The State of European Tech Report 2019 PDF

In Partnership with &
The State of
European Tech
The most comprehensive data-driven
analysis of European technology
stateofeuropeantech.com
www.stateofeuropeantech.com 1 In Partnership with &

2019 Key Findings

01 Key findings
CAPITAL INVESTED IN EUROPE
We are on track to surpass $110B capital

invested in Europe since 2015
Cumulative investments by European cities ($M), 2015 - 2019 9M
Click here
to explore our interactive charts on our website.
3
Countries (United Kingdom, Germany and France)
29
Cities across Europe attracting over $100M of capital
surpassed $10B cumulative capital invested since 2015 invested in 2019 alone

01 Key findings
$B+ COMPANIES
Meet Europe’s billion-dollar

success stories
Cumulative number of VC-backed European tech companies by country
and by year of reaching a $B+ valuation
Click here
20
countries with a VC-backed tech company reaching
100%
of $B+ European tech companies founded after 2010
a $B+ valuation were VC-backed

01 Key findings
VC FUNDS RAISED
We had another record year in 2018 with

European VCs raising more than $13 billion
Cumulative VC funds raised 2010-2014 vs. 2015-2019

Cumulative VC funds raised ($B) for selected time periods
(includes 'unclassifieds')
Click here
$50B
funds raised by European VCs from 2015-2019 H1
$902M
record investments by pension funds in European
VC in 2018

01 Key findings
EUROPEAN TECH FOUNDERS
We surveyed more than 1,200

founders from across Europe
- explore the dataset!
European founders survey responses (anonymised)
Click here
81%
lived comfortably/met basic expenses with extra left over
21%
of founder respondents self-identify as female

01 Key findings
DIVERSITY & INCLUSION
There is no material improvement in the

share of capital invested in European tech
companies going to diverse founding teams.
Capital invested ($B) by founding team gender and round size, 2015-2019
Click here
$92
in every $100 invested in Europe went to founding teams
1 in 12
For every woman executive, there are 12 men executives
that are all men

01 Key findings
PURPOSE
Purpose-driven investment
There are more than 500 European tech companies founded since 2005
that are tackling at least one of the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals
as a core part of their mission.
Click here
$4.4B
capital invested in purpose-driven European tech
12.3%
of total capital invested into European tech in 2019,
companies in 2019 more than double any previous years

The State of
European Tech 2019
Why can’t Europe do tech?

It’s time to stop asking this question. We have irrefutable evidence
that the European tech ecosystem can support great companies.
We’re seeing a growing band of big investment rounds, and an
increase in ‘purpose-driven’ companies attacking some of the
world’s biggest challenges, and a pool of developer talent bigger
than the US Yet challenges - such as a lack of diversity and divergent
priorities between policymakers and the public - remain.

5 Years of SoET
A Foreword to the 2019 Report
Much has changed since we presented the first State of European Tech report in
2015. That year, President Obama was marking the first anniversary of the climate
agreement with China, while the European Council was reflecting on UK Prime
Minister David Cameron’s letter outlining the UK’s future relationship with the bloc.
The future has a habit of making a mockery of past predictions, but sometimes
they do hit the mark. Back then we believed that tech in Europe had experienced
a breakthrough year which would become the platform for greater success.
This belief was not misplaced.
At this point, we were amongst a growing but still limited number If we can ensure that all demographics and experiences feel safe
of people who truly believed in the ecosystem’s potential. and confident to participate, we will have a huge competitive
Belief is as vital as talent or capital when it comes to building tech advantage over other parts of the world that are less inclusive.
companies. However, in 2015, belief in the European ecosystem
We hope this report is a useful piece of research which acts as
was limited to the European tech industry itself.
an evidence-based riposte to lazy clichés about the ability of
Fast forward to 2019, and while the world’s media may have focused Europeans to build tech companies. However, this report isn’t the
on Chinese-US trade disputes and volatility on the public markets, last or only word on European tech. We encourage you to take the
European tech has quietly increased its number of external time to travel to the cities beyond those you’d normally visit, and
believers. We see this everywhere, from the increased time top US live and breathe the wide and varied tech scenes that together
investors are spending on the ground here to the fact that a fifth represent the biggest driver of economic growth across Europe.
of European rounds this year had at least one US or Asian investor
We write this report to shine a light on the European tech system.
participating - a proportion which grows as the deal size increases.
It deliberately provides a macro look at the landscape, and is
VCs are reporting increasing interest from global LPs, while
intended as a study useful to as many people as possible.
previously unconvinced European Institutional Investors are now
This means we have to sacrifice the telling of many granular
fully engaged. We’re also seeing valuations and pre-emptive term
stories that really bring European tech to life. The fact is, every hub
sheets on the increase in Europe - always a sign that competition
has its own incredible story with its own micro cast of founders,
to invest in the best tech companies is accelerating, as well as a
employees, companies, investors and universities helping to
reflection on the quality of the opportunity.
advance tech locally as well as regionally.
In fact, European tech companies are performing at a level
Here at Atomico, we have invested in 20 European cities in 15
exceeding the expectations of all but the most optimistic. In
countries, but we are very mindful of the fact we have blindspots.
2015, we celebrated $10B of investment into the region’s tech
Each year we’re delighted that European tech is getting more
companies. This year, $35B seems par for the course. That year,
interconnected - it’s on each of us to bring this to fruition, and
our report concerned itself with the late-stage funding gap: in
to ensure these connections continue to be made. By building
2019, 40 different European tech companies were able to raise
a density of talent and experience, we’ll see the European tech
$100M+ rounds. To date, there are now at least 174 European tech
community’s common knowledge more efficiently passed on to
companies that have scaled to a valuation of over $1B - including
future and current generations of European founders.
99 venture-backed companies.
Doing this will help us achieve density in Europe: by ensuring
However, we can’t afford to be complacent - or to lose focus.
talented developers and researchers are being matched with
Now that we’ve instilled the external as well as internal belief,
capital evenly across the continent, our already rapid progress
it’s up to us to shape our own destiny when it comes to the future
will accelerate still more.
of European tech. We hope this report provides inspiration and
guidance: we need to address our D&I issues, acknowledge the When we started in 2015, we believed that European success
importance of well-being, foster a generation of purpose-driven was being ignored. Today, belief in European tech comes from both
companies, reinforce the density of our networks of people outside our ecosystem as well as from within. It’s accepted that
and capital, and end the disconnect between policymakers and you can raise the money you need, hire the best team, and scale
founders. internationally without having to migrate to the US. In fact, nothing
demonstrates this shift more than the influx of US capital to the
A word on our D&I issues: we won’t realise our full potential
ecosystem - commitments to European VC funds from US LPs
until we stop squandering talent and value.
increased five-fold in 2018.

02.1 5 Years of SOET
That said, we do need to make sure we don’t fixate on the US We have much to be proud of, and much to work on.
or even China. We need to chart our own course and build our
This year we celebrate the fifth birthday of our report. More
own tech ecosystem upon our own strengths and values. Our
importantly, we are celebrating five years of astonishing growth
strong investor base, developing from seed to growth stage, has
in the European tech ecosystem. A comparison between where
contributed to a real diversification of European tech. As you’ll see,
we are now with where we were in 2015 shows how far Europe has
where once we were mostly consumer, we’ve developed a strength
come: from the proliferation of unicorns to our deepening pools
in areas like enterprise software and frontier tech too.
of talent, we have much to be proud of. Unfortunately, as the chart
Finally, we also hope that this report also serves another purpose below shows, we have not made nearly enough progress with our
- that it provides information which leads to genuine change and funding of teams with diverse leaders.
improvement in our ecosystem.
5 years ago Now

2010-2014 2015-2019
22 99
$1B+ VC-backed companies before 2015 $1B+ VC-backed companies now
$B+ COMPANIES
3 7
countries attracting $1b+ capital per year countries attracting $1b+ capital per year
UNICORNTRIES
$34B $113B
cum. 2010-2014 cum. 2015-2019
CAPITAL INVESTED
9 40
mega rounds in 2014 mega rounds in 2019
$100M+ ROUNDS
10% 21%
of rounds in 2014 % OF ROUNDS WITH 1+ of rounds in 2019
US OR ASIAN INVESTOR
76 148
2010-2014 2015-2019
EXITS >$100M
$25B >$50B
funds raised from LPs funds raised from LPs
VC FUNDS RAISED
4.7m 6.1m
4.1m for the United States PROFESSIONAL 4.3m for the United States
DEVELOPERS
7.2% 8.4%
of capital invested in 2014 % CAPITAL INVESTED IN of capital invested in 2019
MIXED/WOMEN TEAM

