Startup Support Programs
What’s the Difference?

Startup support come in many shapes and forms: FFF, investors, advisors, mentors, pre-accelerators, accelerators, incubators, co-working spaces, courses, workshops, startup weekends, business creation competitions, hackathons, and many more - and they differ by motivation, funding model, stage focus, resource requirements, and their risk profile.

This guide will be focused on the more structured approaches that can be replicated and thus turned in to managable support programs, in part or as a portfolio of programs.

Support Types by Motivation

Courses and Workshops
Summary

Courses and workshops are among the most common tools used to support entrepreneurship and startup creation. They range from academic entrepreneurship courses and corporate innovation trainings to practical workshops on topics like how to build working prototypes with AI, Lean Startup/Innovation, Design Thinking, Customer Development, pitching and convincing stakeholders, fundraising, and business modeling.

As startup support instruments, they are useful for transferring knowledge, building awareness, and introducing methods and tools. They help participants understand basic concepts, language, and frameworks, avoid common mistakes and help them reduce risk, and increase the speed of execution and iterations. For organizations, they are relatively cheap and easy to organize and scale, and they can reach many people in a short period of time.

Courses and workshops work especially well as entry points into a broader support journey, preparing participants for deeper engagement in incubators, pre-accelerators, accelerators, or internal innovation programs.

Despite their popularity, courses and workshops have limitations when used as the only or stand-alone mechanism for startup support:

• Learning without doing: Participants can leave with slides, frameworks, and theory but little real-world practice. Without projects, customers, and experiments, the learning remains abstract.
• No long-term follow-up: One-off workshops rarely include structured follow-up, mentoring, or accountability. Initial enthusiasm fades quickly without a path to apply what was learned.
• Weak impact on actual ventures: Courses may award grades or certificates, but they often do not drive real progress on live startup projects or innovation initiatives.
• Misleading success metrics: High attendance and good feedback scores can create a false sense of impact, even if few participants start or grow real companies afterward.
• Limited behavior change: Changing how people work (e.g. adopting experimentation, customer discovery, or evidence-based decision making) requires ongoing support, not just a single session.
• Dependence on individual instructors: Quality varies dramatically between facilitators; when a strong instructor leaves, the perceived impact often drops sharply.
• Risk of “innovation theatre”: Workshops can become a box-ticking exercise to show that “something is being done about innovation here" — without creating structural change or measurable outcomes.
• No answer to "next steps": Stand-alone trainings that are not a part of a portfolio of other "next step" answers like incubators, pre-accelerators, accelerators, or similar "next step" support programs, fail to convert interest, skills, and enthusiasm into meaningful startup or project dealflow^§.

As a result, courses and workshops are best viewed as integral components of a support program, but are not a support program in themselves, not substitutes for more structured and managed longer-term startup or innovation programs.

Courses and workshops are valuable tools for awareness, education, and skill-building in entrepreneurship and innovation. They can effectively introduce methods, align language, and activate interest among employees, students, or founders.

Workshops and courses as stand-alone or one-off initiatives are not sufficient to produce meaningful startup creation or measurable innovation outcomes, but their impact and effectiveness increase dramatically when they play their part in a broader context that includes structured programs, coaching and mentoring, peer feedback, and opportunities for further support / funding, and growth such as incubators, pre-accelerators, accelerators, and internal corporate innovation / venture programs can provide.

Hackathons and similar events
Summary

Hackathons and "Startup Weekend"-like events are short, high-energy, time-boxed gatherings where participants form teams, brainstorm ideas, build prototypes, and pitch concepts — usually within 1 to 3 days, usually with very low entry criteria (if any). These events focus on speed, creativity, experimentation, and collaboration, attracting students, developers, designers, first-time founders, and corporate innovators.

As startup support tools, they work well for inspiration, community building, rapid ideation, and sometimes providing suggested solutions to existing identified problems. They help people experience entrepreneurship in a low-risk setting, create initial momentum, and sometimes surface promising ideas or teams that can move on to incubators or pre-accelerators.

