sectors.

It accounts for 4.5% of all full proposal applications in the dataset.

Transport & Mobility ranks 13th by sector success rate.

Its success rate is 14.8%, compared with the overall full proposal rate of 22.8%.

Transport & Mobility recorded 465 NO-GO decisions and a 85.2% NO-GO rate.

Those NO-GO decisions represent 4.9% of all NO-GO decisions in the dataset.

Transport & Mobility contributes 546 of 12,255 full proposal applications.

It contributes 81 of 2,797 GO decisions, so it is 2.9% of all successful Step 2 outcomes.

Agriculture ranks 8th by full proposal application volume among the 15 sectors.

It accounts for 4.1% of all full proposal applications in the dataset.

Agriculture ranks 3rd by sector success rate.

Its success rate is 25.8%, compared with the overall full proposal rate of 22.8%.

Agriculture recorded 369 NO-GO decisions and a 74.2% NO-GO rate.

Those NO-GO decisions represent 3.9% of all NO-GO decisions in the dataset.

Agriculture contributes 497 of 12,255 full proposal applications.

It contributes 128 of 2,797 GO decisions, so it is 4.6% of all successful Step 2 outcomes.

Construction ranks 9th by full proposal application volume among the 15 sectors.

It accounts for 2.5% of all full proposal applications in the dataset.

Construction ranks 9th by sector success rate.

Its success rate is 18.6%, compared with the overall full proposal rate of 22.8%.

Construction recorded 253 NO-GO decisions and a 81.4% NO-GO rate.

Those NO-GO decisions represent 2.7% of all NO-GO decisions in the dataset.

Construction contributes 311 of 12,255 full proposal applications.

It contributes 58 of 2,797 GO decisions, so it is 2.1% of all successful Step 2 outcomes.

Food & Beverages ranks 10th by full proposal application volume among the 15 sectors.

It accounts for 2.2% of all full proposal applications in the dataset.

Food & Beverages ranks 8th by sector success rate.

Its success rate is 20.4%, compared with the overall full proposal rate of 22.8%.

Food & Beverages recorded 211 NO-GO decisions and a 79.6% NO-GO rate.

Those NO-GO decisions represent 2.2% of all NO-GO decisions in the dataset.

Food & Beverages contributes 265 of 12,255 full proposal applications.

It contributes 54 of 2,797 GO decisions, so it is 1.9% of all successful Step 2 outcomes.

Consumer Products ranks 11th by full proposal application volume among the 15 sectors.

It accounts for 2.1% of all full proposal applications in the dataset.

Consumer Products ranks 14th by sector success rate.

Its success rate is 14.0%, compared with the overall full proposal rate of 22.8%.

Consumer Products recorded 222 NO-GO decisions and a 86.0% NO-GO rate.

Those NO-GO decisions represent 2.3% of all NO-GO decisions in the dataset.

Consumer Products contributes 258 of 12,255 full proposal applications.

It contributes 36 of 2,797 GO decisions, so it is 1.3% of all successful Step 2 outcomes.

Space ranks 12th by full proposal application volume among the 15 sectors.

It accounts for 1.8% of all full proposal applications in the dataset.

Space ranks 1st by sector success rate.

Its success rate is 26.4%, compared with the overall full proposal rate of 22.8%.

Space recorded 159 NO-GO decisions and a 73.6% NO-GO rate.

Those NO-GO decisions represent 1.7% of all NO-GO decisions in the dataset.

Space contributes 216 of 12,255 full proposal applications.

It contributes 57 of 2,797 GO decisions, so it is 2.0% of all successful Step 2 outcomes.

Security ranks 13th by full proposal application volume among the 15 sectors.

It accounts for 1.4% of all full proposal applications in the dataset.

Security ranks 12th by sector success rate.

Its success rate is 14.8%, compared with the overall full proposal rate of 22.8%.

Security recorded 144 NO-GO decisions and a 85.2% NO-GO rate.

Those NO-GO decisions represent 1.5% of all NO-GO decisions in the dataset.

Security contributes 169 of 12,255 full proposal applications.

It contributes 25 of 2,797 GO decisions, so it is 0.9% of all successful Step 2 outcomes.

Education & Culture ranks 14th by full proposal application volume among the 15 sectors.

It accounts for 1.1% of all full proposal applications in the dataset.

Education & Culture ranks 15th by sector success rate.

Its success rate is 12.3%, compared with the overall full proposal rate of 22.8%.

Education & Culture recorded 121 NO-GO decisions and a 87.7% NO-GO rate.

Those NO-GO decisions represent 1.3% of all NO-GO decisions in the dataset.

Education & Culture contributes 138 of 12,255 full proposal applications.

It contributes 17 of 2,797 GO decisions, so it is 0.6% of all successful Step 2 outcomes.

Public Sector Innov. ranks 15th by full proposal application volume among the 15 sectors.

It accounts for 0.4% of all full proposal applications in the dataset.

Public Sector Innov. ranks 11th by sector success rate.

Its success rate is 15.4%, compared with the overall full proposal rate of 22.8%.

Public Sector Innov. recorded 44 NO-GO decisions and a 84.6% NO-GO rate.

Those NO-GO decisions represent 0.5% of all NO-GO decisions in the dataset.

Public Sector Innov. contributes 52 of 12,255 full proposal applications.

It contributes 8 of 2,797 GO decisions, so it is 0.3% of all successful Step 2 outcomes.

The 2021 full proposal success rate was 18.7%.

The dataset records 1,905 applications, 356 GO decisions, and 1,549 NO-GO decisions for 2021.

The 2021 NO-GO rate was 81.3%.

That is based on 1,549 NO-GO decisions out of 1,905 full proposal applications.

The 2021 data shows 5.4 applications per GO.

This converts the year table into an operational planning metric for applicants.

The 2021 success rate is 18.7%.

That is 4.1 percentage points below the overall full proposal success rate of 22.8%.

The 2022 full proposal success rate was 21.6%.

The dataset records 3,197 applications, 690 GO decisions, and 2,507 NO-GO decisions for 2022.

The 2022 NO-GO rate was 78.4%.

That is based on 2,507 NO-GO decisions out of 3,197 full proposal applications.

The 2022 data shows 4.6 applications per GO.

This converts the year table into an operational planning metric for applicants.

The 2022 success rate is 21.6%.

That is 1.2 percentage points below the overall full proposal success rate of 22.8%.

The 2023 full proposal success rate was 24.4%.

The dataset records 2,701 applications, 659 GO decisions, and 2,042 NO-GO decisions for 2023.

The 2023 NO-GO rate was 75.6%.

That is based on 2,042 NO-GO decisions out of 2,701 full proposal applications.

The 2023 data shows 4.1 applications per GO.

This converts the year table into an operational planning metric for applicants.

The 2023 success rate is 24.4%.

That is 1.6 percentage points above the overall full proposal success rate of 22.8%.

The 2024 full proposal success rate was 35.8%.

The dataset records 2,177 applications, 779 GO decisions, and 1,398 NO-GO decisions for 2024.

The 2024 NO-GO rate was 64.2%.

That is based on 1,398 NO-GO decisions out of 2,177 full proposal applications.

The 2024 data shows 2.8 applications per GO.

This converts the year table into an operational planning metric for applicants.

The 2024 success rate is 35.8%.

That is 13.0 percentage points above the overall full proposal success rate of 22.8%.

The 2025 full proposal success rate was 14.5%.

The dataset records 1,884 applications, 273 GO decisions, and 1,611 NO-GO decisions for 2025.

The 2025 NO-GO rate was 85.5%.

That is based on 1,611 NO-GO decisions out of 1,884 full proposal applications.

The 2025 data shows 6.9 applications per GO.

This converts the year table into an operational planning metric for applicants.

The 2025 success rate is 14.5%.

That is 8.3 percentage points below the overall full proposal success rate of 22.8%.

The 2026 full proposal success rate was 10.2%.

The dataset records 391 applications, 40 GO decisions, and 351 NO-GO decisions for 2026.

The 2026 NO-GO rate was 89.8%.

That is based on 351 NO-GO decisions out of 391 full proposal applications.

The 2026 data shows 9.8 applications per GO.

This converts the year table into an operational planning metric for applicants.

The 2026 success rate is 10.2%.

That is 12.6 percentage points below the overall full proposal success rate of 22.8%.

2021 accounts for 15.5% of all full proposal applications in the dataset.

The year recorded 1,905 applications out of 12,255 total applications.

2021 accounts for 12.7% of all GO decisions.

The year recorded 356 GO decisions out of 2,797 total GO decisions.

2021 ranks 4th by application volume among the years in the dataset.

2021 recorded 1,905 applications, 356 GO decisions, and 1,549 NO-GO decisions.

2021 ranks 4th by full proposal success rate among the years in the dataset.

Its success rate is 18.7%, compared with the overall full proposal rate of 22.8%.

2022 accounts for 26.1% of all full proposal applications in the dataset.

The year recorded 3,197 applications out of 12,255 total applications.

2022 accounts for 24.7% of all GO decisions.

The year recorded 690 GO decisions out of 2,797 total GO decisions.

2022 ranks 1st by application volume among the years in the dataset.

2022 recorded 3,197 applications, 690 GO decisions, and 2,507 NO-GO decisions.

2022 ranks 3rd by full proposal success rate among the years in the dataset.

Its success rate is 21.6%, compared with the overall full proposal rate of 22.8%.

2023 accounts for 22.0% of all full proposal applications in the dataset.

The year recorded 2,701 applications out of 12,255 total applications.

2023 accounts for 23.6% of all GO decisions.

The year recorded 659 GO decisions out of 2,797 total GO decisions.

2023 ranks 2nd by application volume among the years in the dataset.

2023 recorded 2,701 applications, 659 GO decisions, and 2,042 NO-GO decisions.

2023 ranks 2nd by full proposal success rate among the years in the dataset.

Its success rate is 24.4%, compared with the overall full proposal rate of 22.8%.

2024 accounts for 17.8% of all full proposal applications in the dataset.

The year recorded 2,177 applications out of 12,255 total applications.

2024 accounts for 27.9% of all GO decisions.

The year recorded 779 GO decisions out of 2,797 total GO decisions.

2024 ranks 3rd by application volume among the years in the dataset.

2024 recorded 2,177 applications, 779 GO decisions, and 1,398 NO-GO decisions.

2024 ranks 1st by full proposal success rate among the years in the dataset.

Its success rate is 35.8%, compared with the overall full proposal rate of 22.8%.

2025 accounts for 15.4% of all full proposal applications in the dataset.

The year recorded 1,884 applications out of 12,255 total applications.

2025 accounts for 9.8% of all GO decisions.

The year recorded 273 GO decisions out of 2,797 total GO decisions.

2025 ranks 5th by application volume among the years in the dataset.

2025 recorded 1,884 applications, 273 GO decisions, and 1,611 NO-GO decisions.

2025 ranks 5th by full proposal success rate among the years in the dataset.

Its success rate is 14.5%, compared with the overall full proposal rate of 22.8%.

2026 accounts for 3.2% of all full proposal applications in the dataset.

The year recorded 391 applications out of 12,255 total applications.

2026 accounts for 1.4% of all GO decisions.

The year recorded 40 GO decisions out of 2,797 total GO decisions.

2026 ranks 6th by application volume among the years in the dataset.

2026 recorded 391 applications, 40 GO decisions, and 351 NO-GO decisions.

2026 ranks 6th by full proposal success rate among the years in the dataset.

Its success rate is 10.2%, compared with the overall full proposal rate of 22.8%.

Male applicants recorded 10,141 applications, 2,312 GO decisions, and 7,829 NO-GO decisions.

Their full proposal success rate is 22.8%.

Male represents 82.8% of applications in the gender table.

The count is 10,141 applications out of 12,253 gender-table applications.

The NO-GO rate for Male applicants was 77.2%.

That is based on 7,829 NO-GO decisions out of 10,141 applications.

Female applicants recorded 2,016 applications, 469 GO decisions, and 1,547 NO-GO decisions.

Their full proposal success rate is 23.3%.

Female represents 16.5% of applications in the gender table.

The count is 2,016 applications out of 12,253 gender-table applications.

The NO-GO rate for Female applicants was 76.7%.

That is based on 1,547 NO-GO decisions out of 2,016 applications.

Non Binary applicants recorded 21 applications, 2 GO decisions, and 19 NO-GO decisions.

Their full proposal success rate is 9.5%.

Non Binary represents 0.2% of applications in the gender table.

The count is 21 applications out of 12,253 gender-table applications.

The NO-GO rate for Non Binary applicants was 90.5%.

That is based on 19 NO-GO decisions out of 21 applications.

NA applicants recorded 75 applications, 14 GO decisions, and 61 NO-GO decisions.

Their full proposal success rate is 18.7%.

NA represents 0.6% of applications in the gender table.