Executive Summary
The State of Diversity and Inclusion

This report shows that European diversity In 2019, 92% of funding went to all men teams, a similar level to
the figures which shocked readers last year. When you break
and inclusion is still not good enough. down the data by race, age, education and socioeconomic
background, we see more problems emerge: 43% of Black/
African/Caribbean founders have experienced discrimination
- of which 80% link it to their ethnicity. Black founders made
up only 1% (0.9%) of our more than 1,200 founder respondents,
which tells its own story.
We also found that people from a lower socioeconomic
background are less likely to become entrepreneurs: 81% of
founders surveyed told us they were living comfortably before
they founded their company, against a European norm of 39%.
What is also becoming increasingly clear is that women VCs
are being left to fix Europe’s diversity problem: 63% of women
VCs told us they increased their focus on attending events with
stronger participation of diverse founders, though only 36% of
men told us they had. This is particularly problematic as this
year’s report shows that VCs have not increased the share of
women at partner level.
One positive - in quantum computing, a rapidly growing deep
tech sub-sector, we found that 23% of European quantum
companies had a mixed or woman-led founding team, more
than double the European average of 13%. This shouldn’t
be surprising given the large proportion of researchers and
scientists who are women: as the report shows, women actually
account for more than half of the population of scientists and
engineers in Lithuania, Bulgaria, Latvia and Denmark.
People
Drawing on our founder survey responses, A number of insights emerged in the process, from granular
information on how the earliest-stage founders financed their
we have sketched a portrait of what a typical businesses, to the age-makeup of companies that scale to
European tech founder looks like in 2019, billion-dollar valuations. We were also able to examine the
and how their concerns change as their intense personal journey that company building entails through
this year’s report.
company scales.
From balancing professional and personal lives, to loneliness
at the top and concerns over sourcing talent, we’ve assembled
a data set which demonstrates beyond doubt that mental
well-being is an active concern- and that many founders want
help. As many as 57% of founders who have raised external
capital said they would appreciate receiving support from the
board or by investors to help manage the pressure of being a
founder. Elsewhere, there are positives: we found that Europe’s
professional developer pool continues to be deeper than in the
US (6.1M v 4.3M), while at the later stages European companies
are closing the gap with the US on the use of stock options to
incentivise talent.

02.2 Executive Summary
Purpose
Margrethe Vestager’s observation Investors have supported purpose-driven European tech
companies with more than $5B in capital investment in
that European tech differentiates itself 2019, up more than 5x over the past five years - taking
through purpose is explored in this report. the cumulative total invested since 2015 to close to $10B.
To measure investment into purpose-driven companies,
Dealroom.co created a framework to assess venture-backed
European tech companies based on their alignment with the
United Nations Sustainable Development Goals.
The analysis focused on a subset of seven of the seventeen
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), selecting only those
where Dealroom has observed greater levels of European
venture-backed startup activity. We found over 500 European
tech companies founded since 2005 tackling at least one of
these seven SDGs as a core part of their mission.
Places
Each year our data highlights a range of tech Now, this promise is being fulfilled, with twenty countries
fostering billion-dollar tech companies. Founders have never
hubs that are showing promise. had more choice, but our report outlines that they prefer to
found in their home market when they can, while rent prices
in popular hubs like London are reflecting demand.
The result? Greater geographic diversification as activity
moves away from the main hubs. Eastern European cities
dominate the list of growing hubs by Meetup members,
as top tech hubs like London, Berlin and Paris are losing
popularity amongst founders thinking about where to locate
their businesses. The report also outlines the critical role
played by universities, and explores the recurring criticism
that Europe is failing to effectively commercialise its
cutting-edge research.
Policy
To fulfil the potential of European tech, Too many founders are still in the dark about the European
policy vision for technology: 40% of founders and startup
sophisticated and clear policy will be key, employees we surveyed told us they do not feel informed
and dialogue essential. about the European Commission’s digital priorities.
Our report finds tech founders are calling for simplified
employment regulations, while Politico data suggests
policymakers’ attention is elsewhere: they are less focussed
on the Digital Single Market than two years ago, and more
focussed on the creation of a digital tax and the activities
of big US tech firms. European success stories like fintech
and digital health are also rarely discussed by policymakers.
We need to ensure European policymakers and founders are
pulling in the same direction if Europe is to fulfil its potential.

02.2 Executive Summary
Investments
Unlike in the US and China, investment Europe’s most promising companies are choosing to go bigger
and stay private longer, and are arriving at multibillion dollar
in European tech continues to grow. valuations on the back of raising $100M+ rounds at record
levels. We are on track to reach $34.3B invested in European
tech in 2019, with $11.B invested in Q2 alone.
Much of this has been driven by large funding rounds: 40% of
all funding raised by European tech companies in the first nine
months of 2019 was in deals larger than $100M. While there
hasn’t been a European $1B+ venture-backed tech IPO in 2019,
we are truly seeing the ambition to scale to huge outcomes in
the ecosystem.
IPOs are no longer on every founder’s agenda, but no matter
how much capital flows into the region, they will always be
cautious about raising the next round.
Investors
Following the success of the European tech Cambridge Associate data on VC returns shows that European
VC performance is either on par or significantly outperforming
ecosystem in the last five years, it’s perhaps no indices for both US VC and, importantly, European Private
surprise to see the European venture industry Equity. Accordingly, appetite from LPs from both inside and
in rude health. outside Europe is increasing, and even though government
agency investment in VCs dropped almost $1B in 2018, we’re
finally seeing a spike in pension fund investment - in fact, a
203% increase on last year.
This year’s report tracks more investors than ever before,
from angels, who are now more likely to have been founders
themselves, to the 2,600 unique institutional investors involved
in a European deal in 2019. And let’s not forget the corporate
investors like Unilever Ventures or Next47, who participated
in 1 in 5 deals in 2019, or rising investor interest from abroad:
last year 21% of European rounds had at least one US or Asian
investor - up from 10% in 2015.
Photo by: Jussi Hellsten

A word from Slush
At Slush, we believe that entrepreneurship is one of the most effective

ways to create change in the world. According to this year’s survey data, in
Europe, already the majority of entrepreneurs and especially investors are
looking to measure the long-term societal and environmental impact their
business or portfolio has. The five-fold growth in investment into purpose-
driven businesses during the last five years in Europe speaks the same
language. In 2019 alone, more than $5B was deployed in these companies.
This is a development we’re happy to see, and one where we see Europe
being able to take a driver’s seat globally.
However, Europe is only waking up to the diversity issue as a whole, and to

the fact that entrepreneurship is not equally accessible to everyone. We all
are more prone to solve problems we can see, and it takes different people
to see different problems – and to see them as openings for business.
Slush continues being committed to highlighting a wider variety of role
models for the next generation of founders through our events and newly
launched media.
With these developments in mind, the record investment into European

tech is a clear sign of a vibrant ecosystem. One of the most encouraging
developments is the increased entrepreneurial ambition shown by the
numbers of late-stage investment rounds: European companies are no
longer selling early, but continue to grow as independent businesses.
This builds the promise of exceptionally interesting times ahead with
the founders and key employees of these success stories starting their
second round of company-building.
Andreas Saari
CEO, Slush

A word from Orrick
Tech is THE engine of European growth, as this year’s State of European Tech
Report makes clear. Europe’s tech ecosystem is well-established and robust,
with record funding, sophisticated founders and investors, and accelerating
growth. European tech companies will likely reach $34B in funding in 2019, up
from $25B in 2018. Funding has more than doubled in five years. This includes
more than 40 $100M+ deals so far this year – more than ever before.
Across Europe, there now are 174 $1B+ tech unicorns. In 2010, there were only
18 – a 10x increase in less than a decade. And 20 countries now have at least
one unicorn, twice the number only five years ago. Today, 170 cities have tech
communities, compared to 70 four years ago.
While M&A exits are down this year, there were more than double the number
of exits in the past five years than the previous five years. And M&A deal value
is on track to surpass last year’s total of $100B.
What will it take to sustain this Europe’s success?

The report points to four things:
The European Commission needs to clarify Technology advancement continues to outpace regulation.
The report demonstrates that AI and deep fakes are top of
its regulatory priorities. mind for regulators. Yet 40% of survey respondents reported
that they don’t feel sufficiently informed to comment about the
EC’s tech and digital regulatory priorities. We’ve seen the great
benefits of collaborating on policymaking – for example, in the
UK fintech market – but it starts with greater transparency from
policymakers.
We also encourage policymakers to consider opportunities to
simplify and streamline compliance requirements, scaling the
burden as the company (and the risk) expands. This is especially
important in the employment regulatory arena. Otherwise, we
risk placing an outsized burden on startups – and stifling their
ability to grow, innovate and create those very jobs.
Attitudes are changing about the value Inclusion continues to be a challenge for the sector with only 8%
of funding going to companies led by mixed-gender and women-
of inclusion; investment needs to follow. led teams. However, at the company level, more than 40% of
team members see improvement. The report also notes that
more than half of investors and startup employees have not yet
had the benefit of unconscious bias training.
The social science leaves no doubt that more inclusive leadership
will generate greater innovation and returns.