For organizations and ecosystems, these events are powerful tools for engagement, visibility, motivation, employer branding, and early talent identification. They can energize internal staff, strengthen local startup culture, and create public excitement around startup entrepreneurship and innovation.

While hackathons and other similar events are valuable for inspiration and early activation, they have limitations and should not be mistaken for full startup support programs:

• Little long-term support: The event ends quickly, and most teams disband without follow-up, mentorship, or structure to continue their ideas.
• Optimized for excitement, not validation: Teams often build what is easiest to demo, not what the market needs. Customer discovery is rarely integrated.
• Prototype theater: Impressive demos can mask the lack of a viable problem, business model, or commitment from the team.
• No accountability: After the event, there are no milestones, check-ins, or incentives to keep teams on track.
• Quality varies widely: Participants range from first-time hobbyists to experts, leading to wildly inconsistent outcomes.
• Short-term energy, limited depth: Events generate enthusiasm but rarely create sustainable ventures without additional structured "next step" support.
• High organizational effort: These events require significant logistics, marketing, facilitation, and volunteer support relative to the long-term value produced.

Because of these limitations, hackathons and Startup Weekend–style events are best used as activation tools - great for sparking interest, building community, generating early ideas, and identifying talent - but not sufficient as standalone mechanisms for startup creation or venture development.

Hackathons and Startup Weekend events are valuable for inspiration, rapid ideation, skills exposure, and community building. They are excellent starting points for identifying talent, forming early teams, activating internal innovation culture, and generating embryonic concepts.

However, they lack the structure, depth, continuity, and accountability needed to reliably produce viable startups. They are most effective when combined with incubators, pre-accelerators, accelerators, or corporate innovation programs that can support teams beyond the initial spark, programs that provide the answer to "what's next" after the hackathon ended.

Co-Working Spaces
Summary

Co-working spaces provide shared office environments where freelancers, early-stage founders, remote employees, and small teams work alongside one another. As a startup support system, their value lies in affordable workspace, flexible memberships, basic community benefits, and access to informal networking. They can help early founders reduce overhead, feel connected, and gain casual exposure to peers who may share knowledge or opportunities.

For ecosystems and organizations, co-working spaces can strengthen local visibility, foster entrepreneurial culture, and act as “soft infrastructure” that lowers the barrier to starting a business. They often serve as an entry point for founders who may later join incubators, accelerators, or structured programs.

Co-working spaces come with important downsides that limit their effectiveness as a stand-alone or single startup support program:

• Low depth of support:
  Little to no structured mentoring, training, or hands-on guidance.
• Not selective:
  Anyone can join, creating highly variable quality among founders and teams.
• Weak outcomes:
  No curriculum (or highly variable quality and availability according to regional supply and interest from 3rd party suppliers), milestones, or accountability means many founders stagnate.
• Inconsistent community:
  Engagement depends on tenant energy; without programming, it declines.
• Space-driven business model:
  Operators focus on occupancy, not startup success.
• No incentive for acceleration:
  Revenue / upside is detached from founder progress or outcomes, no "skin in the game".
• Potential distractions:
  Social environments and open layouts can hinder deep work.
• High operating costs:
  Real estate, staffing, and events make margins thin without full occupancy.
• Hard to financially sustain:
  Notoriously difficult model to run independently as a business.

As a result, co-working spaces are best viewed as infrastructure, community gateways, or a part of a larger strategy and portfolio of support programs rather than a complete stand-alone support system for startup creation or growth.

Co-Working spances work best when paired with structured programs such as incubators, accelerators, pre-accelerators, or corporate innovation initiatives that provide the guidance and accountability founders need. They do not work very well as a stand-alone Startup Support Program.

Accelerators vs Incubators
What’s the Difference?

Incubators, pre-accelerators, and accelerators all support startups, but they differ in duration, environment, selectivity, funding, and goals.