The count is 75 applications out of 12,253 gender-table applications.

The NO-GO rate for NA applicants was 81.3%.

That is based on 61 NO-GO decisions out of 75 applications.

Male applicants have a 22.8% success rate.

It matches the overall full proposal success rate of 22.8%.

Male applicants account for 82.7% of GO decisions.

That is based on 2,312 GO decisions out of 2,797 total GO decisions.

Male applicants recorded 4.4 applications per GO.

The row contains 10,141 applications and 2,312 GO decisions.

Female applicants have a 23.3% success rate.

That is 0.5 percentage points above the overall full proposal success rate of 22.8%.

Female applicants account for 16.8% of GO decisions.

That is based on 469 GO decisions out of 2,797 total GO decisions.

Female applicants recorded 4.3 applications per GO.

The row contains 2,016 applications and 469 GO decisions.

Non Binary applicants have a 9.5% success rate.

That is 13.3 percentage points below the overall full proposal success rate of 22.8%.

Non Binary applicants account for 0.1% of GO decisions.

That is based on 2 GO decisions out of 2,797 total GO decisions.

Non Binary applicants recorded 10.5 applications per GO.

The row contains 21 applications and 2 GO decisions.

NA applicants have a 18.7% success rate.

That is 4.1 percentage points below the overall full proposal success rate of 22.8%.

NA applicants account for 0.5% of GO decisions.

That is based on 14 GO decisions out of 2,797 total GO decisions.

NA applicants recorded 5.4 applications per GO.

The row contains 75 applications and 14 GO decisions.

Education & Culture ranks 1st by female applicant share among the sectors listed in the gender-sector table.

Female applicants represent 31.9% of applications in this sector.

Male applicants are ahead by 4.7 percentage points: 13.8% versus 9.1% for female applicants.

The sector row reports 9.1% for female applicants and 13.8% for male applicants.

Education & Culture has a 31.9% female applicant share.

That is 15.3 percentage points above the benchmark share of 16.6%.

Biotechnology ranks 2nd by female applicant share among the sectors listed in the gender-sector table.

Female applicants represent 26.9% of applications in this sector.

Male applicants are ahead by 1.7 percentage points: 25.5% versus 23.8% for female applicants.

The sector row reports 23.8% for female applicants and 25.5% for male applicants.

Biotechnology has a 26.9% female applicant share.

That is 10.3 percentage points above the benchmark share of 16.6%.

Public Sector Innov. ranks 3rd by female applicant share among the sectors listed in the gender-sector table.

Female applicants represent 24.5% of applications in this sector.

Female applicants are ahead by 5.9 percentage points: 16.7% versus 10.8% for male applicants.

The sector row reports 16.7% for female applicants and 10.8% for male applicants.

Public Sector Innov. has a 24.5% female applicant share.

That is 7.9 percentage points above the benchmark share of 16.6%.

Consumer Products ranks 4th by female applicant share among the sectors listed in the gender-sector table.

Female applicants represent 22.2% of applications in this sector.

Male applicants are ahead by 2.2 percentage points: 14.5% versus 12.3% for female applicants.

The sector row reports 12.3% for female applicants and 14.5% for male applicants.

Consumer Products has a 22.2% female applicant share.

That is 5.6 percentage points above the benchmark share of 16.6%.

Food & Beverages ranks 5th by female applicant share among the sectors listed in the gender-sector table.

Female applicants represent 20.9% of applications in this sector.

Female applicants are ahead by 6.3 percentage points: 25.5% versus 19.2% for male applicants.

The sector row reports 25.5% for female applicants and 19.2% for male applicants.

Food & Beverages has a 20.9% female applicant share.

That is 4.3 percentage points above the benchmark share of 16.6%.

Env. Sciences ranks 6th by female applicant share among the sectors listed in the gender-sector table.

Female applicants represent 20.8% of applications in this sector.

Female applicants are ahead by 3.6 percentage points: 27.5% versus 23.9% for male applicants.

The sector row reports 27.5% for female applicants and 23.9% for male applicants.

Env. Sciences has a 20.8% female applicant share.

That is 4.2 percentage points above the benchmark share of 16.6%.

Health ranks 7th by female applicant share among the sectors listed in the gender-sector table.

Female applicants represent 20.4% of applications in this sector.

Female applicants are ahead by 4.4 percentage points: 29.3% versus 24.9% for male applicants.

The sector row reports 29.3% for female applicants and 24.9% for male applicants.

Health has a 20.4% female applicant share.

That is 3.8 percentage points above the benchmark share of 16.6%.

Agriculture ranks 8th by female applicant share among the sectors listed in the gender-sector table.

Female applicants represent 17.1% of applications in this sector.

Female applicants are ahead by 3.1 percentage points: 28.6% versus 25.5% for male applicants.

The sector row reports 28.6% for female applicants and 25.5% for male applicants.

Agriculture has a 17.1% female applicant share.

That is 0.5 percentage points above the benchmark share of 16.6%.

ICT ranks 9th by female applicant share among the sectors listed in the gender-sector table.

Female applicants represent 13.0% of applications in this sector.

Male applicants are ahead by 2.6 percentage points: 17.9% versus 15.3% for female applicants.

The sector row reports 15.3% for female applicants and 17.9% for male applicants.

ICT has a 13.0% female applicant share.

That is 3.6 percentage points below the benchmark share of 16.6%.

Engineering & Tech ranks 10th by female applicant share among the sectors listed in the gender-sector table.

Female applicants represent 11.4% of applications in this sector.

Male applicants are ahead by 8.5 percentage points: 27.0% versus 18.5% for female applicants.

The sector row reports 18.5% for female applicants and 27.0% for male applicants.

Engineering & Tech has a 11.4% female applicant share.

That is 5.2 percentage points below the benchmark share of 16.6%.

Space ranks 11th by female applicant share among the sectors listed in the gender-sector table.

Female applicants represent 10.7% of applications in this sector.

Male applicants are ahead by 14.7 percentage points: 27.7% versus 13.0% for female applicants.

The sector row reports 13.0% for female applicants and 27.7% for male applicants.

Space has a 10.7% female applicant share.

That is 5.9 percentage points below the benchmark share of 16.6%.

Energy ranks 12th by female applicant share among the sectors listed in the gender-sector table.

Female applicants represent 10.5% of applications in this sector.

Male applicants are ahead by 6.1 percentage points: 24.0% versus 17.9% for female applicants.

The sector row reports 17.9% for female applicants and 24.0% for male applicants.

Energy has a 10.5% female applicant share.

That is 6.1 percentage points below the benchmark share of 16.6%.

Construction ranks 13th by female applicant share among the sectors listed in the gender-sector table.

Female applicants represent 9.7% of applications in this sector.

Female applicants are ahead by 1.4 percentage points: 20.0% versus 18.6% for male applicants.

The sector row reports 20.0% for female applicants and 18.6% for male applicants.

Construction has a 9.7% female applicant share.

That is 6.9 percentage points below the benchmark share of 16.6%.

Security ranks 14th by female applicant share among the sectors listed in the gender-sector table.

Female applicants represent 9.6% of applications in this sector.

Male applicants are ahead by 9.7 percentage points: 15.9% versus 6.2% for female applicants.

The sector row reports 6.2% for female applicants and 15.9% for male applicants.

Security has a 9.6% female applicant share.

That is 7.0 percentage points below the benchmark share of 16.6%.

Transport & Mobility ranks 15th by female applicant share among the sectors listed in the gender-sector table.

Female applicants represent 8.3% of applications in this sector.

Male applicants are ahead by 6.7 percentage points: 15.6% versus 8.9% for female applicants.

The sector row reports 8.9% for female applicants and 15.6% for male applicants.

Transport & Mobility has a 8.3% female applicant share.

That is 8.3 percentage points below the benchmark share of 16.6%.

Israel leads Health with 141 GO decisions.

That represents 14.2% of all Health GO decisions, while the sector success rate is 25.6%.

The leading country accounts for 14.2% of Health GO decisions.

Israel's 141 GO decisions make it the visible country-sector hotspot for this sector in the article.

Germany leads Engineering & Tech with 57 GO decisions.

That represents 13.9% of all Engineering & Tech GO decisions, while the sector success rate is 26.1%.

The leading country accounts for 13.9% of Engineering & Tech GO decisions.

Germany's 57 GO decisions make it the visible country-sector hotspot for this sector in the article.

Germany leads ICT with 57 GO decisions.

That represents 17.3% of all ICT GO decisions, while the sector success rate is 17.6%.

The leading country accounts for 17.3% of ICT GO decisions.

Germany's 57 GO decisions make it the visible country-sector hotspot for this sector in the article.

Germany leads Energy with 41 GO decisions.

That represents 16.4% of all Energy GO decisions, while the sector success rate is 23.4%.

The leading country accounts for 16.4% of Energy GO decisions.

Germany's 41 GO decisions make it the visible country-sector hotspot for this sector in the article.

France leads Biotechnology with 30 GO decisions.

That represents 15.9% of all Biotechnology GO decisions, while the sector success rate is 25.0%.

The leading country accounts for 15.9% of Biotechnology GO decisions.

France's 30 GO decisions make it the visible country-sector hotspot for this sector in the article.

Germany leads Transport & Mobility with 24 GO decisions.

That represents 29.6% of all Transport & Mobility GO decisions, while the sector success rate is 14.8%.

The leading country accounts for 29.6% of Transport & Mobility GO decisions.

Germany's 24 GO decisions make it the visible country-sector hotspot for this sector in the article.

Germany leads Env. Sciences with 22 GO decisions.

That represents 13.9% of all Env. Sciences GO decisions, while the sector success rate is 24.7%.

The leading country accounts for 13.9% of Env. Sciences GO decisions.

Germany's 22 GO decisions make it the visible country-sector hotspot for this sector in the article.

Germany leads Agriculture with 15 GO decisions.

That represents 11.7% of all Agriculture GO decisions, while the sector success rate is 25.8%.

The leading country accounts for 11.7% of Agriculture GO decisions.

Germany's 15 GO decisions make it the visible country-sector hotspot for this sector in the article.

France leads Space with 12 GO decisions.

That represents 21.1% of all Space GO decisions, while the sector success rate is 26.4%.

The leading country accounts for 21.1% of Space GO decisions.

France's 12 GO decisions make it the visible country-sector hotspot for this sector in the article.

Germany leads Construction with 9 GO decisions.

That represents 15.5% of all Construction GO decisions, while the sector success rate is 18.6%.

The leading country accounts for 15.5% of Construction GO decisions.

Germany's 9 GO decisions make it the visible country-sector hotspot for this sector in the article.

Sweden leads Food & Beverages with 7 GO decisions.

That represents 13.0% of all Food & Beverages GO decisions, while the sector success rate is 20.4%.

The leading country accounts for 13.0% of Food & Beverages GO decisions.

Sweden's 7 GO decisions make it the visible country-sector hotspot for this sector in the article.

France leads Consumer Products with 6 GO decisions.

That represents 16.7% of all Consumer Products GO decisions, while the sector success rate is 14.0%.

The leading country accounts for 16.7% of Consumer Products GO decisions.

France's 6 GO decisions make it the visible country-sector hotspot for this sector in the article.

Germany leads Security with 6 GO decisions.

That represents 24.0% of all Security GO decisions, while the sector success rate is 14.8%.

The leading country accounts for 24.0% of Security GO decisions.

Germany's 6 GO decisions make it the visible country-sector hotspot for this sector in the article.

Germany leads Education & Culture with 5 GO decisions.

That represents 29.4% of all Education & Culture GO decisions, while the sector success rate is 12.3%.

The leading country accounts for 29.4% of Education & Culture GO decisions.

Germany's 5 GO decisions make it the visible country-sector hotspot for this sector in the article.

Austria leads Public Sector Innov. with 4 GO decisions.

That represents 50.0% of all Public Sector Innov. GO decisions, while the sector success rate is 15.4%.

The leading country accounts for 50.0% of Public Sector Innov. GO decisions.

Austria's 4 GO decisions make it the visible country-sector hotspot for this sector in the article.

Health ranks 11th by leading-country concentration among the sector hotspot rows.

Israel contributes 14.2% of the sector's GO decisions.

The row identifies Israel as the leading country by Health GO decisions.

It is useful for ecosystem benchmarking because it combines the leading country's 141 GO decisions with the sector's 25.6% success rate.

Engineering & Tech ranks 12th by leading-country concentration among the sector hotspot rows.

Germany contributes 13.9% of the sector's GO decisions.

The row identifies Germany as the leading country by Engineering & Tech GO decisions.

It is useful for ecosystem benchmarking because it combines the leading country's 57 GO decisions with the sector's 26.1% success rate.

ICT ranks 6th by leading-country concentration among the sector hotspot rows.

Germany contributes 17.3% of the sector's GO decisions.