02.4 A word from Orrick
Sustainability is top of mind – but there’s More than 85% of founders say they care about the social and
environmental impact of their companies – and investors are
room for greater focus. backing that commitment. Almost 50% of VCs say they take into
account the societal or environmental impact of a prospective
company before deciding whether to invest.
We’d like to see even greater focus on social impact. We also
applaud the 15% of VCs who continue to track their portfolio
companies’ social impact metrics on an ongoing basis.
Likewise, as a community, Almost 20% of founders say that launching a company has had
a “mostly negative” impact on their mental health, and the vast
we need to look out for mental health majority said they would welcome greater support from investors
and career sustainability. on managing the pressures they face. Founder wellness is an
important factor in the overall health of the ecosystem.
We believe a focus on inclusion can help here, too.
We’re incredibly grateful to Atomico for collecting and sharing
the rich market insights in this report. At Orrick, we look forward
to continuing our work with the European tech community to
build an even stronger European platform. Over the past 15
quarters, we’ve advised on more venture capital deals in Europe
than any other law firm – by a factor of 2.5. And we’ve backed
20+ unicorns with legal, regulatory and commercial advice
since their inception. It’s an incredible honor to be part of your
success story.
Keep disrupting.
Chris Grew
Partner
Technology Companies Group
Orrick

Investments
How much are venture capitalists investing in European tech?

How are European tech’s returns? European founders are looking
at the best time in the region’s history to get funding; they raised
a record amount in 2019. That included a record number of$100M+
rounds, something that European tech sceptics once thought
was not possible.

Investment Snapshot
Unlike in the US and Asia, where investors pulled CAPITAL INVESTED IN EUROPE
CAPITAL INVESTED IN EUROPE
back from record levels of investment
Unlike in the US and inAsia,
2018,where investors pulled back from
investment in European
in capital invested inUS

tech
record
Despite a decline in the
continues
levels
US in 2019,
European
theinUS2019,
techthe
willthe
to grow.in 2018, investment in
of investment
volumeto grow. Despite a decline in the
continues
stillvolume
end upinatcapital invested in the US will still
In the last five years, capital
invested in Europe has increased
by 124%. Since 2018, this number
$34.3B
$34.3B
In the last has
ve grown
years, over 39%.
capital invested in Europe has incre
around 3.4x the levelend up at around
of Europe for the3.4x
year.the level of Europe for the year.
Since 2018, this number has grown over 39%.
Capital invested ($B) in Europe, 125.0 # #

$117.8B #
US and Asia by year

!#"

LEGEND 100.0
#
2015 # $85.5B
Capital invested ($B)
# $79.8B
2016 #
75.0 #
2017 $66.4B
# $62.5B
#
2018 $52.8B
$49.0B
2019 50.0 #
# # $34.3B

# #
25.0 $22.6B $24.6B
$15.3B $16.5B

0.0

Europe Asia U
CAPITAL INVESTED IN Q2 2019

Q2 2019 saw more than $10B invested into European
SOURCE: Dealroomtech
$11.6B
companies in a single quarter for the rst time ever. During
the rst nine months of the year, European tech
companies have raised an average of around $3.3B per
2019 Q2 saw the largest ever quarter for capital invested
month. CAPITAL INVESTED IN Q2 2019
Q2 2019 saw more than $10B invested into CAPITAL INVESTED companies.IN Q2 2019
Q2 2019 saw more than $10B invested into European tech
European tech companies in a single quarter for
$11.6B $11.6B
companies in a single quarter for the rst time ever. During CAPITAL INVESTED IN Q2 2019
the first time ever. During the
Q2 2019 saw first
more nine months
than $10B 2019 Q2 saw the largest ever
the rst nine months ofinvested into European
the year, European tech
tech quarter for capital invested in
$11.6B
Capital
of the year, Europeancompanies invested
tech companies
companies ($B) and
have number
in a single quarter 12.5
for the rst time ever. During
of deals
the have
permonths
rst nine quarterraised an average
of the year, of around $3.3B per
European tech European techever
companies.
raised an average of month.
around $3.3B per month. 2019 Q2 saw the largest quarter for capital invested
companies have raised an average of around $3.3B per
10.0 companies.
2019 Q2 saw the largest ever quarter for capital invested in European tech
month.
LEGEND companies.

# of deals 7.5
Capital invested
Capital invested ($B)($B) and number
and number 12.5 12.5 1,800.0
of
of deals per
deals per quarter
quarter
10.0
5.0 1,600.0
LEGEND 10.0
LEGEND

Capital
# of dealsinvested ($B) 7.5 1,400.0
# of deals
2.5
# of deals 7.5
5.0 1,200.0
0.0
5.0
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
2.5 1,000.0
Q
15
16
17
18
19
15
16
17
18
15
16
17
18
15
16
17
18
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
0.0 2.5 800.0

NOTE:
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q1
Q2
Q3
15
16
17
18
19
15
16
17
18
15
19
16
17
18
15
19
16
17
18
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
All Dealroom.co data excludes the following:

biotech, secondary transactions, debt, SOURCE: Dealroom
NOTE:
lending capital, grants. Please also note the 0.0
data excludesdata
All Dealroom.co Israel.
excludes the following:
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
biotech, secondary transactions, debt, S O U R C E : Dealroom

15
16
17
18
19
15
16
17
18
15
16
17
18
15
16
17
18
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
lending capital, grants. Please also note the

data excludes Israel.
NOTE:


There will inevitably be ups and downs in terms of the sequential quarterly sums invested into European tech
companies, but taking a trailing 12-month view on capital invested shows the long-term, upward trajectory of
03.1 capital invested in the region.
Investment Snapshot
40.0
There will inevitably beTrailing
ups and downs
12-month in terms of the sequential quarterly sums invested
capital
There
into European tech companies, will($B)
invested inevitably
but taking beaups and downs
trailing 12-monthin terms
viewof onthe sequential
capital quarterly
invested showssums invested into European tech
There will inevitably
companies, but be ups and
taking a downs in12-month
trailing terms of theview
sequential
on quarterlyinvested
capital sums invested
showsinto the
European tech
long-term, upward trajectory of
the long-term, upward trajectory
companies, of capital
but taking invested
a trailing 12-month in the
view on region.
capital invested shows the long-term, upward trajectory of
30.0
capital invested in the region.
capital invested in the region.

40.0 40.0
Trailing 12-month
Trailing capital
12-month capital 20.0
invested ($B)
invested ($B)
30.0
30.0

10.0

20.0
20.0
10.0 0.0
2015 Q1 2015 Q2 2015 Q3 2015 Q4 2016 Q1 2016 Q2 2016 Q3 2016 Q4 2017 Q1 2017 Q2 2017 Q3 2017 Q4 2018 Q1 2018 Q2 2018 Q3 2
NOTE:
0.0
10.0
All Dealroom.co data excludes the following: 2015 Q1 2015 Q2 2015 Q3 2015 Q4 2016 Q1 2016 Q2 2016 Q3 2016 Q4 2017 Q1 2017 Q2 2017 Q3 2017 Q4 2018 Q1 2018 Q2 2018 Q3 2018 Q4 2019 Q1 2019 Q2 2019 Q3

lending
NOTE: capital, grants. Please also note the
data excludesdata
S O U R C E : Dealroom
biotech, secondary transactions, debt, 0.0
lending capital, grants. Please also note the 2015 Q1 2015 Q2 2015 Q3 2015 Q4 2016 Q1 2016 Q2 2016 Q3 2016 Q4 2017 Q1 2017 Q2 2017 Q3 2017 Q4 2018 Q1 2018 Q2 2018 Q3 2
NOTE:
It does feel like we are

We have always had world class technology and invention
in the region but it does feel like we are in a golden
in a golden age for Europe age for Europe now: the quality of talent, the level of
now: the quality of talent, ambition and availability of capital are at a completely
the level of ambition and different scale. European startups are building globally-
defining consumer and enterprise businesses with great
availability of capital success. Spotify, UiPath, Adeyn are all strong examples.
are at a completely I think these and other role models have been decisive Sonali de Rycker
in inspiring a new and accomplished generation of
different scale. founders, who are now choosing entrepreneurship as
Accel
their career path. Partner
The increase in large-scale deals of more than $100 million is driving the growth
The increase in large-scale deals of more than $100 million is driving the growth of total capital invested in
of total capital invested in Europe. In 2019, these deals accounted for 36%
The increase
Europe. In 2019,in large-scale
these dealsforof36%
deals accounted more
of allthan $100
funding million
raised is driving
by European the growth of total capital invested in
tech companies.
of all funding raisedEurope.
by European tech companies.
In 2019, these deals accounted for 36% of all funding raised by European tech companies.
Capital invested ($B) and number DATAS E T : CA P I TA L I N VE ST E D ( $ B )
of deals by round size
Capital invested ($B) and number DATASET: CAPITAL

