Login to Continue Learning
Europe’s deep tech future depends on evolving investment strategies. Traditional funding models struggle with the long-term financial commitments required by innovation, even though there are significant scientific advancements and early commercialization efforts in place. The region still lags behind the US and Asia in bringing lab breakthroughs to market.
To maintain a competitive industry, Europe needs to advance technologies like AI, robotics, synthetic biology, and quantum computing, which form the core of deep tech. These technologies aren’t just profitable; they can transform the world—from cochlear implants restoring hearing to aerospace missions to Mars. However, none of these advances happen without patient, long-term investment in science, engineering, and design.
Startups focused on rapid-deployment SaaS or consumer apps can attract early investment due to their quick commercialization. In contrast, deep tech faces a “valley of death” driven by lengthy R&D cycles, high upfront costs, and greater risk tolerance than traditional software ventures.
### Why Classic VC Struggles with Deep Tech
Traditional software startups typically follow a familiar funding cycle: raising a 10-year fund, deploying capital over three to five years, and aiming for exits within five to seven years. Startups define success based on rapid growth, scalability, and low capital requirements.
Deep tech cannot fit into this traditional financial mold. Development cycles often exceed a decade, requiring numerous certifications and tests due to regulations in healthcare, energy, and aerospace. Generalist VCs rarely invest here because of the need for patient capital.
Most deep tech companies must overcome specific industrial and geographical thresholds. For example, a French aerospace firm lacks the infrastructure to attract traditional funding as easily as a US giant like Delta.
Established investment models present several obstacles:
1. Pressure for visible traction often forces startups to pivot from deep tech to commercial projects.
2. Traditional VCs lack expertise in evaluating complex projects.
3. Europe has smaller funds for upfront and long-term costs.
4. The “valley of death” makes it difficult to cover R&D from public funds.
5. EU investors tend to be risk-averse due to the stigma of failure.
6. Fragmentation within the industry slows funding.
7. Foreign entities often step in at late-stage rounds, frequently taking tech to other countries.
Another challenge is deep tech’s reliance on education. Traditional startup leaders typically have two to three years of higher education, but deep tech founders need five to seven years due to the complexity of their projects. Over 81% of deep tech founders believe European investors lack knowledge to understand these in-depth details.
There simply isn’t enough money. A €150 million European fund can only write a few €10-€15 million checks, which are insufficient for building complex technologies like gigafactories or scaling new fusion plants. This mismatch drives systemic underfunding and stalled startups, leading to lost world-changing innovations.
### The Evidence: When VC Fails Deep Tech
The mismatch between VCs and deep tech isn’t theoretical. Here are some real-world examples:
– **Prophesee in France**: Created neuromorphic vision sensors but entered judicial recovery after failing to secure additional funding despite massive global recognition.
– **Mycorena in Sweden**: Failed due to inability to secure Series B funding, ultimately acquired for next to nothing.
– **Blickfeld in Germany**: Filed for insolvency as revenue growth was too slow to meet the demands of patient capital.
### What’s Emerging Instead: New Investment Models
For Europe to capitalize on deep tech, new funding models are needed:
1. **Government-backed & Hybrid Schemes**: Replicate EIC’s investment strategy with grants, equity, and hybrid investments like EIC Accelerators offering up to €17.5 million per company.
2. **Public-Private Partnerships**: Pool resources to expand the development timeline, boosting financial support for proofs of concept and market launches.
3. **Corporate Venture Capital (CVC)**: Strategic investment arms from companies like Volkswagen, Airbus, Siemens, and Bosch offer both financial support and technical expertise.
4. **Family Offices & Alternative Private Investors**: These entities can back companies from inception to scale with less traditional fund constraints.
5. **Venture Studios & University-Linked Funds**: Ecosystems ensure university research transitions to scalable businesses.
### Missing Innovation: Financial Tools
Despite progress, innovative financial solutions are lacking in Europe:
1. **IP-backed Loans**
2. **R&D Pre-purchase Agreements**
3. **Revenue-based Financing**
4. **Advance Market Commitments**
These tools are not yet widely used and struggle with scaling challenges, regulatory uncertainty, and risk aversion.
### Global Contrast: Practical Funding
The US and Israel use practical funding solutions:
1. Helion Energy raised $425 million for advanced fusion systems over three years.
2. Climeworks benefited from revenue-based financing through corporate carbon offset agreements.
3. Phantom Energy uses IP-backed loans to enable prototyping without dilution.
### What Europe Needs to Change
Europe must adopt new models and increase patient capital:
1. Pan-European “evergreen” funds
2. Growth-stage vehicles
3. Public-private platforms
Incremental steps are insufficient; funding needs to be more flexible, accommodating longer development cycles, and reducing failure risks.
### From Paradox to Progress
Europe has a strong scientific community and vibrant startup scene. Direct action is needed to scale deep tech ventures and address structural funding gaps:
1. Transform the venture capital model
2. Foster collaboration and co-investment
3. Harmonize regulations and speed up grant distribution
4. Build technical investing talent for both VCs and startups
Europe must adapt its investment ecosystem to unlock the full potential of deep tech.
