The EIC Accelerator Step 1 short proposal is the first competitive gate in the application process, but its detailed results have historically received much less attention than the full-proposal and jury stages. Data obtained through an information request to the European Commission provides a broader view of how Step 1 has developed since 2021, including proposal volumes, GO decisions, country differences and sector patterns.
The central finding is that Step 1 has become substantially more selective. Its overall success rate moved from approximately 58% in 2021 to roughly 21% in 2025. Applicants should therefore treat the short proposal as a serious competitive assessment rather than a light registration step before the full application.
Why Step 1 Was Introduced
The short-proposal stage was introduced in 2021 when the EIC Accelerator application process was redesigned. Before that change, applicants generally moved directly to a full proposal and then, if successful, to an interview. Step 1 added an initial screening stage intended to identify promising companies before they invested the considerably greater effort required for the full proposal.
In the original evaluation model, an applicant could pass by convincing two of four evaluators. The threshold was later raised so that three of four evaluators had to return a GO. That change alone made the stage more selective because a split evaluator decision was no longer sufficient.
Step 1 Success Rates by Year
| Year | Approximate Step 1 success rate | Context |
|---|---|---|
| 2021 | 58% | Launch year with a continuously open call and no conventional deadline batches |
| 2022 | 63% | Highest annual rate in the reviewed period |
| 2023 | 60% | Still close to the original pass rate |
| 2024 | 33% | The higher evaluator threshold made the stage substantially harder |
| 2025 | 21% | Approximately one in five short proposals received a GO |
More than 5,000 Step 1 applications were submitted in 2021 and more than 3,000 received a GO. The later fall in the success rate does not mean that every suitable deep-tech company has only a one-in-five chance. The aggregate includes applications that do not fit the programme, sit at the wrong Technology Readiness Level or fail to present a convincing case. A strong fit, credible narrative and well-developed proposal can place an applicant above the average, but the headline rate shows that quality cannot be postponed until Step 2.
Application Volume Is Not the Same as Application Quality
Italy submitted the largest number of Step 1 proposals in the country data, with more than 2,000 applications, but achieved an overall success rate of approximately 26%. This demonstrates that a high number of applications does not automatically translate into a high conversion rate.
Several lower-volume countries performed much better. Iceland approached an 80% success rate, while Norway and Israel were close to 70%; France also approached 70%, and Sweden, Finland and Austria were among the stronger performers. Small samples must be interpreted carefully, but the differences are large enough to show that national applicant volume and proposal quality are separate variables.
What Zero-Percent Countries Show
The data also contains countries with applications but no Step 1 GO decisions, including Kosovo, Albania, Colombia, Egypt, Moldova and Brazil. Some are neither EU Member States nor countries associated with Horizon Europe. A company established in a non-associated country may submit a short proposal if it intends to establish an eligible legal entity before the full-proposal stage, which explains why such countries can appear in the Step 1 dataset.
These figures should not be used as broad judgments about national innovation quality. A country with six applications provides too little evidence for a meaningful comparison with countries submitting hundreds or thousands of proposals.
Which Sectors Submit the Most Step 1 Proposals?
Health is the leading sector in the Step 1 data, followed by information and communication technology, engineering and technology. MedTech and biotechnology have a natural fit with the EIC Accelerator because their long development cycles, clinical requirements, intellectual property and capital needs make the financing gap easy to demonstrate.
ICT also produces a high application volume because software companies are numerous and comparatively inexpensive to start. Software is not automatically excluded from the EIC Accelerator, but applicants must explain why their technology is difficult to reproduce, capital-intensive to develop or grounded in a defensible body of technical work.
Energy, transport, consumer technology, environmental sciences and other industries are also represented. The EIC Accelerator does not select projects through a simple industry ranking; it looks for individual companies with breakthrough technology, a strong European relevance, a credible market opportunity and a clear need for EIC support.
What Applicants Should Take From the Data
- Step 1 is no longer an easy filter: the recent aggregate success rate is close to 20%.
- Evaluator consensus matters: three of four evaluators must be convinced.
- Country volume does not predict success: high-submission countries can have relatively weak conversion rates.
- Sector fit helps but does not decide the outcome: health and ICT lead by volume, while strong projects can emerge from many industries.
- The proposal must already tell the complete strategic story: breakthrough character, market timing, European value and implementation credibility all matter at the first stage.
For the complete underlying tables and additional gender, geographic and sector analysis, see the detailed EIC Accelerator Step 1 statistics.