CAPITAL INVESTED ($B) INVESTED ($B)
LEGEND
The increase
of deals in large-scale deals of more than $100 million is driving the growth of total capital invested in
$0M-$2Mby round size
Europe.
$2M-$5MIn 2019, these deals accounted for 36% of all funding raised by European tech companies.
30.0
LEGEND
$5M-$10M
Capital invested ($M) / # of deals
$10M-$20M
$0M-$2M
$20M-$50M DATASET: CAPITAL INVESTED ($B)
Capital
$2M-$5M invested ($B) and number
$50M-$100M 20.0
of deals by round size 30.0
$5M-$10M
invested ($M) / # of deals
$100M+
$10M-$20M
LEGEND
The$20M-$50M
increase in large-scale deals of more than 10.0 $100 million is driving the growth of total capital invested in
$0M-$2M
Europe. In 2019, these deals accounted for 36% of all funding
$50M-$100M 20.0 raised by European tech companies.
$2M-$5M
$100M+ 30.0
$5M-$10M
# of deals
0.0
DATAS E T: # OF DEAL S
Capital invested ($B) and number 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Capital invested ($M) /Capital
of$10M-$20M
deals by round size
NOTE:
$20M-$50M 10.0
LEGEND # OF DEALS
biotech, secondary transactions, debt,
$50M-$100M
$0M-$2M S O U R5,000.0
C E : Dealroom 20.0
data excludes Israel. 2019 annualised based
on$100M+
$2M-$5M
data to September 2019.
$5M-$10M 4,000.0
Capital invested ($M) / # of deals
$10M-$20M 0.0
2015 2016 2017 2018
$20M-$50M 10.0
3,000.0
NOTE:
$50M-$100M
$100M+
2,000.0
lending capital, grants. Please also note the SOURCE: Dealroom
data excludes Israel. 2019 annualised based 0.0
2015 2016 2017 2018
on data to September 2019. 1,000.0
NOTE:
0.0
All Dealroom.co data excludes the following: 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
lending
NOTE: capital, grants. Please also note the SOURCE: Dealroom
data excludes data
All Dealroom.co Israel. 2019the
excludes annualised
following: based
onbiotech,
data to September
secondary 2019.debt,
transactions,
lending capital, grants. Please also note the S O U R C E : Dealroom
on data to September 2019.

03.1 Investment Snapshot
A small number of giant deals

A small have aofmaterial
number MEGA
giant deals have a material impact on DEALSlevel of capital investment in European tech
the annual
impact on the annualcompanies.
level of capital investment
The Top 3 deals in the rst nine months of 2019 alone sum to $2.4B.
in European tech companies. The Top 3 deals in
the first nine months of 2019 alone sum to $2.4B.
A Total
smallcapital
numberinvested ($B) per
of giant deals have a material
of all funding raised by European tech
companies was driven by deals over
impact on the annual level $100 million
of capital investment in European tech
36%
year, divided
A small number by Top 3, 10, and all 30.0
of giant deals have a material impact on the annual level of capital investment in European tech
companies.
other deals The Top 3 deals in the rst nine months of 2019 alone sum to $2.4B.
companies. The Top 3 deals in the rst nine months of 2019 alone sum to $2.4B.
($B)capital invested ($B)

LEGEND
Total capital
Total capital invested
invested ($B) per
($B) per
All other
year, deals
divided by by
TopTop
3, 10,3,
and 20.0
year, divided 10,alland all 30.0 30.0
other deals
Top 10 deals
other deals
Top 3 deals
Total capital invested ($B)

LEGEND
LEGEND
All other deals
Total
20.0
Total capital invested

Top 10 deals
All other deals 10.0
20.0
Top 3 deals
Top 10 deals
Top 3 deals 10.0
0.0
10.0
2015 2016 2017 2018
0.0
NOTE: 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
AllNOTE:
Dealroom.co data excludes the following:
biotech, secondary
All Dealroom.co transactions,
data excludes debt,
the following:
biotech, capital,
lending secondarygrants.
transactions, debt,also note the
Please SOURCE:
0.0 Dealroom
data 2015 2016 2017 2018
data excludes Israel. 2019 based on data up data up
excludes Israel. 2019 based on
totoSeptember
September 2019.2019.
NOTE:
data excludes Israel. 2019 based on data up
to September 2019.
Europe’s greatest And we need to produce more IPOs to include the wider
public in the economic benefits of startup investing.
challenges: despite And we still lack the large number of serial entrepreneurs
the recent and highly like the US has coming out of these scale-ups and the
IPOs who recycle their capital and talent into the tech
welcome capital inflow, ecosystem. Europe’s greatest strengths are clearly our
we need even more education system, our cultural diversity and the vast
capital, especially in quantity and high quality of our tech founders.
Daniel Keiper-Knorr
This is paired with lower entry valuations compared
later and growth phases with the US and Asia, resulting in very capital efficient Speedinvest
to grow really big investment opportunities. Founder & Partner
European companies
For additional context on annual capital investment into the European tech ecosystem, it is important to
of global importance.
understand there is a material trend in effect that means many rounds are only captured after a signi cant
delay (see note). This 'reporting lag' means that the nal totals are not known until a signi cant time period has
elapsed after the end of the year in question. Accordingly, we have indexically adjusted the annual totals to
account for this reporting lag to enable a like-for-like comparison of overall investment trends at the European
For additional contextlevel.
on annual capital investment into the European tech ecosystem, it is
For additional context on annual capital investment into the European tech ecosystem, it is important to
important to understand there is a material trend in effect that means many rounds are only
understand there is a material trend in effect that means many rounds are only captured after a signi cant
captured after a significant
Capital
delay delay
(seeinvested
note).(see
($B)note).
adjusted
This This
for ‘reporting lag’that
means
40.0
that the final
aretotals are not
For additional
lagcontext on annual capital investment into thethe
'reporting lag' means nal tech
European totals notitknown
ecosystem, until
is important to a signi cant time period has
known until a significant time
reporting
elapsed
understand
period
after
effecthas
there the
is aend
elapsed
of the
material trend
after
year the end
in question.
in effect
of the year
that means Accordingly,
in question.
many rounds areweonlyhave
Accordingly,
indexically
captured adjusted
after a signi cant the annual totals to
we have indexically adjusted
account the
delay (seefor annual
this
note). This totalslag'
reporting
'reporting tomeans
lag account
to enable for this reporting
a like-for-like
that the nal totals lag to
comparison
are not known enable
until a of acant
like-for-like
overall
signi investment
time period has trends at the European
LEGEND 30.0
comparison of overall investment
elapsed
level. after thetrends
Actual amount
end of theatyear
theinEuropean level. we have indexically adjusted the annual totals to
question. Accordingly,
account for this($B)
reporting lag to enable a like-for-like comparison of overall investment trends at the European
$1.3B
level.
Adjusted for reporting lag ($B)
40.0
Capital invested ($B) adjusted for 40.0
20.0
Capital invested
reporting ($B) adjusted for
lag effect
reporting lag effect
$6.3B
LEGEND $24.6B
LEGEND 30.0 30.0 $22.6B
10.0
Actual amount ($B)
Actual amount ($B) $16.5B
$15.3B
$1.3B
Adjusted for reporting lag ($B) $1.3B
Adjusted for reporting lag ($B)
20.0
20.0
0.0 $29.8B
2015 2016 2017 2018
$24.6B
$22.6B
10.0
NOTE: $15.3B $16.5B
$24.6B
$22.6B
The reporting lag is the difference between 10.0
the date of a round's disclosure & the $15.3B $16.5B
reported date of a round's occurrence, 0.0
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
resulting in a material % of rounds being SOURCE: Dealroom
added
NOTE: after a long delay. This is estimated at
95% for 2018lag
The reporting and 2019
is the projected.
difference between 0.0
the date of a round's disclosure & the 2015 2016 2017 2018
reported date of a round's occurrence,
resulting in a material % of rounds being S O U R C E : Dealroom
NOTE:
added after a long delay. This is estimated at
95% for 2018 and 2019 projected.
The reporting lag is the difference between
the date of a round's disclosure & the
95% for 2018 and 2019 projected.
As above, it is important to take into account the 'reporting lag' (see note) to enable a like-for-like comparison of
the number of deals at the European level.
Number of deals adjusted for
reporting lag effect
6,000
As above, it is important
AsAs
to takeis into
above,
above, itit is account
important
important to take
the
tointo
‘reporting
take into the
account
lag’ (see
account the
'reporting
note) to enable
lag''reporting
(see note) tolag' (see note) to enable
a like-for-like a like-for-like
comparison of comparison of
LEGEND
enable a like-for-likethe
comparison
thenumber
number ofof of the
deals
deals number
at
at the
Actual number of deals
the of deals
European
European level. at the
level. European level. 854
Adjusted for reporting lag
# of deals
Number of deals adjusted for 4,000
Number
reporting of
lagdeals
effect adjusted for
reporting lag effect 6,000 6,416 6,244
LEGEND 6,000 5,620 854
Actual number of deals 4,839
LEGEND 2,304
854
Adjusted for reporting lag 2,000
# of deals
4,000
Actual number of deals
Adjusted for reporting lag 6,416 6,244
# of deals
4,000
5,620
4,839
2,000
0 6,416 6,244 3,456
2015 2016 2017 2018
5,620
4,839
NOTE:
2,000
0
The reporting lag is the difference between 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
the date of a round's disclosure & the
NOTE:
resulting in alag
The reporting material % of rounds
is the difference betweenbeing SOURCE: Dealroom
added after
the date a longdisclosure
of a round's delay. This
& theis estimated at
85% for 2018 and 80% for 2019 annualised.
resulting in a material % of rounds being S O U R C E : Dealroom 0
added after a long delay. This is estimated at 2015 2016 2017 2018
85% for 2018 and 80% for 2019 annualised.
NOTE:
Founders of larger companies (100+ employees) and founders who have raised more external capital take a
The reporting lag is the difference between
signi
the datecantly more
of a round's favourable
disclosure & the view of the VC fundraising landscape.
In
85%your opinion,
for 2018 and 80%isforit2019
easier or
annualised. DATASET: TOTAL CAPITAL R AISED
Despite the record levels of investment into Europe, more founders believe it
harder to raise venture capital in
has become harder to Europe
raise venture
than it wascapital in Europe over the past 12 months
12 months
compared with those whoago? believe it has become easier. This is the first time this
has been the case over thecantly
signi
five moreyears we’ve asked this question to founders as
favourable view of the VC fundraising landscape.
LEGEND
part of this report. Easier to raise capital
Founders
InHarder
of larger
your opinion,
companies (100+ employees) <$5M and founders who have raised more external capital take a
DATAS E T : TOTA L CA P I TA L R A I S E D
to raiseiscapital
it easier or
signi
hardercantly morecapital
to raise venture favourable
in view of the VC fundraising landscape.
Unchanged
Europe than it was 12 months
ago?
InLEGEND
your opinion, is it easier or DATASET: TOTAL CAPITAL R AISED
$5M-25M
harder toraise
Easier to raise
capitalventure capital in
<$5M
Europe
Harder tothan it was 12 months
raise capital
ago?Unchanged
LEGEND $5M-25M $25M+