The row identifies Germany as the leading country by ICT GO decisions.

It is useful for ecosystem benchmarking because it combines the leading country's 57 GO decisions with the sector's 17.6% success rate.

Energy ranks 8th by leading-country concentration among the sector hotspot rows.

Germany contributes 16.4% of the sector's GO decisions.

The row identifies Germany as the leading country by Energy GO decisions.

It is useful for ecosystem benchmarking because it combines the leading country's 41 GO decisions with the sector's 23.4% success rate.

Biotechnology ranks 9th by leading-country concentration among the sector hotspot rows.

France contributes 15.9% of the sector's GO decisions.

The row identifies France as the leading country by Biotechnology GO decisions.

It is useful for ecosystem benchmarking because it combines the leading country's 30 GO decisions with the sector's 25.0% success rate.

Transport & Mobility ranks 2nd by leading-country concentration among the sector hotspot rows.

Germany contributes 29.6% of the sector's GO decisions.

The row identifies Germany as the leading country by Transport & Mobility GO decisions.

It is useful for ecosystem benchmarking because it combines the leading country's 24 GO decisions with the sector's 14.8% success rate.

Env. Sciences ranks 13th by leading-country concentration among the sector hotspot rows.

Germany contributes 13.9% of the sector's GO decisions.

The row identifies Germany as the leading country by Env. Sciences GO decisions.

It is useful for ecosystem benchmarking because it combines the leading country's 22 GO decisions with the sector's 24.7% success rate.

Agriculture ranks 15th by leading-country concentration among the sector hotspot rows.

Germany contributes 11.7% of the sector's GO decisions.

The row identifies Germany as the leading country by Agriculture GO decisions.

It is useful for ecosystem benchmarking because it combines the leading country's 15 GO decisions with the sector's 25.8% success rate.

Space ranks 5th by leading-country concentration among the sector hotspot rows.

France contributes 21.1% of the sector's GO decisions.

The row identifies France as the leading country by Space GO decisions.

It is useful for ecosystem benchmarking because it combines the leading country's 12 GO decisions with the sector's 26.4% success rate.

Construction ranks 10th by leading-country concentration among the sector hotspot rows.

Germany contributes 15.5% of the sector's GO decisions.

The row identifies Germany as the leading country by Construction GO decisions.

It is useful for ecosystem benchmarking because it combines the leading country's 9 GO decisions with the sector's 18.6% success rate.

Food & Beverages ranks 14th by leading-country concentration among the sector hotspot rows.

Sweden contributes 13.0% of the sector's GO decisions.

The row identifies Sweden as the leading country by Food & Beverages GO decisions.

It is useful for ecosystem benchmarking because it combines the leading country's 7 GO decisions with the sector's 20.4% success rate.

Consumer Products ranks 7th by leading-country concentration among the sector hotspot rows.

France contributes 16.7% of the sector's GO decisions.

The row identifies France as the leading country by Consumer Products GO decisions.

It is useful for ecosystem benchmarking because it combines the leading country's 6 GO decisions with the sector's 14.0% success rate.

Security ranks 4th by leading-country concentration among the sector hotspot rows.

Germany contributes 24.0% of the sector's GO decisions.

The row identifies Germany as the leading country by Security GO decisions.

It is useful for ecosystem benchmarking because it combines the leading country's 6 GO decisions with the sector's 14.8% success rate.

Education & Culture ranks 3rd by leading-country concentration among the sector hotspot rows.

Germany contributes 29.4% of the sector's GO decisions.

The row identifies Germany as the leading country by Education & Culture GO decisions.

It is useful for ecosystem benchmarking because it combines the leading country's 5 GO decisions with the sector's 12.3% success rate.

Public Sector Innov. ranks 1st by leading-country concentration among the sector hotspot rows.

Austria contributes 50.0% of the sector's GO decisions.

The row identifies Austria as the leading country by Public Sector Innov. GO decisions.

It is useful for ecosystem benchmarking because it combines the leading country's 4 GO decisions with the sector's 15.4% success rate.

Netherlands's top sector by GO decisions is Health.

The table records 79 GO decisions in that sector, representing 32.4% of the country's GO decisions; the country's overall success rate is 30.0%.

Sweden's top sector by GO decisions is Health.

The table records 81 GO decisions in that sector, representing 38.0% of the country's GO decisions; the country's overall success rate is 28.9%.

France's top sector by GO decisions is Health.

The table records 129 GO decisions in that sector, representing 38.2% of the country's GO decisions; the country's overall success rate is 28.8%.

Denmark's top sector by GO decisions is Health.

The table records 50 GO decisions in that sector, representing 40.0% of the country's GO decisions; the country's overall success rate is 28.7%.

Belgium's top sector by GO decisions is Health.

The table records 20 GO decisions in that sector, representing 26.7% of the country's GO decisions; the country's overall success rate is 27.8%.

Norway's top sector by GO decisions is Health.

The table records 25 GO decisions in that sector, representing 24.5% of the country's GO decisions; the country's overall success rate is 26.6%.

Ireland's top sector by GO decisions is Health.

The table records 54 GO decisions in that sector, representing 59.3% of the country's GO decisions; the country's overall success rate is 26.0%.

Austria's top sector by GO decisions is Health.

The table records 19 GO decisions in that sector, representing 24.7% of the country's GO decisions; the country's overall success rate is 25.2%.

Finland's top sector by GO decisions is Health.

The table records 34 GO decisions in that sector, representing 27.6% of the country's GO decisions; the country's overall success rate is 25.0%.

Germany's top sector by GO decisions is Health.

The table records 71 GO decisions in that sector, representing 20.5% of the country's GO decisions; the country's overall success rate is 25.0%.

Spain's top sector by GO decisions is Health.

The table records 115 GO decisions in that sector, representing 47.1% of the country's GO decisions; the country's overall success rate is 23.8%.

Switzerland's top sector by GO decisions is Health.

The table records 14 GO decisions in that sector, representing 32.6% of the country's GO decisions; the country's overall success rate is 23.5%.

Estonia's top sector by GO decisions is ICT.

The table records 10 GO decisions in that sector, representing 34.5% of the country's GO decisions; the country's overall success rate is 23.4%.

Iceland's top sector by GO decisions is Biotechnology.

The table records 4 GO decisions in that sector, representing 33.3% of the country's GO decisions; the country's overall success rate is 22.2%.

United Kingdom's top sector by GO decisions is Health.

The table records 56 GO decisions in that sector, representing 33.3% of the country's GO decisions; the country's overall success rate is 20.0%.

Czech Republic's top sector by GO decisions is Engineering & Tech.

The table records 4 GO decisions in that sector, representing 33.3% of the country's GO decisions; the country's overall success rate is 19.4%.

Israel's top sector by GO decisions is Health.

The table records 141 GO decisions in that sector, representing 57.3% of the country's GO decisions; the country's overall success rate is 19.2%.

Luxembourg's top sector by GO decisions is Energy.

The table records 3 GO decisions in that sector, representing 23.1% of the country's GO decisions; the country's overall success rate is 18.8%.

Portugal's top sector by GO decisions is Health.

The table records 14 GO decisions in that sector, representing 38.9% of the country's GO decisions; the country's overall success rate is 18.7%.

Lithuania's top sector by GO decisions is Health.

The table records 6 GO decisions in that sector, representing 50.0% of the country's GO decisions; the country's overall success rate is 16.4%.

Italy's top sector by GO decisions is Health.

The table records 50 GO decisions in that sector, representing 36.8% of the country's GO decisions; the country's overall success rate is 16.1%.

Bulgaria's top sector by GO decisions is Food & Beverages.

The table records 3 GO decisions in that sector, representing 20.0% of the country's GO decisions; the country's overall success rate is 15.6%.

Slovakia's top sector by GO decisions is Health.

The table records 3 GO decisions in that sector, representing 50.0% of the country's GO decisions; the country's overall success rate is 13.6%.

Croatia's top sector by GO decisions is Health.

The table records 2 GO decisions in that sector, representing 66.7% of the country's GO decisions; the country's overall success rate is 12.0%.

Hungary's top sector by GO decisions is Engineering & Tech.

The table records 5 GO decisions in that sector, representing 41.7% of the country's GO decisions; the country's overall success rate is 10.5%.

Poland's top sector by GO decisions is Health.

The table records 9 GO decisions in that sector, representing 25.7% of the country's GO decisions; the country's overall success rate is 10.3%.

Latvia's top sector by GO decisions is Engineering & Tech.

The table records 3 GO decisions in that sector, representing 60.0% of the country's GO decisions; the country's overall success rate is 9.8%.

Slovenia's top sector by GO decisions is Env. Sciences.

The table records 3 GO decisions in that sector, representing 50.0% of the country's GO decisions; the country's overall success rate is 9.7%.

Greece's top sector by GO decisions is ICT.

The table records 3 GO decisions in that sector, representing 37.5% of the country's GO decisions; the country's overall success rate is 8.8%.

Romania's top sector by GO decisions is Health.

The table records 2 GO decisions in that sector, representing 40.0% of the country's GO decisions; the country's overall success rate is 7.4%.

Türkiye's top sector by GO decisions is Agriculture.

The table records 3 GO decisions in that sector, representing 33.3% of the country's GO decisions; the country's overall success rate is 7.1%.

Ukraine's top sector by GO decisions is ICT.

The table records 2 GO decisions in that sector, representing 100.0% of the country's GO decisions; the country's overall success rate is 6.7%.

Cyprus's top sector by GO decisions is Env. Sciences.

The table records 1 GO decisions in that sector, representing 100.0% of the country's GO decisions; the country's overall success rate is 2.6%.

Netherlands's top sector accounts for 32.4% of the country's GO decisions.

That concentration ranks 25th among the country specialisation rows in the article.

Netherlands follows the main Health-led pattern in the country specialisation table.

The row records 79 GO decisions in Health and an overall country success rate of 30.0%.

Sweden's top sector accounts for 38.0% of the country's GO decisions.

That concentration ranks 16th among the country specialisation rows in the article.

Sweden follows the main Health-led pattern in the country specialisation table.

The row records 81 GO decisions in Health and an overall country success rate of 28.9%.

France's top sector accounts for 38.2% of the country's GO decisions.

That concentration ranks 15th among the country specialisation rows in the article.

France follows the main Health-led pattern in the country specialisation table.

The row records 129 GO decisions in Health and an overall country success rate of 28.8%.

Denmark's top sector accounts for 40.0% of the country's GO decisions.

That concentration ranks 12th among the country specialisation rows in the article.

Denmark follows the main Health-led pattern in the country specialisation table.

The row records 50 GO decisions in Health and an overall country success rate of 28.7%.

Belgium's top sector accounts for 26.7% of the country's GO decisions.

That concentration ranks 27th among the country specialisation rows in the article.

Belgium follows the main Health-led pattern in the country specialisation table.

The row records 20 GO decisions in Health and an overall country success rate of 27.8%.

Norway's top sector accounts for 24.5% of the country's GO decisions.

That concentration ranks 30th among the country specialisation rows in the article.

Norway follows the main Health-led pattern in the country specialisation table.

The row records 25 GO decisions in Health and an overall country success rate of 26.6%.

Ireland's top sector accounts for 59.3% of the country's GO decisions.

That concentration ranks 5th among the country specialisation rows in the article.

Ireland follows the main Health-led pattern in the country specialisation table.

The row records 54 GO decisions in Health and an overall country success rate of 26.0%.

Austria's top sector accounts for 24.7% of the country's GO decisions.

That concentration ranks 29th among the country specialisation rows in the article.

Austria follows the main Health-led pattern in the country specialisation table.

The row records 19 GO decisions in Health and an overall country success rate of 25.2%.

Finland's top sector accounts for 27.6% of the country's GO decisions.

That concentration ranks 26th among the country specialisation rows in the article.

Finland follows the main Health-led pattern in the country specialisation table.

The row records 34 GO decisions in Health and an overall country success rate of 25.0%.

Germany's top sector accounts for 20.5% of the country's GO decisions.

That concentration ranks 32nd among the country specialisation rows in the article.

Germany follows the main Health-led pattern in the country specialisation table.

The row records 71 GO decisions in Health and an overall country success rate of 25.0%.

Spain's top sector accounts for 47.1% of the country's GO decisions.

That concentration ranks 10th among the country specialisation rows in the article.

Spain follows the main Health-led pattern in the country specialisation table.

The row records 115 GO decisions in Health and an overall country success rate of 23.8%.

Switzerland's top sector accounts for 32.6% of the country's GO decisions.

That concentration ranks 24th among the country specialisation rows in the article.

Switzerland follows the main Health-led pattern in the country specialisation table.

The row records 14 GO decisions in Health and an overall country success rate of 23.5%.

Estonia's top sector accounts for 34.5% of the country's GO decisions.

That concentration ranks 19th among the country specialisation rows in the article.

