The Funding Maze: A Practical Guide to Danish and EU Grants for Deep-Tech Startups
What I wish someone had told me before I started writing my first grant application.
Between 2015 and 2024, I raised funding from nearly every major programme available to a Danish deep-tech startup. InnoBooster. InnoFounder. Industrial PhD. EIC Accelerator. Regional grants. EU Eurostars. Private VCs. And finally, a PE acquisition.
Some of those applications sailed through. Others were rejected multiple times before succeeding. A few I wouldn’t bother with if I had to do it again.
Now that I sit on the other side — as a member of the Innovation Fund Denmark InnoBooster evaluation panel — I see the same mistakes I used to make repeated by every new cohort of applicants. This post is an attempt to save you some time.
The landscape: what’s available and what it’s for
If you’re a science-based or deep-tech startup in Denmark, you have access to one of the better public funding ecosystems in Europe. But the programmes serve different purposes, and applying to the wrong one wastes everyone’s time.
InnoFounder is for very early-stage — you’re still at the idea or prototype phase, probably still at a university or research institution. It’s essentially a salary for 12 months so you can work full-time on validating your concept. It’s personal, not company-level funding.
InnoBooster is the workhorse grant for Danish startups. It co-funds specific development projects — you put up matching funding (cash or in-kind), and Innovation Fund Denmark covers a portion. Typical grants range from a few hundred thousand to a couple of million DKK. This is where most deep-tech startups should start.
EIC Accelerator (formerly SME Instrument) is the EU-level programme. It’s significantly larger — up to €2.5 million in grant plus up to €15 million in equity — but also significantly harder to get. When we won it at RadiSurf, we were one of 119 selected from 2,130 applicants. The acceptance rate fluctuates, but expect single-digit percentages.
Eurostars requires a cross-border consortium (at least two companies from two countries) and is focused on collaborative R&D. Good for deep-tech companies that already have international partners or customers who want to co-develop something.
Grand Solutions from Innovation Fund Denmark is for larger, more strategic projects — usually involving universities and multiple industry partners. Less relevant for early-stage startups, more for companies with an established research track record.
The three mistakes everyone makes
Having now read applications from both sides of the table, the same three problems come up again and again:
Mistake 1: Leading with the technology. Scientists love their science. I get it — I have a PhD in nanoscience, and I can talk about polymer brushes for hours. But evaluators are not reviewing your paper for a journal. They want to know: what problem does this solve? Who has this problem? How big is the market? How will you make money? Lead with the business case. Put the technology in the supporting section.
Mistake 2: Vague commercialisation plans. “We will target the European market” is not a plan. “We will approach the top 15 automotive adhesive suppliers in Germany through direct sales, starting with the three we’ve already had pilot discussions with” is a plan. Evaluators can tell the difference between someone who has talked to customers and someone who hasn’t.
Mistake 3: Underestimating the team section. The team is often the deciding factor between two equally strong applications. If you’re a solo technical founder with no commercial experience, that’s a red flag. Evaluators want to see that someone on the team knows how to sell, manage finances, and build a business — not just run experiments. If you don’t have that person yet, be honest about it and explain how you’ll address the gap.
Timing and strategy
The meta-game of startup funding is about sequencing. Here’s a rough playbook that worked for us:
Phase 1: Grant-funded validation. Use InnoFounder or early InnoBooster grants to validate your concept, build a prototype, and talk to potential customers. This phase is about de-risking — proving that the technology works outside the lab and that someone will pay for it.
Phase 2: Larger grants + first revenue. Apply for bigger InnoBooster grants or EU programmes as you gain traction. Ideally, you have at least some customer validation (letters of intent, pilot agreements, early revenue) before going for EIC Accelerator.
Phase 3: Private capital. Once you have grant-funded proof points and early revenue, you’re in a much stronger position to raise from VCs. Grants have already de-risked the technology for them, and your traction demonstrates market pull.
Phase 4: Scale. Larger rounds, growth capital, PE involvement, or strategic exits. This is where the earlier phases pay off.
What I tell founders now
When founders come to me for advice on fundraising, I usually start with three questions:
1. Where are you in the sequence? Don’t apply for EIC Accelerator if you haven’t validated your concept with customers yet. Don’t approach VCs if you haven’t de-risked with grant funding first. Each stage builds on the previous one.
2. What’s your matching capacity? Most grants require co-funding. If you don’t have the cash (or credible in-kind contributions), the application will be weak regardless of how good the technology is.
3. Can you afford the time? A serious EIC Accelerator application takes weeks of full-time work. An InnoBooster application is lighter but still significant. If you’re a solo founder trying to build a product, serve customers, and write grant applications simultaneously, something will suffer. Budget the time honestly.
The Danish and European funding landscape is genuinely supportive of deep-tech innovation. But it’s not free money — it’s an investment of time, effort, and strategic planning. Approach it like you’d approach any other business decision: with a clear goal, realistic timelines, and a willingness to learn from the applications that don’t succeed.
Because there will be applications that don’t succeed. I’ve had plenty. That’s just another one of the 10,000 ways that don’t work — and each one teaches you something for the next.
Mikkel Kongsfelt sits on the Innovation Fund Denmark InnoBooster evaluation panel and has raised from most major Danish and EU funding programmes. He advises deep-tech startups on fundraising and strategy through 10000 WAYS ApS.