Easier to raise capital
<$5M
Harder to raise capital
Unchanged 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
$25M+
% of respondents
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
$5M-25M
% of respondents
NOTE: SOURCE: The State Of European Tech Survey
Founders only. Numbers may not add up to
100 due to rounding.
NOTE: S O U R C E : The State Of European Tech Survey
$25M+
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
% of respondents
NOTE:
SOURCE: The State Of European Tech Survey

Founders of larger companies (100+ employees) and founders who have

raised more external Founders
capital of
take a significantly more favourable view
larger companies (100+ employees) and founders who have raised more external capital take a
of the VC fundraisingFounders
landscape.
signi cantlyof
more favourable
larger view of the
companies VC fundraising
(100+ employees)landscape.
and founders who have raised more external capital take a
signi cantly more favourable view of the VC fundraising landscape.
In your opinion, is it easier or DATAS E T : N U MB E R O F E MP LOYE E S
In your opinion, is it easier or
ago? NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES
DATASET: NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES
Founders
LEGEND
Europe thanofitlarger
was 12companies
months (100+ employees) and founders who have raised more external capital take a
signi
ago? cantly more favourable view≤10of
Harder to raise capital
the VC fundraising landscape.
employees
Unchanged
LEGEND
In your
Easier opinion, is it easier or
to raise capital DATASET: NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES
11-100 employees ≤10 employees
harder
Hardertoto raise venture capital in
raise capital
Europe than
Unchanged
it was 12 months
ago?
100+ employees
signi
LEGENDcantly more favourable view of the VC fundraising landscape.
11-100 employees
0 10
≤10 employees 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Harder
In your to raiseiscapital
opinion, it easier or DATAS E T : TOTA L CA P I TA L R A I S E D % of respondents

Unchanged
ago?
NOTE: TOTAL CAPITAL RAISED 100+
S O U R C E : The State Of employees
European Tech Survey
LEGEND
100 due to rounding. 11-100 employees
<$5M
Harder to raise capital 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Unchanged % of respondents
$5M-25M 100+ employees
NOTE:
100 due to rounding. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
$25M+
% of respondents
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
% of respondents
Amongst founders who are women, twice as many said it has got harder to raise venture capital in the past 12
months versus those that said it has got easier, though around half believe the fundraising environment
remains unchanged.
Amongst founders who are women, twice as many said it has got harder to raise
venture capital in the past 12 months versus those that said it has got easier,
Amongst
though around half believe thefounders
In your opinion, who are
is it easier
fundraising or women, twice as many said it has got harder to raise
environment remains unchanged. 16% venture capital in the past 12
harder versus
months to raise venture
those capital
that in it has got easier,
said though
Easier to raise capital around half believe the fundraising environment
Amongst founders
Europe than who
it was are women,
12 months twice as many said it has got harder to raise venture capital in the past 12
remains unchanged.
months versus those that said it has got easier, though around half believe the fundraising environment 25%
ago?
remains unchanged.
LEGEND 32%
InInyour opinion, is it easier or
your opinion, is it easier or 16%
Women raise venture capital in Harder to raise capital 16%
harder
harder to
to raise venture capital in Easier to raise capital
25%
Europe
Men than
Europe than itit was
was 12 months
12 months 25% 25%
ago?
ago?
LEGEND 32%
L EGEND
Women Harder to raise capital 32%
Unchanged
Men Harder to raise capital 25%
Women
Men 25%
52%
Unchanged
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
% of respondents
50%
Unchanged
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
% of respondents
NOTE:
Founders only. Numbers may not add up to 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
NOTE:
100 due to rounding. S O U R C E : The State Of European Tech Survey % of respondents


Europe saw an increase in mega funding rounds of $100M+

in 2019, including six rounds of more than $500M.
Europe saw an increase in mega funding rounds
of $100M+ in 2019,
Europe Europe
including saw
saw an increasean increase
six roundsin of infunding
more
mega mega funding
rounds rounds of $100M+ Country
of $100M+
Company City Stage Round Size ($) Date
in 2019,
Top including
20 largest six rounds
VC-backed of more than $500M.
than $500M. in 2019, including six rounds of more than $500M.1 Northvolt Sweden Stockholm Growth Equity $1000M June 2019
fundraising deals in 2019 (by
2 Deliveroo United Kingdom London Series G $575M May 2019
round size) Company
Company
Country
Country
City
City
Stage
Stage Round Size ($)
Round Size ($) Date
Date
Top 20 largest VC-backed 31 UiPath
Northvolt Romania
Sweden Bucharest
Stockholm Series
GrowthDEquity $568M
$1000M April
June2019
2019
Top 20 largest VC-backed 1 Northvolt Sweden Stockholm Growth Equity $1000M June 2019
fundraising deals in 2019 (by
fundraising deals in 2019 (by 4
2 Babylon
DeliverooHealth United Kingdom London Series C
G $550M
$575M August 2019
May 2019
round size) 2 Deliveroo United Kingdom London Series G $575M May 2019
round size)
53 Veeam
UiPath Switzerland
Romania Baar
Bucharest GrowthDEquity
Series $500M
$568M January
April 20192019
3 UiPath Romania Bucharest Series D $568M April 2019
6
4 FlixBus Health
Babylon Germany
United Kingdom Munich
London F
Series C $500M
$550M July 2019
August 2019
4 Babylon Health United Kingdom London Series C $550M August 2019
57 GetYourGuide
Veeam Germany
Switzerland Berlin
Baar Series EEquity
Growth $484M
$500M May 20192019
January
5 Veeam Switzerland Baar Growth Equity $500M January 2019
68 Klarna
FlixBus Sweden
Germany Stockholm
Munich GrowthFEquity
Series $460M
$500M August
July 2019
2019
6 FlixBus Germany Munich Series F $500M July 2019
79 N26 Group
GetYourGuide Germany Berlin D
Series E $300M
$484M January
May 20192019
7 GetYourGuide Germany Berlin Series E $484M May 2019
810 GitLab
Klarna Netherlands
Sweden Utrecht
Stockholm Series
GrowthEEquity $268M
$460M September
August 20192019
8 Klarna Sweden Stockholm Growth Equity $460M August 2019
11
9 CMR Surgical
N26 Group United
GermanyKingdom Cambridge
Berlin Series C
D $240M
$300M September
January 20192019
9 N26 Group Germany Berlin Series D $300M January 2019
12
10 Meero
GitLab France
Netherlands Paris
Utrecht Series C
E $230M
$268M June 2019 2019
September
10 GitLab Netherlands Utrecht Series E $268M September 2019
13
11 Chec kout.com
CMR Surgical United Kingdom London
Cambridge A
Series C $230M
$240M May 2019 2019
September
11 CMR Surgical United Kingdom Cambridge Series C $240M September 2019
14
12 Adjust
Meero Germany
France Berlin
Paris Late VCC
Series $227M
$230M June 2019
12 Meero France Paris Series C $230M June 2019
15
13 Relex Solutions
Checkout.com FinlandKingdom
United Helsingfors
London Late VCA
Series $200M
$230M February
May 2019 2019
13 Checkout.com United Kingdom London Series A $230M May 2019
16
14 Glovo
Adjust Spain
Germany Barcelona
Berlin Series
Late VCD $186M
$227M April 2019
June 2019
14 Adjust Germany Berlin Late VC $227M June 2019
17
15 Signavio
Relex Solutions Germany
Finland Berlin
Helsingfors Late VCC
Series $177M
$200M July 2019
February 2019
15 Relex Solutions Finland Helsingfors Late VC $200M February 2019
18
16 WorldRemit
Glovo United
Spain Kingdom London
Barcelona Series D $175M
$186M June 2019
April 2019
16 Glovo Spain Barcelona Series D $186M April 2019
19
17 N26 Group
Signavio Germany Berlin Series D
C $170M
$177M July 2019
17 Signavio Germany Berlin Series C $177M July 2019
20
18 Doctolib
WorldRemit France
United Kingdom Paris
London Late VCD
Series $170M
$175M March 2019
June 2019
18 WorldRemit United Kingdom London Series D $175M June 2019
NOTE: 19 N26 Group Germany Berlin Series D $170M July 2019
19 N26 Group Germany Berlin Series D $170M July 2019
All Dealroom.co data excludes the following: 20 Doctolib France Paris Late VC $170M March 2019
biotech, secondary transactions, debt, 20 Doctolib France Paris Late VC $170M March 2019
NOTE:
data excludes Israel. 2019 based on data to
NOTE: September 2019.data excludes the following:
All Dealroom.co
biotech,
All Dealroom.co secondary
data excludes transactions,
the following: debt,
lendingtransactions,
capital, grants. Please also note the SOURCE: Dealroom
biotech, secondary debt,
data
lending capital, excludes
grants. Israel.
Please also2019
notebased
the on data to S O U R C E : Dealroom
September 2019.
September 2019.
We are on an overall good wave: more capital, more