Estonia does not follow the main Health-led pattern; its top sector is ICT.

The row records 10 GO decisions in ICT and an overall country success rate of 23.4%.

Iceland's top sector accounts for 33.3% of the country's GO decisions.

That concentration ranks 21st among the country specialisation rows in the article.

Iceland does not follow the main Health-led pattern; its top sector is Biotechnology.

The row records 4 GO decisions in Biotechnology and an overall country success rate of 22.2%.

United Kingdom's top sector accounts for 33.3% of the country's GO decisions.

That concentration ranks 23rd among the country specialisation rows in the article.

United Kingdom follows the main Health-led pattern in the country specialisation table.

The row records 56 GO decisions in Health and an overall country success rate of 20.0%.

Czech Republic's top sector accounts for 33.3% of the country's GO decisions.

That concentration ranks 20th among the country specialisation rows in the article.

Czech Republic does not follow the main Health-led pattern; its top sector is Engineering & Tech.

The row records 4 GO decisions in Engineering & Tech and an overall country success rate of 19.4%.

Israel's top sector accounts for 57.3% of the country's GO decisions.

That concentration ranks 6th among the country specialisation rows in the article.

Israel follows the main Health-led pattern in the country specialisation table.

The row records 141 GO decisions in Health and an overall country success rate of 19.2%.

Luxembourg's top sector accounts for 23.1% of the country's GO decisions.

That concentration ranks 31st among the country specialisation rows in the article.

Luxembourg does not follow the main Health-led pattern; its top sector is Energy.

The row records 3 GO decisions in Energy and an overall country success rate of 18.8%.

Portugal's top sector accounts for 38.9% of the country's GO decisions.

That concentration ranks 14th among the country specialisation rows in the article.

Portugal follows the main Health-led pattern in the country specialisation table.

The row records 14 GO decisions in Health and an overall country success rate of 18.7%.

Lithuania's top sector accounts for 50.0% of the country's GO decisions.

That concentration ranks 7th among the country specialisation rows in the article.

Lithuania follows the main Health-led pattern in the country specialisation table.

The row records 6 GO decisions in Health and an overall country success rate of 16.4%.

Italy's top sector accounts for 36.8% of the country's GO decisions.

That concentration ranks 18th among the country specialisation rows in the article.

Italy follows the main Health-led pattern in the country specialisation table.

The row records 50 GO decisions in Health and an overall country success rate of 16.1%.

Bulgaria's top sector accounts for 20.0% of the country's GO decisions.

That concentration ranks 33rd among the country specialisation rows in the article.

Bulgaria does not follow the main Health-led pattern; its top sector is Food & Beverages.

The row records 3 GO decisions in Food & Beverages and an overall country success rate of 15.6%.

Slovakia's top sector accounts for 50.0% of the country's GO decisions.

That concentration ranks 8th among the country specialisation rows in the article.

Slovakia follows the main Health-led pattern in the country specialisation table.

The row records 3 GO decisions in Health and an overall country success rate of 13.6%.

Croatia's top sector accounts for 66.7% of the country's GO decisions.

That concentration ranks 3rd among the country specialisation rows in the article.

Croatia follows the main Health-led pattern in the country specialisation table.

The row records 2 GO decisions in Health and an overall country success rate of 12.0%.

Hungary's top sector accounts for 41.7% of the country's GO decisions.

That concentration ranks 11th among the country specialisation rows in the article.

Hungary does not follow the main Health-led pattern; its top sector is Engineering & Tech.

The row records 5 GO decisions in Engineering & Tech and an overall country success rate of 10.5%.

Poland's top sector accounts for 25.7% of the country's GO decisions.

That concentration ranks 28th among the country specialisation rows in the article.

Poland follows the main Health-led pattern in the country specialisation table.

The row records 9 GO decisions in Health and an overall country success rate of 10.3%.

Latvia's top sector accounts for 60.0% of the country's GO decisions.

That concentration ranks 4th among the country specialisation rows in the article.

Latvia does not follow the main Health-led pattern; its top sector is Engineering & Tech.

The row records 3 GO decisions in Engineering & Tech and an overall country success rate of 9.8%.

Slovenia's top sector accounts for 50.0% of the country's GO decisions.

That concentration ranks 9th among the country specialisation rows in the article.

Slovenia does not follow the main Health-led pattern; its top sector is Env. Sciences.

The row records 3 GO decisions in Env. Sciences and an overall country success rate of 9.7%.

Greece's top sector accounts for 37.5% of the country's GO decisions.

That concentration ranks 17th among the country specialisation rows in the article.

Greece does not follow the main Health-led pattern; its top sector is ICT.

The row records 3 GO decisions in ICT and an overall country success rate of 8.8%.

Romania's top sector accounts for 40.0% of the country's GO decisions.

That concentration ranks 13th among the country specialisation rows in the article.

Romania follows the main Health-led pattern in the country specialisation table.

The row records 2 GO decisions in Health and an overall country success rate of 7.4%.

Türkiye's top sector accounts for 33.3% of the country's GO decisions.

That concentration ranks 22nd among the country specialisation rows in the article.

Türkiye does not follow the main Health-led pattern; its top sector is Agriculture.

The row records 3 GO decisions in Agriculture and an overall country success rate of 7.1%.

Ukraine's top sector accounts for 100.0% of the country's GO decisions.

That concentration ranks 2nd among the country specialisation rows in the article.

Ukraine does not follow the main Health-led pattern; its top sector is ICT.

The row records 2 GO decisions in ICT and an overall country success rate of 6.7%.

Cyprus's top sector accounts for 100.0% of the country's GO decisions.

That concentration ranks 1st among the country specialisation rows in the article.

Cyprus does not follow the main Health-led pattern; its top sector is Env. Sciences.

The row records 1 GO decisions in Env. Sciences and an overall country success rate of 2.6%.

It covers 772 EIC Accelerator selected companies from cohort years 2021 to 2025.

The article tracks EC grants and EIC Fund equity across requested, IC-approved, committed, and paid-out stages.

The article identifies EISMEA as the source of the dataset.

The dataset covers selected companies from the 2021 to 2025 EIC Accelerator cohorts.

The dataset includes 772 unique selected companies.

These companies come from the 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024, and 2025 EIC Accelerator selected-company cohorts.

The total EC grant amount disbursed is €1,776.24M.

The article reports an average grant of €2.37M per company and a median grant of €2.50M.

The dataset records €1,084.68M in equity investment paid out.

That paid amount is far below the €3,620.69M originally requested by equity companies.

The combined capital total is €2,860.92M.

That figure combines €1,776.24M in EC grants with €1,084.68M in equity paid out.

537 companies had an equity component, equal to 69.6% of the dataset.

235 companies were grant-first or grant-only, equal to 30.4% of the dataset.

The ask-based blended finance leverage ratio is 2.76x.

This means every €1 of EC grant was associated with €2.76 of requested EIC equity, not necessarily paid equity.

The actual public money multiplier is 0.61x.

For every €1 of public grant, only €0.61 in EIC equity had been paid to companies at the time covered by the article.

The article compares the non-dilutive EC grant with the direct equity investment delivered through the EIC Fund.

Its core point is that selected companies often receive grant funding quickly while equity delivery depends on a longer post-approval investment process.

Germany leads the country distribution with 121 selected companies, equal to 15.7% of the dataset.

France follows with 115 selected companies, the Netherlands has 84, and Spain has 68.

Yes. They summarise the figures and tables in this EIC Accelerator and EIC Fund investment statistics article.

They should be read as article-specific explanations rather than general EIC programme guidance.

AgriFood Company 1 (AgriFood Project 1) appears in the sub-€2M grant table as a 2022 Agriculture, Food & Animal Health company.

Its EC grant is €0.87M, placing it at rank 1 among the 20 smallest listed awards.

Consumer Assistive Company 1 (Consumer Assistive Project 1) appears in the sub-€2M grant table as a 2022 Consumer, Media, Education & Assistive Tech company.

Its EC grant is €0.90M, placing it at rank 2 among the 20 smallest listed awards.

Clean Energy Company 3 (Clean Energy Project 3) appears in the sub-€2M grant table as a 2022 Clean Energy, Storage & Electrification company.

Its EC grant is €1.01M, placing it at rank 3 among the 20 smallest listed awards.

Biotech Company 5 (Biotech Project 5) appears in the sub-€2M grant table as a 2022 Biotechnology, Biomanufacturing & Life Science Tools company.

Its EC grant is €1.15M, placing it at rank 4 among the 20 smallest listed awards.

AgriFood Company 8 (AgriFood Project 8) appears in the sub-€2M grant table as a 2021 Agriculture, Food & Animal Health company.

Its EC grant is €1.16M, placing it at rank 5 among the 20 smallest listed awards.

Climate Circular Company 3 (Climate Circular Project 3) appears in the sub-€2M grant table as a 2021 Climate, Carbon, Water & Circular Economy company.

Its EC grant is €1.21M, placing it at rank 6 among the 20 smallest listed awards.

Robotics Mobility Company 2 (Robotics Mobility Project 1) appears in the sub-€2M grant table as a 2022 Robotics, Mobility & Logistics company.

Its EC grant is €1.25M, placing it at rank 7 among the 20 smallest listed awards.

AgriFood Company 2 (AgriFood Project 2) appears in the sub-€2M grant table as a 2023 Agriculture, Food & Animal Health company.

Its EC grant is €1.26M, placing it at rank 8 among the 20 smallest listed awards.

MedTech Company 1 (MedTech Project 1) appears in the sub-€2M grant table as a 2021 Medical Devices, Diagnostics & Digital Health company.

Its EC grant is €1.28M, placing it at rank 9 among the 20 smallest listed awards.

Aerospace Company 2 (Aerospace Project 2) appears in the sub-€2M grant table as a 2023 Space, Aerospace & Aviation company.

Its EC grant is €1.28M, placing it at rank 10 among the 20 smallest listed awards.

Industrial Materials Company 2 (Industrial Materials Project 2) appears in the sub-€2M grant table as a 2021 Advanced Materials, Chemicals & Industrial Manufacturing company.

Its EC grant is €1.29M, placing it at rank 11 among the 20 smallest listed awards.

AgriFood Company 3 (AgriFood Project 3) appears in the sub-€2M grant table as a 2023 Agriculture, Food & Animal Health company.

Its EC grant is €1.32M, placing it at rank 12 among the 20 smallest listed awards.

AgriFood Company 4 (AgriFood Project 4) appears in the sub-€2M grant table as a 2022 Agriculture, Food & Animal Health company.

Its EC grant is €1.37M, placing it at rank 13 among the 20 smallest listed awards.

MedTech Company 2 (MedTech Project 2) appears in the sub-€2M grant table as a 2022 Medical Devices, Diagnostics & Digital Health company.

Its EC grant is €1.39M, placing it at rank 14 among the 20 smallest listed awards.

Aerospace Company 5 (Aerospace Project 5) appears in the sub-€2M grant table as a 2021 Space, Aerospace & Aviation company.

Its EC grant is €1.40M, placing it at rank 15 among the 20 smallest listed awards.

MedTech Company 3 (MedTech Project 3) appears in the sub-€2M grant table as a 2022 Medical Devices, Diagnostics & Digital Health company.

Its EC grant is €1.41M, placing it at rank 16 among the 20 smallest listed awards.

Built Environment Company 3 (Built Environment Project 3) appears in the sub-€2M grant table as a 2022 Built Environment, Infrastructure & Construction company.

Its EC grant is €1.47M, placing it at rank 17 among the 20 smallest listed awards.

MedTech Company 22 (MedTech Project 21) appears in the sub-€2M grant table as a 2023 Medical Devices, Diagnostics & Digital Health company.

Its EC grant is €1.48M, placing it at rank 18 among the 20 smallest listed awards.

Biotech Company 6 (Biotech Project 6) appears in the sub-€2M grant table as a 2023 Biotechnology, Biomanufacturing & Life Science Tools company.

Its EC grant is €1.50M, placing it at rank 19 among the 20 smallest listed awards.

Aerospace Company 6 (Aerospace Project 6) appears in the sub-€2M grant table as a 2021 Space, Aerospace & Aviation company.

Its EC grant is €1.51M, placing it at rank 20 among the 20 smallest listed awards.

63 equity companies fall in the €15M maximum bucket.

That represents 11.7% of the 537 companies with an equity component.

81 equity companies fall in the €10M to €15M bucket.

That represents 15.1% of the 537 companies with an equity component.

183 equity companies fall in the €5M to €10M bucket.

That represents 34.1% of the 537 companies with an equity component.

182 equity companies fall in the €2M to €5M bucket.

That represents 33.9% of the 537 companies with an equity component.

28 equity companies fall in the under €2M bucket.

That represents 5.2% of the 537 companies with an equity component.

Space, Aerospace & Aviation includes 27 equity companies in the sector ask table.