The core differences between incubators and accelerators used to be that incubators do not have a time-limit whereas accelerators do, and incubators do not provide funding but accelerators do (usually for equity in the funded ventures).

However, as all sorts of startup support programs have proliferated over time - for better or worse, the "provides funding" criteria has become diluted and disputed as to what makes it one or the other. Today, for all points and purposes, it remains relevant to be mindful of the "has time-limit" as must-pass criteria for calling a support program an "accelerator" - whereas the "provides funding" aspect might be up for debate (at least if you ask support programs and their stakeholders, perhaps not so much of a debate if you ask a startup in search of funding).

^†Fun fact: The industry-standard of 3 months is based on the length of a standard US visa, inadvertently set by the proto-accelerator YCombinator, later blindly copied around the world (although local visa regulations may differ).

Pre-Accelerators
Summary

Pre-accelerators are structured, time-limited startup support programs designed to help very early-stage teams validate their ideas before they commit fully to building a company or applying to an accelerator or seek to secure the first funding round from other sources.

They typically run for 5–12 weeks and combine teaching, mentoring, and intensive customer development. A Pre-Accelerator program is designed to function as a fitness or readyness program for startups planning to apply for an accelerator - most likely of the sort that also provides funding - or raising the first pre-seed or seed investment round from e.g. Business Angels or grants.

Programs like the Lean LaunchPad from Stanford focus on testing business model hypotheses through real customer interactions, rapid iteration, and evidence-based decision making. Instead of writing business plans, teams work through a repeatable cycle of:

• Hands-on experience
• Regular peer and mentor feedback
• Talking to actual customers
• Testing critical assumptions
• Running real experiments
• Building actual prototypes or MVPs
• Updating the product and business model according to actual learnings

Pre-accelerator programs sit between courses, incubators, and accelerators: They are more structured, practical, and selective than trainings, provide much more structure and expectations than an incubator and have a clear time-limit - but less selective than accelerators and do not usually provide funding.

Pre-Accelerator Traits
Common Aspects

1. Strong Focus on Validation

Pre-accelerators like e.g. the Lean LaunchPad require teams to get out of the building and into the real market to speak with real customers every week. This shifts founders away from just guessing and potentially spending all of their time and resources building something nobody wants or needs, toward evidence-based learning. Decision makers also benefit because teams emerge with clearer signals about whether their ideas are worth further support and investment: Data talks, BS walks.

2. Rapid Learning with Limited Risk

Because pre-accelerators are time-boxed and do not require equity investment, they can work as a powerful “high learning, low financial risk” solution. Organizations can support many early ideas, learn quickly which ones have potential, and avoid sinking time and money into concepts that do not resonate with customers (or corporate goals).

3. Clear Go/No-Go Decisions

Structured checkpoints and presentations (often weekly) force teams to clearly articulate and present evidence of what they have learned and how it changes their product or business model - or not - challenged by peers in the cohort, mentors, and program educators.

This also gives program management and leadership transparent, comparable insight into the speed of progress and potential of multiple teams in almost real-time.

4. Building Repeatable Innovation Skills

Pre-accelerators teach repeatable methods for opportunity discovery and validation. Participants learn how to frame hypotheses (guesses), design experiments to test their guesses, run interviews, and interpret evidence. These empirical skills are reusable: even if a specific idea fails, teams can apply the same approach to future innovation ventures.

5. Stronger Dealflow for Accelerators and Investors

For organizations running accelerators, venture funds, or corporate innovation programs, pre-accelerators serve as a high-quality filtering mechanism. Teams that complete Lean LaunchPad-style programs typically have:

• Better understanding of their customer segments and their problems/needs
• Validated or invalidated key assumptions (derisked)
• Early prototypes, MVP, or otherwise validated value propositions
• More realistic expectations of the startup / innovation journey
• +42% increase in fundability^**
• +87% survival rate^*** instead of the average 92% mortality rate

This makes them better candidates for investment, acceleration, or internal venture building.