startups from seed to large, late rounds, more exits.
There is still a large capital gap regarding the We are on an overall good wave: more capital,
US and China situations, but we can see very more startups from seed to large, late rounds,
encouraging recent signals: the €100 billion more exits. We should all keep up the good
EU Commission future fund and the €5 billion work to position Europe as the key place for Antoine Hubert
investment announcement from President technology! Ÿnsect
Macron in France, for instance. CEO
I take a long view on European tech, I’m old enough to

remember how far we have come and to understand we
still have a way to go yet. Plus, Brexit has changed the
picture a lot, so progress based on the work done the year
before isn’t as inevitable as it perhaps was. Steve O’Hear
TechCrunch
Journalist

Investment by Industry
Fintech and enterprise software companies CAPITAL INVESTED IN FINTECH

have been the major beneficiaries of capital over CAPITAL INVESTED IN FINTECH
$25B
Fintech and enterprise software companies have been the
the last five years. Looking cumulatively over the CAPITAL INVESTED IN FINTECH invested in European fintech
$25B
major bene ciaries
Fintech andofenterprise
capital over the lastcompanies
software ve years. have been the companies since 2015.
past five years, European companies in these
$25B
major bene over
Looking cumulatively ciaries
theofpast
capital
veover theEuropean
years, last ve years.
two sectors alone have raised close to $50B.
Looking cumulatively over the past ve years, European
companies in these two sectors alone have raised close to
invested in European ntech companies since 2015.
$50B. companies in these two sectors alone have raised close to
invested in European ntech companies since 2015.
$50B.
Capital invested ($M) by industry DATAS E T : 2 01 9
2019
Capital invested ($M) by industry DATASET: 2019
LE G E ND
up to 10,000 LEGE ND
Health Energy Transporation
4,000 to 8,000 up to 10,000
Health Energy Transporation
2,000 to 4,000 4,000 to 8,000
Fintech
1,500 to 2,000 2,000 to 4,000 Fintech
1,000 to 1,500 1,500 to 2,000 CAPITAL INVESTED IN FINTECH
Fintech
750 to 1,000 and enterprise software companies have been the
1,000 to 1,500
Travel Security Robotics Media
$25B
Food
750 to 1,000
500 to 750major bene ciaries of capital over the last ve years. Food
Travel Security Robotics Media
500 to 750
200 to 500Looking cumulatively over the past ve years, European CAPITAL INVESTED IN FINTECH
Fintech and
100 to 200 enterprise
200 to 500
companies software
in these twocompanies have
sectors alone been
have the close to
raised
$25B
Jobs recruitment Home livingInternet of Things Gaming
major bene ciaries
100 to 200
of capital over the last ve years. Enterprise software invested in European ntech companies
Real estate since 2015.
0 to 100 $50B. Real estate Jobs recruitment Home livingInternet of Things Gaming
Looking
up to 0 cumulatively over the past ve years, European
0 to 100
Enterprise software Marketing
companies inupthese to 0 Fashion Legal Telecom Semiconductors
Sports
two sectors alone have raised close to Marketing Education
Capital invested ($M) by industry DATASET: 2019 invested in European ntechEvent tech
companies since Education
2015. Fashion Legal Telecom SemiconductorsSports
$50B. Event tech Wellness beauty Hosting Dating
Music Kids
Wellness beauty Hosting Music Dating
Kids
NOTE: LEGE ND
NOTE:
All Dealroom.co
Capital invested upexcludes
data to 10,000
($M) bytheindustry
following: DATAS E T : 2 01 5 - 2 01 9 C U M U L AT I VE
biotech, secondary transactions,
All Dealroom.co debt,
data excludes the following:
2015-2019 CUMULATIVE Health Energy Transporation
4,000 to 8,000 S O U R C E : Dealroom
lending capital, biotech,
grants. Please also transactions,
secondary note the debt,
SOURCE: Dealroom
Ldata
E G Eexcludes
ND Israel.
lending2019
2,000 annualised
capital,
to grants.based
4,000 Please also note the
on data to September 2019. Israel. 2019 annualised based
data excludes Fintech
1,500totoSeptember
up to 10,000 on data 2,000 2019.
4,000 to 8,000 1,000 to 1,500 Transporation Health Marketing Food
2,000 to 4,000 750 to 1,000 Fintech Travel Security Robotics Media

Food
1,500 to 2,000 500 to 750
1,000 to 1,500 200 to 500
750 to 1,000 100 to 200
Travel Fashion Home living
Jobs Home living
Telecom
recruitment Internet
Internet of Things Gaming
of Things
Real estate
0 to 100 Energy
500 to 750 Enterprise software
200 to 500 up to 0 Marketing
Fashion Legal Telecom Semiconductors
Sports
100 to 200 Education
Event tech
Security Robotics Gaming Jobs recruitment Music Hosting
Education Music Kids
0 to 100 Wellness beauty Dating
Enterprise software
up to 0
NOTE: Media
All Dealroom.co data excludes the following: Real estate Semiconductors Event tech Sports Wellness beautyLegal Kids
SOURCE: Dealroom Hosting Dating
NOTE: on data to September 2019.

03.2 Investment by Industry
Still, there is a high level

Still,of
Still,
variety
there
there isis in level
a high terms
a high level
ofofcapital
of varietyvariety
flow
in terms in different
of capital
in terms ofow capitalindustries
in different ininthe
industries
ow the European
in different tech in the European tech
industries
European tech ecosystem. ecosystem.ThereThereare
arenow seven
now seven industries
industries surpassing
surpassing $2 billion
$2 billion capital
ecosystem. There are now seven industries surpassing $2 billion capital
invested versus only four in 2018.
capital invested versus only four in 2018.
invested versus only four in 2018.
Capital invested ($M) by industry DATAS E T : $ 2 B + I N 2 01 9
Capital invested ($M) by industry DATASET: $2B+ IN 2019

L E G E ND 10,000
Fintech
$2B+ IN 2019
LEGEND
Enterprise software 10,000
Health
Fintech 7,500
Energy
Capital invested ($M)

Enterprise software
Transportation
Health
Food 7,500
5,000
Marketing
Energy

Transportation
Still,Food
there is a high level of variety in2,500 terms of capital ow in different industries in the European tech
5,000
ecosystem.
Marketing
Still,
There are now seven industries surpassing $2 billion capital invested versus only four in 2018.
there is a high level of variety in terms of capital ow in different industries in the European tech
ecosystem. There are now seven industries surpassing
0
$2 billion capital invested versus only four in 2018.
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Capital invested ($M) by industry DATASET: $1B-$2B IN 2019