The average ask is €8.37M, the median ask is €7.00M, and total requested equity is €225.90M.

Quantum Technologies includes 26 equity companies in the sector ask table.

The average ask is €7.16M, the median ask is €7.16M, and total requested equity is €186.07M.

Medical Devices, Diagnostics & Digital Health includes 114 equity companies in the sector ask table.

The average ask is €6.44M, the median ask is €5.00M, and total requested equity is €733.59M.

Semiconductors, Photonics & Electronics includes 39 equity companies in the sector ask table.

The average ask is €8.06M, the median ask is €7.50M, and total requested equity is €314.15M.

Climate, Carbon, Water & Circular Economy includes 41 equity companies in the sector ask table.

The average ask is €6.49M, the median ask is €6.00M, and total requested equity is €266.10M.

Therapeutics & Drug Development includes 56 equity companies in the sector ask table.

The average ask is €8.75M, the median ask is €7.75M, and total requested equity is €490.04M.

Agriculture, Food & Animal Health includes 50 equity companies in the sector ask table.

The average ask is €5.12M, the median ask is €4.10M, and total requested equity is €256.04M.

Robotics, Mobility & Logistics includes 18 equity companies in the sector ask table.

The average ask is €5.67M, the median ask is €4.86M, and total requested equity is €102.00M.

Advanced Materials, Chemicals & Industrial Manufacturing includes 26 equity companies in the sector ask table.

The average ask is €5.47M, the median ask is €3.75M, and total requested equity is €142.32M.

Clean Energy, Storage & Electrification includes 52 equity companies in the sector ask table.

The average ask is €7.02M, the median ask is €5.34M, and total requested equity is €364.79M.

AI, Software, Data & Cybersecurity includes 16 equity companies in the sector ask table.

The average ask is €4.44M, the median ask is €3.30M, and total requested equity is €71.03M.

Biotechnology, Biomanufacturing & Life Science Tools includes 31 equity companies in the sector ask table.

The average ask is €6.85M, the median ask is €6.00M, and total requested equity is €212.44M.

In the 2021 cohort, 39 of 99 equity companies had received no equity payment.

60 companies had received some equity, while the no-payment share was 39.4%.

In the 2022 cohort, 52 of 125 equity companies had received no equity payment.

73 companies had received some equity, while the no-payment share was 41.6%.

In the 2023 cohort, 60 of 99 equity companies had received no equity payment.

39 companies had received some equity, while the no-payment share was 60.6%.

In the 2024 cohort, 100 of 127 equity companies had received no equity payment.

27 companies had received some equity, while the no-payment share was 78.7%.

In the 2025 cohort, 85 of 87 equity companies had received no equity payment.

2 companies had received some equity, while the no-payment share was 97.7%.

Biotech Company 1 (Biotech Project 1) is ranked 1 by outstanding equity in the article table.

It is a 2023 Biotechnology, Biomanufacturing & Life Science Tools company with €15.00M approved, €0.00M paid, and €15.00M outstanding.

Cloud Infrastructure Company 1 (no separate project acronym listed) is ranked 2 by outstanding equity in the article table.

It is a 2024 Communications, Networks & Cloud Infrastructure company with €15.00M approved, €0.00M paid, and €15.00M outstanding.

Industrial Materials Company 1 (Industrial Materials Project 1) is ranked 3 by outstanding equity in the article table.

It is a 2024 Advanced Materials, Chemicals & Industrial Manufacturing company with €15.00M approved, €0.00M paid, and €15.00M outstanding.

Aerospace Company 3 (Aerospace Project 3) is ranked 4 by outstanding equity in the article table.

It is a 2023 Space, Aerospace & Aviation company with €15.00M approved, €0.00M paid, and €15.00M outstanding.

Biotech Company 7 (Biotech Project 7) is ranked 5 by outstanding equity in the article table.

It is a 2022 Biotechnology, Biomanufacturing & Life Science Tools company with €15.00M approved, €0.00M paid, and €15.00M outstanding.

Quantum Company 4 (Quantum Project 4) is ranked 6 by outstanding equity in the article table.

It is a 2022 Quantum Technologies company with €15.00M approved, €0.00M paid, and €15.00M outstanding.

MedTech Company 5 (MedTech Project 5) is ranked 7 by outstanding equity in the article table.

It is a 2021 Medical Devices, Diagnostics & Digital Health company with €15.00M approved, €0.00M paid, and €15.00M outstanding.

MedTech Company 26 (MedTech Project 25) is ranked 8 by outstanding equity in the article table.

It is a 2021 Medical Devices, Diagnostics & Digital Health company with €15.00M approved, €0.00M paid, and €15.00M outstanding.

Consumer Assistive Company 3 (Consumer Assistive Project 3) is ranked 9 by outstanding equity in the article table.

It is a 2021 Consumer, Media, Education & Assistive Tech company with €15.00M approved, €0.00M paid, and €15.00M outstanding.

MedTech Company 7 (MedTech Project 7) is ranked 10 by outstanding equity in the article table.

It is a 2021 Medical Devices, Diagnostics & Digital Health company with €15.00M approved, €0.00M paid, and €15.00M outstanding.

Climate Circular Company 1 (Climate Circular Project 1) is ranked 11 by outstanding equity in the article table.

It is a 2021 Climate, Carbon, Water & Circular Economy company with €15.00M approved, €0.00M paid, and €15.00M outstanding.

Semiconductor Company 6 (Semiconductor Project 6) is ranked 12 by outstanding equity in the article table.

It is a 2023 Semiconductors, Photonics & Electronics company with €15.00M approved, €1.00M paid, and €14.00M outstanding.

Biotech Company 8 (Biotech Project 8) is ranked 13 by outstanding equity in the article table.

It is a 2021 Biotechnology, Biomanufacturing & Life Science Tools company with €14.00M approved, €0.00M paid, and €14.00M outstanding.

Semiconductor Company 2 (Semiconductor Project 2) is ranked 14 by outstanding equity in the article table.

It is a 2023 Semiconductors, Photonics & Electronics company with €12.50M approved, €0.00M paid, and €12.50M outstanding.

Semiconductor Company 7 (Semiconductor Project 7B) is ranked 15 by outstanding equity in the article table.

It is a 2024 Semiconductors, Photonics & Electronics company with €12.50M approved, €0.00M paid, and €12.50M outstanding.

Aerospace Company 7 (Aerospace Project 7) is ranked 16 by outstanding equity in the article table.

It is a 2022 Space, Aerospace & Aviation company with €15.00M approved, €2.75M paid, and €12.25M outstanding.

Therapeutics Company 10 (Therapeutics Project 11) is ranked 17 by outstanding equity in the article table.

It is a 2023 Therapeutics & Drug Development company with €15.00M approved, €3.10M paid, and €11.90M outstanding.

Aerospace Company 12 (Aerospace Project 12) is ranked 18 by outstanding equity in the article table.

It is a 2023 Space, Aerospace & Aviation company with €15.00M approved, €3.86M paid, and €11.14M outstanding.

AgriFood Company 10 (AgriFood Project 10) is ranked 19 by outstanding equity in the article table.

It is a 2021 Agriculture, Food & Animal Health company with €13.50M approved, €2.50M paid, and €11.00M outstanding.

Therapeutics Company 9 (Therapeutics Project 10) is ranked 20 by outstanding equity in the article table.

It is a 2022 Therapeutics & Drug Development company with €15.00M approved, €4.23M paid, and €10.77M outstanding.

Semiconductor Company 8 (Semiconductor Project 8) appears in rank 1 of the no-equity-paid table with a €15.00M equity request.

The listed IC-approved amount is €10.00M. The company had €0.00M paid in the table.

Clean Energy Company 4 (Clean Energy Project 4) appears in rank 2 of the no-equity-paid table with a €15.00M equity request.

The article does not list an approved equity amount for this row. The company had €0.00M paid in the table.

Aerospace Company 8 (Aerospace Project 8) appears in rank 3 of the no-equity-paid table with a €15.00M equity request.

The article does not list an approved equity amount for this row. The company had €0.00M paid in the table.

Climate Circular Company 4 (Climate Circular Project 4) appears in rank 4 of the no-equity-paid table with a €15.00M equity request.

The article does not list an approved equity amount for this row. The company had €0.00M paid in the table.

Therapeutics Company 12 (Therapeutics Project 14) appears in rank 5 of the no-equity-paid table with a €15.00M equity request.

The listed IC-approved amount is €3.00M. The company had €0.00M paid in the table.

Quantum Company 5 (Quantum Project 5) appears in rank 6 of the no-equity-paid table with a €15.00M equity request.

The listed IC-approved amount is €10.00M. The company had €0.00M paid in the table.

Cloud Infrastructure Company 1 (no separate project acronym listed) appears in rank 7 of the no-equity-paid table with a €15.00M equity request.

The listed IC-approved amount is €15.00M. The company had €0.00M paid in the table.

Industrial Materials Company 1 (Industrial Materials Project 1) appears in rank 8 of the no-equity-paid table with a €15.00M equity request.

The listed IC-approved amount is €15.00M. The company had €0.00M paid in the table.

Semiconductor Company 5 (Semiconductor Project 5) appears in rank 9 of the no-equity-paid table with a €15.00M equity request.

The listed IC-approved amount is €0.00M. The company had €0.00M paid in the table.

Clean Energy Company 5 (Clean Energy Project 5) appears in rank 10 of the no-equity-paid table with a €15.00M equity request.

The article does not list an approved equity amount for this row. The company had €0.00M paid in the table.

Biotech Company 2 (Biotech Project 2) appears in rank 11 of the no-equity-paid table with a €15.00M equity request.

The article does not list an approved equity amount for this row. The company had €0.00M paid in the table.

Built Environment Company 4 (Built Environment Project 4) appears in rank 12 of the no-equity-paid table with a €15.00M equity request.

The article does not list an approved equity amount for this row. The company had €0.00M paid in the table.

MedTech Company 25 (MedTech Project 24) appears in rank 13 of the no-equity-paid table with a €15.00M equity request.

The article does not list an approved equity amount for this row. The company had €0.00M paid in the table.

Biotech Company 3 (Biotech Project 3) appears in rank 14 of the no-equity-paid table with a €15.00M equity request.

The article does not list an approved equity amount for this row. The company had €0.00M paid in the table.

Semiconductor Company 7 (Semiconductor Project 7B) appears in rank 15 of the no-equity-paid table with a €15.00M equity request.

The listed IC-approved amount is €12.50M. The company had €0.00M paid in the table.

MedTech Company 9 (MedTech Project 8) appears in rank 16 of the no-equity-paid table with a €15.00M equity request.

The article does not list an approved equity amount for this row. The company had €0.00M paid in the table.

Therapeutics Company 11 (Therapeutics Project 13) appears in rank 17 of the no-equity-paid table with a €15.00M equity request.

The article does not list an approved equity amount for this row. The company had €0.00M paid in the table.

Semiconductor Company 4 (Semiconductor Project 4) appears in rank 18 of the no-equity-paid table with a €15.00M equity request.

The listed IC-approved amount is €3.00M. The company had €0.00M paid in the table.

Clean Energy Company 11 (Clean Energy Project 11) appears in rank 19 of the no-equity-paid table with a €15.00M equity request.

The listed IC-approved amount is €10.00M. The company had €0.00M paid in the table.

Aerospace Company 9 (Aerospace Project 9) appears in rank 20 of the no-equity-paid table with a €15.00M equity request.

The listed IC-approved amount is €7.00M. The company had €0.00M paid in the table.

Aerospace Company 3 (Aerospace Project 3) appears in rank 21 of the no-equity-paid table with a €15.00M equity request.

The listed IC-approved amount is €15.00M. The company had €0.00M paid in the table.

Biotech Company 7 (Biotech Project 7) appears in rank 22 of the no-equity-paid table with a €15.00M equity request.

The listed IC-approved amount is €15.00M. The company had €0.00M paid in the table.

MedTech Company 5 (MedTech Project 5) appears in rank 23 of the no-equity-paid table with a €15.00M equity request.

The listed IC-approved amount is €15.00M. The company had €0.00M paid in the table.

Therapeutics Company 8 (Therapeutics Project 9) appears in rank 24 of the no-equity-paid table with a €15.00M equity request.

The article does not list an approved equity amount for this row. The company had €0.00M paid in the table.

MedTech Company 26 (MedTech Project 25) appears in rank 25 of the no-equity-paid table with a €15.00M equity request.

The listed IC-approved amount is €15.00M. The company had €0.00M paid in the table.

Therapeutics Company 1 (Therapeutics Project 1) is ranked 1 among companies with committed equity that remains materially under-disbursed.

The committed amount is €35.00M, the paid amount is €25.00M, the gap is €10.00M, and the paid share is 71.4%.

Therapeutics Company 2 (Therapeutics Project 2) is ranked 2 among companies with committed equity that remains materially under-disbursed.