6. Cultural Impact: Normalizing Experimentation

Inside companies and institutions, pre-accelerators can shift culture. By putting teams through a structured, experiment-driven process, they help normalize testing, iteration, and learning from customers as legitimate, rewarded behaviors. This can be particularly powerful in environments used to top-down planning and long decision cycles.

7. Measurable Outcomes and Transparency

Because pre-accelerators track interviews, experiments, and changes to the product and business model, they offer measurable progress beyond basic vanity metrics like attendance or satisfaction scores. Decision makers can see exactly how many assumptions were tested, what evidence was gathered, and how teams evolved their ideas - and how fast (or slow) each team is learning.

Pre-Accelerator
Fitness Check

Pre-accelerator programs are particularly valuable when goals include:

• Turning ideas and early concepts into real opportunities with a tangible Investment Readyness Level (IRL) score to base decisions on
• Creating stronger dealflow and a more structured pipeline for other "next step" programs like accelerators, internal ventures, or investment
• Embedding lean and agile methods in your organization or ecosystem
• Supporting students, researchers, or employees who are new to entrepreneurship
• Reducing the risk of funding or otherwise extending more support to untested ideas - that may be just mirages
• Increasing the number of initiatives AND the time to results - with up to 50 times the amount of results in the same time as conventional methods (tangible KPIs)
• Significantly increasing the success rates for funding of supported teams after programs end (tangible KPI)
• Meaningfully extending life-expectancy of supported teams after programs end (tangible KPI)

Pre-Accelerators is a good choices for universities, research institutions, corporate innovation units, startup hubs, ecosystems, and public agencies that want to move beyond awareness and training to create more fundable startups and ventures.

Premier programs like the Lean LaunchPad from Stanford are among the most effective tools for bridging the gap between education and execution. They combine structured teaching, mentoring, exposure to the market and real work to help teams rapidly test their ideas, learn from actual customers, and make evidence-based go/no-go decisions.

As part of a startup or innovation support portfolio, Pre-Accelerator programs create solid dealflow, stronger and more fundable teams, enabling better use of available resources and support for the next steps. They are a powerful choice if you want more than workshops and hackathons, but are not yet ready — or do not have as a goal - to run a full accelerator, or investment fund.

For incubators, a pre-accelerator program - either managed internally or offered in co-operation with an external 3rd party - can be a convenient and efficient "off-ramp" with application offered to members ready for the "next step", helping to counter the negative "life support" bias of the incubator model.

Startup Accelerators

A startup accelerator is a structured, time-limited program designed to help early-stage startups grow faster by providing intensive support, mentoring, and access to capital and networks. Compared to incubators, accelerators are shorter, more selective, and more performance-driven. They typically work with startups that already have a team and some early validation, and help them prepare for scale, investment, or major go-to-market milestones.

Accelerators usually run for 3–6 months, operate in cohorts (batches) (often 1-4 per year), and follow a structured curriculum that includes mentoring, workshops, and a showcase or Demo Day at the end. Many accelerators invest directly in the startups in exchange for equity, or are funded by investors, corporates, or public agencies who expect measurable outcomes.

They typically focus on:

• Teams with an early product, prototype, or traction
• Highly selective intake based on team and market potential
• Intense, time-boxed support with clear milestones
• Mentoring and network access (investors, customers, partners)
• Investment readiness and growth

Accelerators are common in venture capital, corporate innovation, and ecosystem-building initiatives where the goal is to create investable, scalable companies in a defined timeframe.