NOTE: 2,500
Capital invested ($M) by industry DATAS E T : $ 1 B - $ 2 B I N 2 01 9
LEGEND $1B - $2B IN 2019
lending
L capital, grants. Please also note the
E G E ND
data excludes Israel. 2019 annualised based 2,000 2,000
onTravel
Travel
Security 0
Security 2015 2016 2017 2018
Robotics
Robotics
Media
1,500
NOTE:
1,500
Media
Real estate
Real estate
1,000 SOURCE: Dealroom
on data to September 2019. 1,000
Still, there is a high level of variety in500terms of capital ow in different industries in the European tech
ecosystem.
Still, there is aThere are
high level of now
varietyseven industries
in terms surpassing
of capital ow $2 billionin capital
in different industries invested
the European tech versus only four in 2018.
ecosystem. There are now seven industries surpassing
0
$2
500billion capital invested versus only four in 2018.
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
NOTE:
Capital invested
Capital invested ($M)($M) by industry
by industry DATAS E T : $ 5 0DATASET:
0 M - $ 1 B I N 2 01$500M-$1B
9 IN 2019
0
lending
L capital, grants. Please also note the
E G E ND $500M - $1B IN 2019
2015 2016 2017 2018
LEGEND
Event
on data totech
September 2019.
1,250
Event
NOTE: tech
Jobs recruitment 1,250
Jobs
Home recruitment
living
1,000
biotech, secondary
Internet
Home of Things transactions, debt,
living

Gaming 1,000
dataInternet
excludes of Israel.
Things2019 annualised based
Education 750
Gaming
Fashion
Legal
Education 500 750
Still,Fashion
ecosystem.
Still,
There are now seven industries 250 surpassing $2 billion capital invested versus only four in 2018.
Legal 500
ecosystem. There are now seven industries surpassing $2 billion capital invested versus only four in 2018.
0
2015
Capital invested ($M) by industry DATASET: $250M-$500M2016
IN 2019 2017 2018 2019
DATAS E T : $ 2 5 0 M - $ 5 0 0 M I N 2 01 9
250
Capital invested ($M) by industry
NOTE:
LEGEND
$250M
1,500 - $500M N 2019
1,500
Still, there
L E G E ND
lending is aPlease
capital, grants. high level
also note the of variety
S O Uin
R C Eterms
: Dealroom of capital
0 ow in different industries in the European tech
Telecom
dataTelecom
excludes Israel. 2019 annualised based
ecosystem.
on data to September
Sports
Sports
There
2019. are now seven industries
1,250 surpassing
1,250
$2 billion capital invested
2015 2016
versus only
2017
four in 2018. 2018
NOTE:Semiconductors
Semiconductors
Wellness beauty 1,000
Wellness
Capital
biotech, beautytransactions,
invested
secondary ($M) by industry
debt, DATASET:
1,000 $2B+ IN 2019

750
LEGEND
750
500
Still,Fintech
ecosystem.
Still, there is aThere
Enterprise software are
high level of now
varietyseven industries
in terms surpassing
of250capital ow $2 billionin capital
in different industries
500
invested
the European tech versus only four in 2018.
Health
ecosystem. There are now seven industries surpassing $2 billion capital invested versus only four in 2018.
7,500
Energy 0
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Capital invested ($M) by industry DATASET:
250 <$250M IN 2019
Transportation
Capital invested ($M) by industry DATAS E T : < $ 2 5 0 M I N 2 01 9
NOTE:
AllFood
Dealroom.co data excludes the following: 5,000
LEGEND
L E G E NDsecondary transactions, debt,
S< $250M N 2019
biotech,
Marketing
lending capital, grants. Please also note the OU R C E : Dealroom 0
Hosting 1,000 2015 2016 2017 2018
Hosting
data excludes Israel. 2019 annualised based 1,000
on data
Musicto September 2019.
NOTE:
Music
Kids
Kids
All Dealroom.co
Dating data excludes the following: 750 2,500
biotech, secondary transactions, debt, 750Dealroom

Dating
lending capital, grants. Please also note the SOURCE:

500
0
500 2015 2016 2017 2018
250
NOTE:

biotech, secondary transactions, debt, 0 250
lending capital, grants. Please also note the SOURCE:
2015 Dealroom 2016 2017 2018 2019

NOTE:
lending capital, grants. Please also note the 0
data excludes Israel. 2019 annualised based 2015 2016 2017 2018
NOTE:
I believe a significant I believe a significant technology opportunity right

now in Europe is in fintech. A tougher macroeconomic
technology opportunity landscape, negative interest rates and looser monetary
European tech companies in ntech, enterprise software, energy, health and food have been the greatest
right now in Europe policy has the potential to open up the way for exciting
bene ciaries of the increased investment
new in 2019,
business collectively
models, seeing
as incumbents faceasolvency
boost ofrisks
more than $11B in capital
is in fintech.
invested compared to 2018. and continue to lose ground in the face of disruptive
innovation. In my opinion this will be beyond payments,
trading and other technologies we’ve seen emerging in Akshay Naheta
Absolute change by industry Fintech
recent years and could mean a fundamental reshaping of
vertical of capital invested ($M), SoftBank Investment
government financial infrastructure including benefits,
2018 versus 2019 Enterprise software
taxes and subsidies. Advisers $2,680M
Managing Partner
Energy $2,003M
Health $1,608M
Food $1,268M
Security $1,219M
European tech companies in fintech,
European enterprise
tech companies in software, energy, health
ntech, enterprise software,andenergy,
food have health and food have been the greatest
been the greatest beneficiaries
beneEuropean
ciariesoftech
the
of theincreased
increased
companies investment
in ntech, enterprisein
investment in 2019, collectively
2019,Travel
software, collectively
energy, seeing
seeing
health and a boost
food have of more
been the than $11B in capital
greatest
$796M
$11Bbene
a boost of more thaninvested
in ciaries of theto
capital
compared increased
invested investment in 2019, collectively seeing a boost of more than $11B in capital
compared
2018.
invested compared to 2018.
to 2018.
Event tech $756M
Marketing $525M
Absolute change
Absolute changebybyindustry
industry Fintech Fintech $3,929M
vertical of capital invested ($M),

vertical of capital invested ($M),
2018 versus 2019 Enterprise software
Jobs recruitment $437M $2,680M
2018 versus 2019 Enterprise software $2,680M
Energy $2,003M
Real estate $360M
Energy $2,003M
Health $1,608M
Robotics $263M
Food Health $1,268M $1,608M
Security Legal $250M

$1,219M
Food $1,268M
Travel $796M
Gaming $-53M
Security $1,219M
Event tech $756M
Education $-141M
Travel $796M
Marketing $525M
Jobs recruitment Media $-308M

$437M
Event tech $756M
Real estate $360M

IoT $-333M
Marketing $525M
Robotics $263M
Transportation $-399M
Jobs recruitment $437M
Legal $250M
Home living
Real estate $-424M
Gaming $-53M $360M
Education Fashion
Robotics
$-141M $-757M
$263M
Media $-308M
-1,000 -500 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3
Legal $250M
YoY growth ($M)
IoT $-333M
NOTE: Gaming $-53M

Transportation $-399M

biotech, secondary transactions, debt, Home living $-424M
Education $-141M
data excludes Israel. 2019 annualised based Fashion $-757M
on data to September 2019. Media $-308M
-1,000 -500 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500
YoY growth ($M)
IoT $-333M
NOTE:

biotech, secondary transactions, debt, Transportation $-399M
on data to September 2019. Home living $-424M
Fashion $-757M
Owkin for example, has Europe has always had-1,000

outstanding
-500 educational
0 product1,000
500 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3
and this favours health technology, particularly at the YoY growth ($M)
over
NOTE:
50 European data important confluence of biotech and infotech where Owkin
scientists working on
plays. This requires highly technical mathematicians,
multi-modal analysis and
biotech, secondary transactions, debt, engineers, and developers who are broad minded and
can apply their discipline to the complex field of systems
interpretable AI, and our
on data to September 2019. biology, drug discovery and drug development.
lab is widely considered Thomas Clozel
Our biggest challenge in Europe has been retaining talent
one of the best life and not losing it all to Silicon Valley, but as mentioned
Owkin
Co-Founder & CEO
science AI teams above, am improving regulatory and investment culture,
in the world. as well as some real lifestyle advantages of living in a
European city is encouraging a lot of our top PhDs and
post-docs to stay in Europe. Owkin for example, has over 50
European data scientists working on multi-modal analysis
and interpretable AI, and our lab is widely considered one of
the best life science AI teams in the world.