The committed amount is €15.00M, the paid amount is €5.70M, the gap is €9.30M, and the paid share is 38.0%.

Robotics Mobility Company 4 (Robotics Mobility Project 3) is ranked 3 among companies with committed equity that remains materially under-disbursed.

The committed amount is €6.00M, the paid amount is €0.00M, the gap is €5.99M, and the paid share is 0.1%.

MedTech Company 10 (MedTech Project 9) is ranked 4 among companies with committed equity that remains materially under-disbursed.

The committed amount is €8.00M, the paid amount is €2.74M, the gap is €5.26M, and the paid share is 34.3%.

Therapeutics Company 4 (Therapeutics Project 4) is ranked 5 among companies with committed equity that remains materially under-disbursed.

The committed amount is €6.70M, the paid amount is €1.90M, the gap is €4.80M, and the paid share is 28.4%.

Built Environment Company 2 (Built Environment Project 2) is ranked 6 among companies with committed equity that remains materially under-disbursed.

The committed amount is €7.50M, the paid amount is €3.01M, the gap is €4.49M, and the paid share is 40.1%.

Climate Circular Company 5 (no separate project acronym listed) is ranked 7 among companies with committed equity that remains materially under-disbursed.

The committed amount is €5.00M, the paid amount is €1.00M, the gap is €4.00M, and the paid share is 20.0%.

MedTech Company 13 (MedTech Project 12) is ranked 8 among companies with committed equity that remains materially under-disbursed.

The committed amount is €6.51M, the paid amount is €2.63M, the gap is €3.88M, and the paid share is 40.4%.

MedTech Company 14 (MedTech Project 13) is ranked 9 among companies with committed equity that remains materially under-disbursed.

The committed amount is €7.50M, the paid amount is €3.75M, the gap is €3.75M, and the paid share is 50.0%.

MedTech Company 23 (MedTech Project 22) is ranked 10 among companies with committed equity that remains materially under-disbursed.

The committed amount is €4.70M, the paid amount is €1.41M, the gap is €3.29M, and the paid share is 30.0%.

Climate Circular Company 7 (no separate project acronym listed) is ranked 11 among companies with committed equity that remains materially under-disbursed.

The committed amount is €5.57M, the paid amount is €2.80M, the gap is €2.77M, and the paid share is 50.3%.

AgriFood Company 6 (AgriFood Project 6) is ranked 12 among companies with committed equity that remains materially under-disbursed.

The committed amount is €5.00M, the paid amount is €2.50M, the gap is €2.50M, and the paid share is 50.0%.

Quantum Company 2 (Quantum Project 2) is ranked 13 among companies with committed equity that remains materially under-disbursed.

The committed amount is €15.00M, the paid amount is €12.50M, the gap is €2.50M, and the paid share is 83.3%.

Semiconductor Company 9 (Semiconductor Project 9) is ranked 14 among companies with committed equity that remains materially under-disbursed.

The committed amount is €12.87M, the paid amount is €10.47M, the gap is €2.40M, and the paid share is 81.4%.

Therapeutics Company 15 (Therapeutics Project 15) is ranked 15 among companies with committed equity that remains materially under-disbursed.

The committed amount is €10.00M, the paid amount is €7.60M, the gap is €2.40M, and the paid share is 76.0%.

MedTech Company 28 (MedTech Project 28) is ranked 16 among companies with committed equity that remains materially under-disbursed.

The committed amount is €4.00M, the paid amount is €1.88M, the gap is €2.12M, and the paid share is 47.1%.

Semiconductor Company 10 (Semiconductor Project 10) is ranked 17 among companies with committed equity that remains materially under-disbursed.

The committed amount is €4.00M, the paid amount is €2.00M, the gap is €2.00M, and the paid share is 50.0%.

MedTech Company 6 (MedTech Project 6) is ranked 18 among companies with committed equity that remains materially under-disbursed.

The committed amount is €8.00M, the paid amount is €6.12M, the gap is €1.88M, and the paid share is 76.5%.

MedTech Company 29 (MedTech Project 29) is ranked 19 among companies with committed equity that remains materially under-disbursed.

The committed amount is €7.00M, the paid amount is €5.12M, the gap is €1.88M, and the paid share is 73.2%.

Therapeutics Company 16 (Therapeutics Project 16) is ranked 20 among companies with committed equity that remains materially under-disbursed.

The committed amount is €4.00M, the paid amount is €2.20M, the gap is €1.80M, and the paid share is 55.0%.

Semiconductor Company 3 (Semiconductor Project 3) appears in the overperformer table at rank 1.

It had €15.00M approved and €30.00M paid, equal to 2.00x the approved amount.

Quantum Company 7 (Quantum Project 7) appears in the overperformer table at rank 2.

It had €7.50M approved and €15.00M paid, equal to 2.00x the approved amount.

Quantum Company 1 (Quantum Project 1) appears in the overperformer table at rank 3.

It had €15.00M approved and €29.99M paid, equal to 2.00x the approved amount.

Therapeutics Company 5 (Therapeutics Project 5) appears in the overperformer table at rank 4.

It had €8.00M approved and €15.02M paid, equal to 1.88x the approved amount.

Therapeutics Company 6 (Therapeutics Project 6) appears in the overperformer table at rank 5.

It had €5.90M approved and €10.90M paid, equal to 1.85x the approved amount.

Semiconductor Company 7 (Semiconductor Project 7) appears in the overperformer table at rank 6.

It had €15.00M approved and €27.50M paid, equal to 1.83x the approved amount.

Quantum Company 2 (Quantum Project 2) appears in the overperformer table at rank 7.

It had €7.50M approved and €12.50M paid, equal to 1.67x the approved amount.

Cloud Infrastructure Company 3 (Cloud Infrastructure Project 2) appears in the overperformer table at rank 8.

It had €6.00M approved and €10.00M paid, equal to 1.67x the approved amount.

Clean Energy Company 12 (Clean Energy Project 12) appears in the overperformer table at rank 9.

It had €10.00M approved and €15.00M paid, equal to 1.50x the approved amount.

Clean Energy Company 10 (Clean Energy Project 10) appears in the overperformer table at rank 10.

It had €2.00M approved and €2.82M paid, equal to 1.41x the approved amount.

Therapeutics Company 11 (Therapeutics Project 12) appears in the overperformer table at rank 11.

It had €15.00M approved and €18.51M paid, equal to 1.23x the approved amount.

Aerospace Company 11 (Aerospace Project 11) appears in the overperformer table at rank 12.

It had €7.00M approved and €8.05M paid, equal to 1.15x the approved amount.

MedTech Company 27 (MedTech Project 26) appears in the overperformer table at rank 13.

It had €2.00M approved and €2.03M paid, equal to 1.01x the approved amount.

Medical Devices, Diagnostics & Digital Health includes 195 companies in the sector breakdown.

Its average grant is €2.40M, total grants are €455.88M, and its blended finance share is 55.9%.

Therapeutics & Drug Development includes 79 companies in the sector breakdown.

Its average grant is €2.45M, total grants are €188.37M, and its blended finance share is 68.4%.

Clean Energy, Storage & Electrification includes 74 companies in the sector breakdown.

Its average grant is €2.39M, total grants are €174.49M, and its blended finance share is 68.9%.

AI, Software, Data & Cybersecurity includes 26 companies in the sector breakdown.

Its average grant is €2.36M, total grants are €61.45M, and its blended finance share is 61.5%.

Agriculture, Food & Animal Health includes 62 companies in the sector breakdown.

Its average grant is €2.26M, total grants are €135.78M, and its blended finance share is 77.4%.

Advanced Materials, Chemicals & Industrial Manufacturing includes 40 companies in the sector breakdown.

Its average grant is €2.29M, total grants are €91.80M, and its blended finance share is 65.0%.

Climate, Carbon, Water & Circular Economy includes 65 companies in the sector breakdown.

Its average grant is €2.33M, total grants are €149.12M, and its blended finance share is 61.5%.

Semiconductors, Photonics & Electronics includes 47 companies in the sector breakdown.

Its average grant is €2.43M, total grants are €111.77M, and its blended finance share is 80.9%.

Quantum Technologies includes 30 companies in the sector breakdown.

Its average grant is €2.48M, total grants are €71.85M, and its blended finance share is 83.3%.

Space, Aerospace & Aviation includes 31 companies in the sector breakdown.

Its average grant is €2.31M, total grants are €69.38M, and its blended finance share is 83.9%.

Robotics, Mobility & Logistics includes 27 companies in the sector breakdown.

Its average grant is €2.29M, total grants are €59.60M, and its blended finance share is 63.0%.

Biotechnology, Biomanufacturing & Life Science Tools includes 41 companies in the sector breakdown.

Its average grant is €2.34M, total grants are €84.17M, and its blended finance share is 63.4%.

Biotechnology, Biomanufacturing & Life Science Tools has 31 equity companies in the sector equity table.

Its IC approval rate is 78.2%, while its payout rate is 13.3%.

AI, Software, Data & Cybersecurity has 16 equity companies in the sector equity table.

Its IC approval rate is 43.1%, while its payout rate is 10.3%.

Medical Devices, Diagnostics & Digital Health has 114 equity companies in the sector equity table.

Its IC approval rate is 84.1%, while its payout rate is 32.0%.

Quantum Technologies has 26 equity companies in the sector equity table.

Its IC approval rate is 87.0%, while its payout rate is 66.0%.

Robotics, Mobility & Logistics has 18 equity companies in the sector equity table.

Its IC approval rate is 75.8%, while its payout rate is 36.3%.

Consumer, Media, Education & Assistive Tech has 11 equity companies in the sector equity table.

Its IC approval rate is 89.8%, while its payout rate is 37.4%.

Semiconductors, Photonics & Electronics has 39 equity companies in the sector equity table.

Its IC approval rate is 70.3%, while its payout rate is 41.3%.

Agriculture, Food & Animal Health has 50 equity companies in the sector equity table.

Its IC approval rate is 58.0%, while its payout rate is 19.4%.

Space, Aerospace & Aviation has 27 equity companies in the sector equity table.

Its IC approval rate is 68.2%, while its payout rate is 33.2%.

Clean Energy, Storage & Electrification has 52 equity companies in the sector equity table.

Its IC approval rate is 56.2%, while its payout rate is 26.5%.

Advanced Materials, Chemicals & Industrial Manufacturing has 26 equity companies in the sector equity table.

Its IC approval rate is 39.7%, while its payout rate is 14.5%.

Climate, Carbon, Water & Circular Economy has 41 equity companies in the sector equity table.

Its IC approval rate is 48.8%, while its payout rate is 10.8%.

Therapeutics & Drug Development has an average paid equity to grant leverage ratio of 2.99x.

The maximum leverage in the sector is 10.00x, and the total paid equity listed is €175.92M.

Space, Aerospace & Aviation has an average paid equity to grant leverage ratio of 2.22x.

The maximum leverage in the sector is 5.92x, and the total paid equity listed is €74.99M.

Medical Devices, Diagnostics & Digital Health has an average paid equity to grant leverage ratio of 1.62x.

The maximum leverage in the sector is 6.01x, and the total paid equity listed is €234.57M.

Quantum Technologies has an average paid equity to grant leverage ratio of 2.70x.

The maximum leverage in the sector is 12.01x, and the total paid equity listed is €122.81M.

Agriculture, Food & Animal Health has an average paid equity to grant leverage ratio of 1.46x.

The maximum leverage in the sector is 6.13x, and the total paid equity listed is €49.61M.

Fintech, Identity, Commerce & Supply Chain has an average paid equity to grant leverage ratio of 2.40x.

The maximum leverage in the sector is 4.00x, and the total paid equity listed is €12.00M.

Semiconductors, Photonics & Electronics has an average paid equity to grant leverage ratio of 2.49x.

The maximum leverage in the sector is 12.00x, and the total paid equity listed is €129.68M.

Clean Energy, Storage & Electrification has an average paid equity to grant leverage ratio of 1.83x.

The maximum leverage in the sector is 6.28x, and the total paid equity listed is €96.49M.

Robotics, Mobility & Logistics has an average paid equity to grant leverage ratio of 1.79x.

The maximum leverage in the sector is 4.00x, and the total paid equity listed is €37.02M.

Climate, Carbon, Water & Circular Economy has an average paid equity to grant leverage ratio of 0.89x.

The maximum leverage in the sector is 2.16x, and the total paid equity listed is €28.81M.

Biotechnology, Biomanufacturing & Life Science Tools has an average paid equity to grant leverage ratio of 1.19x.

The maximum leverage in the sector is 2.80x, and the total paid equity listed is €28.25M.

Advanced Materials, Chemicals & Industrial Manufacturing has an average paid equity to grant leverage ratio of 1.21x.