Startup Accelerator
Stakeholders

A startup accelerator may serve several stakeholder groups, each with different objectives:

• Startups & Founders – selected participants in the cohort
• Accelerator Operator & Program Management – team running the accelerator
• Investors & Limited Partners (LPs) – capital providers and sponsors
• Corporate Partners – industry players seeking innovation and collaboration
• Universities & Research Institutions – when involved as partners for dealflow sources
• Regional Ecosystem & Public Agencies – governments, development agencies, cluster organizations

Startup Accelerator
Stakeholder Value

1. Value to Startups & Founders

• Access to capital: seed funding or introductions to investors
• Intensive mentoring: structured access to experienced founders, investors, and domain experts
• Curriculum and workshops: fundraising, growth, sales, metrics, product, hiring, and more
• Network: investor networks, alumni, corporate partners, media
• Signal and credibility: graduation from a respected accelerator as a quality signal
• Time-boxed focus: a defined period to push hard toward specific milestones
• Demo Day or Investor Day: a stage to pitch in front of a curated audience

2. Value to Accelerator Operators & Management

• Portfolio creation: building a portfolio of startups (often with equity) for potential returns
• Brand and reputation: positioning as a key player in the startup ecosystem
• Dealflow engine: attracting many applicants and selecting the most promising teams
• Partnership platform: a structured way to collaborate with corporates, universities, and investors
• Alumni network: long-term relationships that compound in value over time

3. Value to Investors & Limited Partners (LPs)

• Curated dealflow: pre-screened startups that have gone through a structured program
• De-risking: teams with validated learning, clearer metrics, and better pitches
• Portfolio diversification: exposure to multiple startups through a single program
• Early access: ability to invest ahead of the broader market
• Visibility: association with innovation and a branded accelerator

4. Value to Corporate Partners

• Innovation scouting: early access to technologies, business models, and startups
• Strategic partnerships: pilots, POCs, and collaborations with startups
• Culture and talent: exposure of employees to entrepreneurial ways of working
• Brand and PR: visible involvement with innovation and entrepreneurship
• Learning lab: a safe space to test new ideas with external teams

5. Value to Universities & Research Institutions

• Commercialization path: a route for research spinouts and student ventures
• Partnerships: collaborations with investors and corporates around high-potential teams
• Enhanced reputation: as a source of high-quality startups and innovation
• Real-world learning opportunities: for students and faculty to engage with venture creation

6. Value to Regional Ecosystems & Public Agencies

• High-impact startup pipeline: startups with potential to grow and create jobs
• Increased visibility: for the region as a startup hub
• Economic growth: through new companies, investments, and further funding
• Stronger networks: between founders, investors, corporates, and institutions

Startup Accelerator
Risks

While accelerators can be powerful, they are not a universal solution — and there are important downsides and risks that you should understand if you are planning to launch one.

• Not suited for all startups: Some ventures, e.g. "deep tech" or complex B2B, may not fit the typical 3 month accelerator timeline or “demo day” model.
• Selection and quality challenges: If dealflow is weak or selection criteria are unclear, the program can fill cohorts but fail to produce strong outcomes.
• Cost and complexity: High-quality accelerators require substantial investment in staff, mentors, curriculum, events, and follow-up—often underestimated at the planning stage.
• Misaligned expectations: Corporate or public sponsors may expect quick, visible wins or direct financial returns, which can clash with the reality of startup timelines and risk levels.
• Over-accelerating teams: The intense pace and pressure to “look good by Demo Day” can push startups to optimize for fundraising and optics instead of real learning and sustainable models.
• Brand without substance: If the program is launched mainly for PR, without clear strategy or follow-through, it can damage credibility with founders and partners rather than build it.

Startup Accelerators
Summary

A startup accelerator is a fast, selective, time-boxed, growth program most often providing funding, some for equity - others without quid pro quo (see "Motivation" part in the table above for reference) designed to help early-stage startups become investable and scalable through intensive mentoring, structured support, and network access. It is a strong fit when your objectives include building a portfolio, driving visible innovation outcomes, strengthening dealflow, or positioning your organization as a serious player in the startup ecosystem.

However, accelerators are not a generic toolbox item. They require clear strategic goals, committed stakeholders, operational excellence, and realistic expectations about risk and timelines. For some organizations, an incubator, pre-accelerator, innovation program, or partnership model may be a better first step when starting from scratch.

Accelerators work best when there is sufficient dealflow, clear strategic objectives, strong operational capabilities, and realistic expectations from all stakeholders. Without these, they risk becoming expensive, underperforming “innovation theatres”.