The maximum leverage in the sector is 2.86x, and the total paid equity listed is €20.70M.

AI, Software, Data & Cybersecurity has 3 companies in the fulfilment table.

Its average fulfilment rate is 77.3%, and its median fulfilment rate is 99.9%.

Quantum Technologies has 17 companies in the fulfilment table.

Its average fulfilment rate is 93.8%, and its median fulfilment rate is 100.0%.

Semiconductors, Photonics & Electronics has 21 companies in the fulfilment table.

Its average fulfilment rate is 74.4%, and its median fulfilment rate is 63.7%.

Space, Aerospace & Aviation has 13 companies in the fulfilment table.

Its average fulfilment rate is 71.7%, and its median fulfilment rate is 75.0%.

Advanced Materials, Chemicals & Industrial Manufacturing has 7 companies in the fulfilment table.

Its average fulfilment rate is 72.5%, and its median fulfilment rate is 78.7%.

Medical Devices, Diagnostics & Digital Health has 60 companies in the fulfilment table.

Its average fulfilment rate is 62.5%, and its median fulfilment rate is 52.5%.

Communications, Networks & Cloud Infrastructure has 6 companies in the fulfilment table.

Its average fulfilment rate is 103.1%, and its median fulfilment rate is 99.7%.

Biotechnology, Biomanufacturing & Life Science Tools has 10 companies in the fulfilment table.

Its average fulfilment rate is 77.1%, and its median fulfilment rate is 89.0%.

Clean Energy, Storage & Electrification has 22 companies in the fulfilment table.

Its average fulfilment rate is 63.0%, and its median fulfilment rate is 49.7%.

Agriculture, Food & Animal Health has 15 companies in the fulfilment table.

Its average fulfilment rate is 57.1%, and its median fulfilment rate is 48.6%.

Robotics, Mobility & Logistics has 9 companies in the fulfilment table.

Its average fulfilment rate is 59.1%, and its median fulfilment rate is 46.7%.

Climate, Carbon, Water & Circular Economy has 14 companies in the fulfilment table.

Its average fulfilment rate is 47.0%, and its median fulfilment rate is 39.4%.

Quantum Company 1 (Quantum Project 1) ranks 1 by paid equity to grant leverage.

It is a Quantum Technologies company with a €2.50M grant, €29.99M paid equity, and a 12.01x leverage ratio.

Semiconductor Company 3 (Semiconductor Project 3) ranks 2 by paid equity to grant leverage.

It is a Semiconductors, Photonics & Electronics company with a €2.50M grant, €30.00M paid equity, and a 12.00x leverage ratio.

Semiconductor Company 7 (Semiconductor Project 7) ranks 3 by paid equity to grant leverage.

It is a Semiconductors, Photonics & Electronics company with a €2.50M grant, €27.50M paid equity, and a 11.00x leverage ratio.

Therapeutics Company 1 (Therapeutics Project 1) ranks 4 by paid equity to grant leverage.

It is a Therapeutics & Drug Development company with a €2.50M grant, €25.00M paid equity, and a 10.00x leverage ratio.

Therapeutics Company 11 (Therapeutics Project 12) ranks 5 by paid equity to grant leverage.

It is a Therapeutics & Drug Development company with a €2.50M grant, €18.51M paid equity, and a 7.40x leverage ratio.

Clean Energy Company 12 (Clean Energy Project 12) ranks 6 by paid equity to grant leverage.

It is a Clean Energy, Storage & Electrification company with a €2.39M grant, €15.00M paid equity, and a 6.28x leverage ratio.

AgriFood Company 5 (AgriFood Project 5) ranks 7 by paid equity to grant leverage.

It is a Agriculture, Food & Animal Health company with a €2.43M grant, €14.87M paid equity, and a 6.13x leverage ratio.

Clean Energy Company 7 (Clean Energy Project 7) ranks 8 by paid equity to grant leverage.

It is a Clean Energy, Storage & Electrification company with a €2.49M grant, €15.00M paid equity, and a 6.03x leverage ratio.

MedTech Company 16 (MedTech Project 15) ranks 9 by paid equity to grant leverage.

It is a Medical Devices, Diagnostics & Digital Health company with a €2.49M grant, €15.00M paid equity, and a 6.01x leverage ratio.

Therapeutics Company 5 (Therapeutics Project 5) ranks 10 by paid equity to grant leverage.

It is a Therapeutics & Drug Development company with a €2.50M grant, €15.02M paid equity, and a 6.01x leverage ratio.

Semiconductor Company 1 (Semiconductor Project 1) ranks 11 by paid equity to grant leverage.

It is a Semiconductors, Photonics & Electronics company with a €2.50M grant, €15.00M paid equity, and a 6.00x leverage ratio.

Clean Energy Company 6 (Clean Energy Project 6) ranks 12 by paid equity to grant leverage.

It is a Clean Energy, Storage & Electrification company with a €2.50M grant, €15.00M paid equity, and a 6.00x leverage ratio.

Therapeutics Company 7 (Therapeutics Project 8) ranks 13 by paid equity to grant leverage.

It is a Therapeutics & Drug Development company with a €2.50M grant, €15.00M paid equity, and a 6.00x leverage ratio.

Quantum Company 7 (Quantum Project 7) ranks 14 by paid equity to grant leverage.

It is a Quantum Technologies company with a €2.50M grant, €15.00M paid equity, and a 6.00x leverage ratio.

Aerospace Company 10 (Aerospace Project 10) ranks 15 by paid equity to grant leverage.

It is a Space, Aerospace & Aviation company with a €2.50M grant, €14.80M paid equity, and a 5.92x leverage ratio.

Semiconductor Company 3 (Semiconductor Project 3) ranks 1 by absolute equity paid out.

It is a 2021 Semiconductors, Photonics & Electronics company with €30.00M in paid equity.

Quantum Company 1 (Quantum Project 1) ranks 2 by absolute equity paid out.

It is a 2022 Quantum Technologies company with €29.99M in paid equity.

Semiconductor Company 7 (Semiconductor Project 7) ranks 3 by absolute equity paid out.

It is a 2022 Semiconductors, Photonics & Electronics company with €27.50M in paid equity.

Therapeutics Company 1 (Therapeutics Project 1) ranks 4 by absolute equity paid out.

It is a 2024 Therapeutics & Drug Development company with €25.00M in paid equity.

Therapeutics Company 11 (Therapeutics Project 12) ranks 5 by absolute equity paid out.

It is a 2021 Therapeutics & Drug Development company with €18.51M in paid equity.

Therapeutics Company 5 (Therapeutics Project 5) ranks 6 by absolute equity paid out.

It is a 2022 Therapeutics & Drug Development company with €15.02M in paid equity.

Semiconductor Company 1 (Semiconductor Project 1) ranks 7 by absolute equity paid out.

It is a 2023 Semiconductors, Photonics & Electronics company with €15.00M in paid equity.

Clean Energy Company 6 (Clean Energy Project 6) ranks 8 by absolute equity paid out.

It is a 2022 Clean Energy, Storage & Electrification company with €15.00M in paid equity.

Therapeutics Company 7 (Therapeutics Project 8) ranks 9 by absolute equity paid out.

It is a 2022 Therapeutics & Drug Development company with €15.00M in paid equity.

Quantum Company 3 (Quantum Project 3) ranks 10 by absolute equity paid out.

It is a 2023 Quantum Technologies company with €15.00M in paid equity.

Quantum Company 7 (Quantum Project 7) ranks 11 by absolute equity paid out.

It is a 2021 Quantum Technologies company with €15.00M in paid equity.

Clean Energy Company 12 (Clean Energy Project 12) ranks 12 by absolute equity paid out.

It is a 2023 Clean Energy, Storage & Electrification company with €15.00M in paid equity.

MedTech Company 16 (MedTech Project 15) ranks 13 by absolute equity paid out.

It is a 2022 Medical Devices, Diagnostics & Digital Health company with €15.00M in paid equity.

Clean Energy Company 7 (Clean Energy Project 7) ranks 14 by absolute equity paid out.

It is a 2024 Clean Energy, Storage & Electrification company with €15.00M in paid equity.

AgriFood Company 5 (AgriFood Project 5) ranks 15 by absolute equity paid out.

It is a 2022 Agriculture, Food & Animal Health company with €14.87M in paid equity.

MedTech Company 5 (MedTech Project 5) appears in row 1 of the maximum-ticket table.

It is a 2021 Medical Devices, Diagnostics & Digital Health company with a €2.50M grant and a €15.00M equity ask.

Therapeutics Company 8 (Therapeutics Project 9) appears in row 2 of the maximum-ticket table.

It is a 2021 Therapeutics & Drug Development company with a €2.50M grant and a €15.00M equity ask.

MedTech Company 26 (MedTech Project 25) appears in row 3 of the maximum-ticket table.

It is a 2021 Medical Devices, Diagnostics & Digital Health company with a €2.50M grant and a €15.00M equity ask.

Consumer Assistive Company 3 (Consumer Assistive Project 3) appears in row 4 of the maximum-ticket table.

It is a 2021 Consumer, Media, Education & Assistive Tech company with a €2.50M grant and a €15.00M equity ask.

Therapeutics Company 11 (Therapeutics Project 12) appears in row 5 of the maximum-ticket table.

It is a 2021 Therapeutics & Drug Development company with a €2.50M grant and a €15.00M equity ask.

Semiconductor Company 3 (Semiconductor Project 3) appears in row 6 of the maximum-ticket table.

It is a 2021 Semiconductors, Photonics & Electronics company with a €2.50M grant and a €15.00M equity ask.

Semiconductor Company 7 (Semiconductor Project 7) appears in row 7 of the maximum-ticket table.

It is a 2022 Semiconductors, Photonics & Electronics company with a €2.50M grant and a €15.00M equity ask.

Clean Energy Company 6 (Clean Energy Project 6) appears in row 8 of the maximum-ticket table.

It is a 2022 Clean Energy, Storage & Electrification company with a €2.50M grant and a €15.00M equity ask.

Therapeutics Company 9 (Therapeutics Project 10) appears in row 9 of the maximum-ticket table.

It is a 2022 Therapeutics & Drug Development company with a €2.50M grant and a €15.00M equity ask.

Aerospace Company 7 (Aerospace Project 7) appears in row 10 of the maximum-ticket table.

It is a 2022 Space, Aerospace & Aviation company with a €2.50M grant and a €15.00M equity ask.

MedTech Company 16 (MedTech Project 15) appears in row 11 of the maximum-ticket table.

It is a 2022 Medical Devices, Diagnostics & Digital Health company with a €2.49M grant and a €15.00M equity ask.

MedTech Company 17 (MedTech Project 16) appears in row 12 of the maximum-ticket table.

It is a 2022 Medical Devices, Diagnostics & Digital Health company with a €2.50M grant and a €15.00M equity ask.

Therapeutics Company 7 (Therapeutics Project 8) appears in row 13 of the maximum-ticket table.

It is a 2022 Therapeutics & Drug Development company with a €2.50M grant and a €15.00M equity ask.

Clean Energy Company 8 (Clean Energy Project 8) appears in row 14 of the maximum-ticket table.

It is a 2022 Clean Energy, Storage & Electrification company with a €2.50M grant and a €15.00M equity ask.

MedTech Company 21 (MedTech Project 20) appears in row 15 of the maximum-ticket table.

It is a 2022 Medical Devices, Diagnostics & Digital Health company with a €2.50M grant and a €15.00M equity ask.

MedTech Company 24 (MedTech Project 23) appears in row 16 of the maximum-ticket table.

It is a 2023 Medical Devices, Diagnostics & Digital Health company with a €2.50M grant and a €15.00M equity ask.

Aerospace Company 10 (Aerospace Project 10) appears in row 17 of the maximum-ticket table.

It is a 2023 Space, Aerospace & Aviation company with a €2.50M grant and a €15.00M equity ask.

Semiconductor Company 1 (Semiconductor Project 1) appears in row 18 of the maximum-ticket table.

It is a 2023 Semiconductors, Photonics & Electronics company with a €2.50M grant and a €15.00M equity ask.

Consumer Assistive Company 2 (Consumer Assistive Project 2) appears in row 19 of the maximum-ticket table.

It is a 2023 Consumer, Media, Education & Assistive Tech company with a €2.49M grant and a €15.00M equity ask.

Clean Energy Company 4 (Clean Energy Project 4) appears in row 20 of the maximum-ticket table.

It is a 2023 Clean Energy, Storage & Electrification company with a €2.50M grant and a €15.00M equity ask.

Semiconductor Company 6 (Semiconductor Project 6) appears in row 21 of the maximum-ticket table.

It is a 2023 Semiconductors, Photonics & Electronics company with a €2.50M grant and a €15.00M equity ask.

Aerospace Company 12 (Aerospace Project 12) appears in row 22 of the maximum-ticket table.