Programs by Stage
What is Common and When?

Different support formats tend to concentrate at different stages, some more common than others.

Program Types Across Startup Stages

• Pre-startup (aspiration / intention): courses, startup weekends, competitions, hackathons.
• Business model discovery / very-early stage: courses, startup weekends, pre-accelerators, incubators, co-working.
• Early stage: accelerators, active seed investors, some incubators and co-working.
• Later stage: active seed investors, growth-oriented programs.

Some configurations are common, others less common or rare depending on region and ecosystem maturity.

Program Funding
Key Sources of Revenue

Startup support programs often rely on a mix of equity (in the program itself, from a Limited Partners (LP) Fund, from the funded/supported exited startups), rent, fees, sponsorship, public money, or, in rare cases a percentage of future earnings. The mix depends on program type and motivation.

Typical Funding Sources by Program Type

• Accelerator
  Most common: equity in participating startups, Limited Partners (LP) fund management fees, public money - depending on region e.g. Europe, sponsors..
  Less common: other fees, events, percentage of earnings, also depending on region - public money.
• Co-working space
  Most common: rent, sponsors, memberships.
  Less common: events, public money.
• Active seed
  Most common: equity, percentage of earnings.
  Less common: sponsors, public money.
• Competitions
  Most common: sponsors, public money.
  Less common: fees, events.
• Incubators
  Most common: rent, membership fees, public money.
  Less common: sponsors, events.
• Pre-Accelerators
  Most common: sponsors, public money, grants.
  Less common: equity, fees (sometimes fees are symbolic in size or used as a deposit that is paid back to participants if they don't drop out during the program).
• Courses
  Most common: fees.
  Less common: public money, sponsors.

Topology of Programs
by Stage and Motivation

Startup support can be mapped on a spectrum from pre-formation to later stage, and from growth-driven to rent/fee-driven to independent motivations.

• Pre-formation: courses, competitions, hackathons, some pre-accelerators.
• Very-early stage: advisors, pre-accelerators, ecosystem accelerators, incubators, some Business Angels.
• Early stage: accelerators, active pre-/seed investors (BA, some funds).
• Later stage: growth-oriented active seed investors with follow-on / growth-stage sized pockets, institutional investors (VC & CVC funds), PE, some corporate programs.

Different program types cluster at different combinations of stage and motivation: e.g. investor-led accelerators are growth-driven and early stage; co-working spaces are often fee-driven across multiple stages; competitions and courses can be independent and pre-formation.

Accelerators
The Archetypes

Research suggests at least five main archetypes of accelerators, defined by their primary stakeholders, goals, funding structures, and program designs.

1. Investor-Led Accelerators

Investor-led accelerators are funded by private investors (business angels, venture capital funds, corporate venture capital). Their objective is to bridge the equity gap between very early-stage projects and investable businesses. They provide seed financing in exchange for equity and focus on ventures likely to raise new rounds of capital and become attractive investment propositions.

Over time, some investor-led accelerators have shifted to selecting more developed startups (with some track record or pre-seed funding). Some specialise by sector to build deep expertise, many use mentors who are active angels themselves (often successful alumni) — sometimes described as “investors in disguise”.

Examples: Y Combinator, Techstars, Startupbootcamp, ProSiebenSat.1 Accelerator, Axel Springer Plug & Play Accelerator, L’Accélérateur.

2. Matchmaker Accelerators

Matchmaker accelerators are typically set up by corporates to provide a service to their own customers or stakeholders. The goal is not profit but to match potential customers with startups and strengthen relationships with key clients.

Corporates (e.g. banks, large enterprises) participate in the selection process. Mentors are often internal experts who help startups navigate corporate decision-making. These accelerators rarely provide direct funding; instead, they add value through access to customers and networks. Performance is often measured through soft indicators such as visibility, engagement, and symbolic actions (broadcasting, newsletters, showcase events).

Related: How to start Corporate Innovation Programs

Examples: FinTech Innovation Lab, Microsoft Ventures Accelerator.

3. Ecosystem Accelerators

Ecosystem accelerators are typically backed by government agencies or public bodies. Their primary goal is to stimulate startup activity within a region or technological domain, building an ecosystem rather than focusing on financial returns.

They often select ventures in very early stages, sometimes individuals with just an idea. They usually have the most developed curricula, offering training, workshops, and practical learning events. Mentors may be consultants or business developers who work hands-on with ventures to develop value propositions and commercialise technology.

Funding structures are often experimental, combining public schemes with attempts to develop sustainable revenue models (e.g. tuition fees, small equity stakes).

Examples: Climate-KIC, Le Camping, Bethnal Green Ventures, Scientipôle Croissance, the Digital Hubs of the state of NRW, DE.

4. Hybrid Accelerators

Hybrid accelerators combine elements from investor-led, matchmaker, and ecosystem models. They typically arise where multiple stakeholders (public sponsors (GOs), NGOs, corporates, and private investors) impose different objectives, leading to mixed funding models - and potentially conflicting goals.

For example, public schemes may require private co-funding, introducing investor growth model expectations into an ecosystem model. This can make it difficult for small accelerator teams to manage dual (or more) objectives - and still maintain a coherent strategy.

Examples: Bethnal Green Ventures, MIT The Engine.

5. Optionality Model

This newer archetype focuses on s funding model that provided more symmetrical optionality for investors and founders, enabling both equity-based and revenue-based returns. This can support both classic “unicorn track” startups and tech-enabled “real businesses” that don’t fit the classic VC thesis.

These models challenge traditional venture capital (VC), which can force startups onto a high-growth, exit-oriented trajectory - even when it may not be the right thing for the founders. Optionality models allow more transparent and flexible terms where the founders get to chose if the investment converts into equity on new rounds or into revenue/profit sharing, and often include equity buy-back plans, aiming to give founders more control (and potentially bigger returns) while still delivering returns to investors. This model is also sometimes called "fund-strapping" (raise once, scale later with revenue/ambition).

Since this is a relatively new model, no set of standards or common traits have emerged - and it remains to see how successful it is going to be as a model over time (+10 years).

Examples: indie.vc, TinySeed, Earnest Capital.

Accelerator Traits
Common Aspects

1. Investment:
   Often offers upfront investment, anything from 10k–200k, usually in exchange for 5–10% equity.
2. Fixed time:
   Time-limited support (most often three to six months) with programmed events and intensive mentoring.
3. Darwinism:
   Open application process, in principle, but highly competitive.
4. Cohort-based:
   Focus on cohorts or classes of startups (1-4/y) rather than ad-hoc individual investments.
5. Team-focused:
   Strong emphasis on small founding teams; single founders are rarely selected if eligible to apply at all.
6. Stop/Go / "Next Step" event:
   Graduations culminate in invite-only Demo Days or Investor Days for LPs, alumni, and other stakeholders where the goal is to secure further funding (at top terms) or (most likely) fail.

Accelerator Components
Five Important Aspects

1. Strategic Focus

Strategic focus is shaped by funders and stakeholders. Objectives differ if the accelerator is backed primarily by private investors, corporates, or public funders. Choices include:

• Key Objectives: returns, dealflow, ecosystem development, talent pipelines, corporate innovation.
• Sector focus: generic vs. specialised in a specific industry (e.g. fintech, retail, health-tech).
• Geographic focus: local vs regional vs national vs continental vs global programs.

2. Program Package

The program package typically includes a standardised curriculum and a mentoring model:

• Training on topics such as finance, user design, PR, marketing, legal, etc.
• Workshops, talks, and events with experts and practitioners.
• Regular counselling (e.g. weekly office hours) for business assistance and progress reviews.
• Investor or customer-oriented Demo Days.
• Co-location in shared open office space to encourage peer learning.
• Carefully vetted mentors, matched to ventures via structured processes.