It is a 2023 Space, Aerospace & Aviation company with a €2.50M grant and a €15.00M equity ask.

Therapeutics Company 10 (Therapeutics Project 11) appears in row 23 of the maximum-ticket table.

It is a 2023 Therapeutics & Drug Development company with a €2.50M grant and a €15.00M equity ask.

Clean Energy Company 9 (Clean Energy Project 9) appears in row 24 of the maximum-ticket table.

It is a 2023 Clean Energy, Storage & Electrification company with a €2.50M grant and a €15.00M equity ask.

Aerospace Company 8 (Aerospace Project 8) appears in row 25 of the maximum-ticket table.

It is a 2024 Space, Aerospace & Aviation company with a €2.50M grant and a €15.00M equity ask.

Climate Circular Company 4 (Climate Circular Project 4) appears in row 26 of the maximum-ticket table.

It is a 2024 Climate, Carbon, Water & Circular Economy company with a €2.50M grant and a €15.00M equity ask.

Therapeutics Company 12 (Therapeutics Project 14) appears in row 27 of the maximum-ticket table.

It is a 2024 Therapeutics & Drug Development company with a €2.49M grant and a €15.00M equity ask.

Quantum Company 5 (Quantum Project 5) appears in row 28 of the maximum-ticket table.

It is a 2024 Quantum Technologies company with a €2.50M grant and a €15.00M equity ask.

Aerospace Company 4 (Aerospace Project 4) appears in row 29 of the maximum-ticket table.

It is a 2024 Space, Aerospace & Aviation company with a €2.50M grant and a €15.00M equity ask.

Cloud Infrastructure Company 1 (no separate project acronym listed) appears in row 30 of the maximum-ticket table.

It is a 2024 Communications, Networks & Cloud Infrastructure company with a €2.50M grant and a €15.00M equity ask.

Industrial Materials Company 1 (Industrial Materials Project 1) appears in row 31 of the maximum-ticket table.

It is a 2024 Advanced Materials, Chemicals & Industrial Manufacturing company with a €2.50M grant and a €15.00M equity ask.

Semiconductor Company 5 (Semiconductor Project 5) appears in row 32 of the maximum-ticket table.

It is a 2024 Semiconductors, Photonics & Electronics company with a €2.50M grant and a €15.00M equity ask.

MedTech Company 27 (MedTech Project 26) appears in row 33 of the maximum-ticket table.

It is a 2024 Medical Devices, Diagnostics & Digital Health company with a €2.50M grant and a €15.00M equity ask.

Biotech Company 2 (Biotech Project 2) appears in row 34 of the maximum-ticket table.

It is a 2024 Biotechnology, Biomanufacturing & Life Science Tools company with a €2.50M grant and a €15.00M equity ask.

Built Environment Company 4 (Built Environment Project 4) appears in row 35 of the maximum-ticket table.

It is a 2024 Built Environment, Infrastructure & Construction company with a €2.50M grant and a €15.00M equity ask.

Therapeutics Company 2 (Therapeutics Project 2) appears in row 36 of the maximum-ticket table.

It is a 2024 Therapeutics & Drug Development company with a €2.50M grant and a €15.00M equity ask.

MedTech Company 25 (MedTech Project 24) appears in row 37 of the maximum-ticket table.

It is a 2024 Medical Devices, Diagnostics & Digital Health company with a €2.50M grant and a €15.00M equity ask.

MedTech Company 9 (MedTech Project 8) appears in row 38 of the maximum-ticket table.

It is a 2024 Medical Devices, Diagnostics & Digital Health company with a €2.50M grant and a €15.00M equity ask.

Clean Energy Company 1 (Clean Energy Project 1) appears in row 39 of the maximum-ticket table.

It is a 2024 Clean Energy, Storage & Electrification company with a €2.50M grant and a €15.00M equity ask.

Semiconductor Company 4 (Semiconductor Project 4) appears in row 40 of the maximum-ticket table.

It is a 2024 Semiconductors, Photonics & Electronics company with a €2.50M grant and a €15.00M equity ask.

Clean Energy Company 11 (Clean Energy Project 11) appears in row 41 of the maximum-ticket table.

It is a 2024 Clean Energy, Storage & Electrification company with a €2.50M grant and a €15.00M equity ask.

Therapeutics Company 1 (Therapeutics Project 1) appears in row 42 of the maximum-ticket table.

It is a 2024 Therapeutics & Drug Development company with a €2.50M grant and a €15.00M equity ask.

Aerospace Company 9 (Aerospace Project 9) appears in row 43 of the maximum-ticket table.

It is a 2024 Space, Aerospace & Aviation company with a €2.50M grant and a €15.00M equity ask.

Quantum Company 3 (Quantum Project 3) appears in the equity-only table as a 2023 Quantum Technologies company.

It requested €15.00M in equity, had €0.00M in EC grant funding, and had €15.00M paid equity listed.

Biotech Company 3 (Biotech Project 3) appears in the equity-only table as a 2024 Biotechnology, Biomanufacturing & Life Science Tools company.

It requested €15.00M in equity, had €0.00M in EC grant funding, and had €0.00M paid equity listed.

Semiconductor Company 7 (Semiconductor Project 7B) appears in the equity-only table as a 2024 Semiconductors, Photonics & Electronics company.

It requested €15.00M in equity, had €0.00M in EC grant funding, and had €0.00M paid equity listed.

Therapeutics Company 11 (Therapeutics Project 13) appears in the equity-only table as a 2024 Therapeutics & Drug Development company.

It requested €15.00M in equity, had €0.00M in EC grant funding, and had €0.00M paid equity listed.

AgriFood Company 7 (AgriFood Project 7) appears in the equity-only table as a 2021 Agriculture, Food & Animal Health company.

It requested €15.00M in equity, had €0.00M in EC grant funding, and had €5.00M paid equity listed.

Biotech Company 7 (Biotech Project 7) appears in the equity-only table as a 2022 Biotechnology, Biomanufacturing & Life Science Tools company.

It requested €15.00M in equity, had €0.00M in EC grant funding, and had €0.00M paid equity listed.

MedTech Company 4 (MedTech Project 4) appears in the equity-only table as a 2021 Medical Devices, Diagnostics & Digital Health company.

It requested €15.00M in equity, had €0.00M in EC grant funding, and had €4.88M paid equity listed.

MedTech Company 6 (MedTech Project 6) appears in the equity-only table as a 2022 Medical Devices, Diagnostics & Digital Health company.

It requested €15.00M in equity, had €0.00M in EC grant funding, and had €6.12M paid equity listed.

Therapeutics Company 6 (Therapeutics Project 7) appears in the equity-only table as a 2024 Therapeutics & Drug Development company.

It requested €10.00M in equity, had €0.00M in EC grant funding, and had €0.00M paid equity listed.

Aerospace Company 1 (Aerospace Project 1) appears in the equity-only table as a 2024 Space, Aerospace & Aviation company.

It requested €10.00M in equity, had €0.00M in EC grant funding, and had €10.00M paid equity listed.

Climate Circular Company 2 (Climate Circular Project 2) appears in the equity-only table as a 2025 Climate, Carbon, Water & Circular Economy company.

It requested €10.00M in equity, had €0.00M in EC grant funding, and had €0.00M paid equity listed.

Biotech Company 4 (Biotech Project 4) appears in the equity-only table as a 2021 Biotechnology, Biomanufacturing & Life Science Tools company.

It requested €9.60M in equity, had €0.00M in EC grant funding, and had €0.00M paid equity listed.

MedTech Company 18 (MedTech Project 17) appears in the equity-only table as a 2021 Medical Devices, Diagnostics & Digital Health company.

It requested €8.00M in equity, had €0.00M in EC grant funding, and had €0.00M paid equity listed.

Built Environment Company 2 (Built Environment Project 2) appears in the equity-only table as a 2024 Built Environment, Infrastructure & Construction company.

It requested €7.65M in equity, had €0.00M in EC grant funding, and had €3.01M paid equity listed.

MedTech Company 19 (MedTech Project 18) appears in the equity-only table as a 2023 Medical Devices, Diagnostics & Digital Health company.

It requested €7.50M in equity, had €0.00M in EC grant funding, and had €3.12M paid equity listed.

MedTech Company 20 (MedTech Project 19) appears in the equity-only table as a 2021 Medical Devices, Diagnostics & Digital Health company.

It requested €7.00M in equity, had €0.00M in EC grant funding, and had €0.00M paid equity listed.

Biotech Company 9 (Biotech Project 9) appears in the equity-only table as a 2021 Biotechnology, Biomanufacturing & Life Science Tools company.

It requested €6.00M in equity, had €0.00M in EC grant funding, and had €3.50M paid equity listed.

Robotics Mobility Company 1 (no separate project acronym listed) appears in the equity-only table as a 2022 Robotics, Mobility & Logistics company.

It requested €4.00M in equity, had €0.00M in EC grant funding, and had €1.87M paid equity listed.

Cloud Infrastructure Company 2 (Cloud Infrastructure Project 1) appears in the equity-only table as a 2021 Communications, Networks & Cloud Infrastructure company.

It requested €4.00M in equity, had €0.00M in EC grant funding, and had €4.00M paid equity listed.

Clean Energy Company 2 (Clean Energy Project 2) appears in the equity-only table as a 2022 Clean Energy, Storage & Electrification company.

It requested €2.90M in equity, had €0.00M in EC grant funding, and had €0.00M paid equity listed.

AgriFood Company 9 (AgriFood Project 9) appears in the equity-only table as a 2022 Agriculture, Food & Animal Health company.

It requested €2.85M in equity, had €0.00M in EC grant funding, and had €0.00M paid equity listed.

Biotech Company 10 (Biotech Project 10) appears in the equity-only table as a 2021 Biotechnology, Biomanufacturing & Life Science Tools company.

It requested €2.00M in equity, had €0.00M in EC grant funding, and had €1.65M paid equity listed.

Cross-referencing against CORDIS confirms that 21 of the 22 equity-only companies had already received a prior EIC grant, making them ineligible for a second EC grant under programme rules.

Eight had a prior H2020 SME Instrument grant and entered the equity-only track directly. Nine were originally announced as blended finance but had their grant stripped because prior SME Instrument eligibility blocked a new grant. Five returned after a prior Horizon Europe EIC Accelerator grant.

Only one company has no confirmed prior grant and represents the only genuinely grant-free equity-only case across all 22.

Of the 22 equity-only companies, three have received their full equity payment, eight have received partial payments, and eleven have received nothing.

The 50% non-payment rate among equity-only companies mirrors the broader equity delivery gap across the programme.

Group A (nine companies): originally announced as blended finance by the EIC but had their EC grant stripped in the final EISMEA data, in most cases because a prior SME Instrument grant made a second grant ineligible.

Group B (five companies): applied for equity only after having already received a prior Horizon Europe EIC Accelerator grant in the 2021 or 2022 cohort.

Group C (eight companies): applied for equity only after having received a prior H2020 SME Instrument Phase 2 grant, without a blended finance announcement.

Germany accounts for 121 selected companies in the country distribution table.

That equals 15.7% of the 772-company dataset in the article country table.

France accounts for 115 selected companies in the country distribution table.

That equals 14.9% of the 772-company dataset in the article country table.

Netherlands accounts for 84 selected companies in the country distribution table.

That equals 10.9% of the 772-company dataset in the article country table.

Spain accounts for 68 selected companies in the country distribution table.

That equals 8.8% of the 772-company dataset in the article country table.

Sweden accounts for 53 selected companies in the country distribution table.

That equals 6.9% of the 772-company dataset in the article country table.

Israel accounts for 48 selected companies in the country distribution table.

That equals 6.2% of the 772-company dataset in the article country table.

Finland accounts for 40 selected companies in the country distribution table.

That equals 5.2% of the 772-company dataset in the article country table.

Denmark accounts for 30 selected companies in the country distribution table.

That equals 3.9% of the 772-company dataset in the article country table.

Italy accounts for 30 selected companies in the country distribution table.

That equals 3.9% of the 772-company dataset in the article country table.

Belgium accounts for 29 selected companies in the country distribution table.

That equals 3.8% of the 772-company dataset in the article country table.

Ireland accounts for 29 selected companies in the country distribution table.

That equals 3.8% of the 772-company dataset in the article country table.

Austria accounts for 17 selected companies in the country distribution table.

That equals 2.2% of the 772-company dataset in the article country table.

Norway accounts for 17 selected companies in the country distribution table.

That equals 2.2% of the 772-company dataset in the article country table.

Portugal accounts for 16 selected companies in the country distribution table.

That equals 2.1% of the 772-company dataset in the article country table.

United Kingdom accounts for 13 selected companies in the country distribution table.

That equals 1.7% of the 772-company dataset in the article country table.

Poland accounts for 10 selected companies in the country distribution table.

That equals 1.3% of the 772-company dataset in the article country table.