3. Funding Structure

Funding has two dimensions:

• Funding of the accelerator: shares, LP capital, public money, sponsorships, events, and other revenue streams.
• Funding of startups: small equity investments, sometimes with follow-on funding available via angel (including successful alumni) syndicates, standard LP funds, or other side vehicles.

4. Selection Process

Startups are usually selected in batches via open calls. Screening can range from simple two-step processes to multi-stage selection involving external stakeholders.

• Online applications via platforms like F6S, Fundacity, AngelList, etc.
• Active scouting at startup events and competitions.
• Selection committees that include mentors, investors, and alumni.
• Strong emphasis on team quality – often more important than the initial idea.

5. Alumni Service & Network

Many accelerators invest heavily in alumni relationships:

• Regular alumni events, meetups, and opportunities to give back.
• Ongoing support for portfolio companies (especially where the accelerator holds equity), including legal, PR, lobbying, etc.
• Alumni networks (including digital tools like internal members-only "Facebooks") that become sources of aggregated knowledge, alumni as mentors and investors, insider information (e.g. investor blacklists), and new opportunities.
• Prestige and brand effects (e.g. Y Combinator’s alumni status as a strong signal).

Program Implementation
Key Implications

1. Choose the Right Type of Program

Not all programs are the same. Choose the type that alignes the closest with your objectives (e.g. capital vs. customer access vs. ecosystem support). Use the archetype framework as a guide to identify a suitable program design.

2. Different Objectives Require Different Metrics

Policymakers and funders should not evaluate all accelerators with the same metrics. Investor-led programs seeking financial returns differ structurally from ecosystem accelerators focused on regional development and employment. Short-term profitability is often unrealistic for the latter.

3. Corporate Accelerators Need to Balance Dual Objectives

If you are planning a corporate accelerator, keep in mind that this variety usually have multiple tiers of stakeholders and must usually deliver on multiple different goals: technology scouting, talent pipelines, customer engagement, sometimes financial returns, etc. This dual (or rather multiple) objective structure requires different designs than investor-led startup accelerators, including e.g. different education, programs, coaching profiles, and KPIs.

See our "How to Start a Corporate Innovation Program" primer for more information on corporate support programs.

4. Be Very Clear About Vision & Objectives

Universities, companies, and development agencies interested in starting accelerators should be aware that without a clear vision and strategy, such a support program initiative risk being unsustainable. The objectives - like promotion of entrepreneurship, job creation, dealflow, innovation, etc — must be explicit and matched to their funding and program design.

5. Need for Limits to Avoid the “Life Support” Trap

Traditional incubators have sometimes been criticised for acting as life support, keeping tenants artificially alive mainly to fill space and secure rent. Time-limited accelerator programs, especially when they invest in startups, have an incentive to push for either growth - aka securing another round of funding and increasing valuation - or a clear failure, shortening the journey and avoiding indefinite “suspended animation” and clear red flags for further funding.

Conclusion:
A Support Program Design Framework
10 Questions to Answer

Designing a successful startup support program requires credible answers to these 10 key strategic and operational questions:

1. Mission:
   What will your program do?
2. Scope:
   Will you have a specific sector, technology, or geographic focus?
3. Funding:
   How will you be funded and will you offer funding to startups (and how if so)?
4. Value:
   If not funding, what unique value (USP) are you offering to startups?
5. Dealflow:
   How will you recruit startups?
6. Selection:
   How will you manage the selection process?
7. Program & Structure:
   What support will you offer startups (curriculum, mentoring, space, funding)?
8. Networks:
   What and how will you connect startups to (customers, investors, partners)?
9. Alumni:
   How will you support startups after the program ends?
10. Evaluation:
    How will you measure and track the impact of your program?

A clear, aligned framework across these dimensions increases the chances that your startup support program will be both effective and sustainable.

Need help with designing, evaluating, or improving your startup support program?
Let's talk!

Send us an email at you@plusandersen.com, call us on +49 151 40 133 149, or see plusandersen.com