% change by industry vertical of Security
capital invested ($M), 2018 vs

03.2 Investment by Industry Energy
2019
Food 124%
The fastest-growing industries in terms of Jobs recruitment 90%
percentage change year-on-year in 2019industries

The fastest-growing include in terms of percentage Health 80%
security, energy andchange
food. year-on-year
The fastest-growing in 2019
industries include
in terms security, energy and
of percentage
change year-on-year in 2019 include security, energy and Fintech 76%
food.
food.
Travel 69%
%%change
change byby industry
industry vertical
vertical of of Security Security
Enterprise software 56% 193%
capital invested ($M), 2018 vs

capital invested ($M), 2018 vs Energy 186%
2019 Energy
Real estate 47%
2019 Food 124%
Food
Marketing 34% 124%
Jobs recruitment 90%
Health Jobs recruitment

Robotics 80% 23% 90%
Fintech 76%
Health
Gaming -9% 80%
Travel 69%
Fintech
Transportation -15% 76%
Enterprise software 56%
Real estate
Travel
Media -19% 69%
47%
Marketing
Enterprise software 34% 56%
Education -20%
Robotics 23%
RealSports
estate -30% 47%
Gaming -9%
Marketing
Telecom -33% 34%
Transportation -15%
MediaInternet ofRobotics
Things -19% -35% 23%
Education -20%
HomeGaming
living -40% -9%
Sports -30%
Transportation
Semiconductors -53% -15%
Telecom -33%
Internet of Things Media

Fashion -35% -59% -19%
Home living Education-40% -20%

Music -68%
Semiconductors -53%
Sports-100 -75 -50 -25
-30% 0 25 50 75 100 125 150
Fashion -59% YoY growth (%)
Telecom -33%
Music -68%
NOTE:
-100
Internet-75 -50
of Things -25 0 25-35% 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225
Includes only verticals with $450M+ capital
YoY growth (%)
invested in 2018. All Dealroom data exclude:
biotech,
NOTE: secondary transactions, debt, -40%
lending capital, grants. Note the data also SOURCE:Home living
Includes only verticals with $450M+ capital
excludes Israel. 2019 annualised based on
invested in 2018. All Dealroom data exclude:
data up tosecondary
biotech, September 2019. debt,
transactions,
Semiconductors -53% CAPITAL INVESTED IN DEEP TECH
SOURCE:
Investments into European
lending capital, grants. Note the data also
excludes Israel. 2019 annualised based on deep tech companies are on
2.8x
Fashion -59%
track to break another record of $8.4B in 2019, up from
data up to September 2019.
$6.7B in 2018 and $3.0B in 2015. Music -68%
CAPITAL INVESTED the investment

IN DEEPlevel
TECHof 2015. -100 -75 -50 -25 0 25 50 75 100 125 150
Investments into European deep tech companies CAPITAL INVESTED IN DEEP TECH
YoY growth (%)
Investments into European deep tech companies are on
are on track to break another record of $8.4B in
2.8x 2.8x
track to break another record of $8.4B in 2019, up from
NOTE:
2019, up from $6.7B in 2018inand
$6.7B
Includes
Capital 2018
only $3.0B
and
verticals
invested within
($B)
2015.
$3.0B
$450M+
in 2015.
capital
in European
CAPITAL INVESTED IN DEEP TECH the investment level of 2015.
Investments
invested in 2018.into European
All Dealroom data deep
exclude:tech companies are on
2.8x
deepto
track
biotech,tech companies
break
secondary another record
transactions, debt,of $8.4B in 2019, up from
lendingin
$6.7B capital,
2018grants. Note the
and $3.0B in data
2015.also SOURCE: the investment level of 2015.
excludes Israel. 2019 annualised based on 7.5
data up to September 2019. the investment level of 2015. $6.7B
$6.0B
Capital invested ($B) in European

Capital
deep invested
tech ($B) in European
companies 5.0 $8.4B
deep tech companies
7.5 $3.9B
7.5
$6.7B $6.7B
$3.0B
$6.0B $6.0B
2.5
5.0
5.0
$3.9B
$3.0B $3.9B
2.5 0.0 $3.0B
2015 2016 2017 2018
2.5
NOTE:
0.0
lending
NOTE: capital, grants. Please also note the SOURCE: Dealroom
data excludes data
All Dealroom.co Israel. 2019the
excludes annualised
following: based 0.0
onbiotech,
data to September
secondary 2019.debt,
transactions, 2015 2016 2017 2018
NOTE:


There is a strong increase in capital for deep tech companies across

Europe....that said, the amount of invested capital still isn’t representative
of the quality and potential value of the deal flow in Europe.
There is a strong increase in capital for That said, the amount of invested capital
deep tech companies across Europe. still isn’t representative of the quality and
Companies like Ynsect, Orcam or AMSilk potential value of the deal flow in Europe. Sofia Hmich
are demonstrating that you can leverage This imbalance is especially striking when Future Positive
converging technologies to generate real you consider the size of market opportunities Capital
value in large, global and complex industries. these companies are pursuing, such as meat Founder
Recognizing these opportunities, investors ($1 trillion), construction ($10 trillion) or clean
(and acquirers) from Europe and abroad are energy ($2.5 trillion). Capital, in other words,
investing in European deep technology assets remains unequally distributed across the
(a majority of US acquisitions are now for spectrum of opportunity. Two main reasons
deep tech companies). for this “funding gap” (1) many VC investors do
not have the expertise and structures in place
At the same time, a new generation of to assess and support those companies,
EU policymakers seeking to maintain and (2) some historical attributes of deeper
“technological sovereignty” are creating technology
INVESTMENT investments (time to market,
IN AI COMPANIES
Arti cial intelligence dominates capital
incentives that invested
help derisk in deep in
investments capital intensity...) still hinder investors even
$4.9B
tech whilst quantum has yetbusinesses.
those to make its leap in Europe. In though these aren’t applicable across all
2019, European companies categorised as 'AI' companies types of deep tech companies.
raised nearly $5B, the largest single sub-category.
Capital invested in 2019 into European tech companies categorised as AI
companies.
INVESTMENT IN AI COMPANIES
INVESTMENT IN AI COMPANIES
Arti cial intelligence dominatesdominates
Arti cial intelligence capital invested
capitalin deep in deep
invested
$4.9B
$4.9B
Artificial
tech whilsttech
quantum
whilst intelligence
has yet to has
quantum dominates
makeyetits
toleap
makecapital
in its invested
Europe.
leap inIn
Artificial Europe. in deep
Intelligence In $1249M INVESTMENT IN$2947M
$1750M AI COMPANIES $3252M $4884M
Capital invested ($M) by deep
tech
2019, European
2019, whilst
companies
European quantum has
categorised
companies yet to
as make
'A I'
categorised its leap
companies
as 'A I' in Europe.
Big data
companies In$1053M $1025M $1267M $1892M $2577M
$4.9B
tech sub-category Computer vision $468M $543M $605M $1052M $1548M
2019,
raised nearly
raised European
$5B, $5B,companies
the largest
nearly thesingle categorised
sub-category.
largest as ‘AI’ Robotics
single sub-category. companies$160M $232M $376M Capital invested
$1098M in 2019 into $1391M
Nanotech Capital
$351M invested
Capitalininvested
2019
$586Minto
inEuropean tech companies
2019 into European
$684M categorised
tech companies
European tech as AI $846Mas AI
categorised
companies
$805M
raised nearly $5B, the largest single sub-category. Blockchain
companies.
$89M companies. $220M $377M
categorised $851M
as AI companies. $700M
Search $622M $748M $585M $433M $684M
Internet of Things $696M $885M $1246M $1072M $626M
Hardware $793M $1050M $1011M $1381M $600M
Artificial
Artificial Intelligence
PredictiveIntelligence
$1249M
analytics $1249M
$330M $1750M $1750M
$353M $2947M $2947M
$235M $3252M $3252M
$307M $4884M $4884M
$562M
Capital
Capital invested ($M)invested
by deep($M) by deep Big data Big$1053M
data
3D $1053M
$379M $1025M $1025M
$409M $1267M $1267M
$366M $1892M $1892M
$563M $2577M $2577M
$347M
tech sub-category
tech sub-category Computer vision Computer vision
$468M
Deep learning $468M
$81M $543M $543M
$130M $605M $605M
$314M $1052M $1052M
$327M $1548M $1548M
$320M
Robotics Developer Robotics
$160M
tools $160M
$163M $232M $232M
$233M $376M $376M
$719M $1098M $1098M
$283M $1391M $1391M
$202M
Nanotech Nanotech
Drone
$351M $351M
$89M $586M $586M
$146M $684M $684M
$163M $805M $805M
$157M $846M $846M
$164M
Blockchain
Blockchain Semiconductors $89M $89M
$213M $220M $220M
$183M $377M $377M
$303M $851M $851M
$557M $700M $700M
$148M
Search VirtualSearch
reality
$622M $622M
$237M $748M $748M
$319M $585M $585M
$677M $433M $433M
$256M $684M $684M
$135M
Internet of ThingsInternet of Things
Radar
$696M $696M
$259M $885M $885M
$252M $1246M $1246M
$272M $1072M $1072M
$131M $626M $626M
$116M
Hardware Hardware
Speech
$793M $793M
$75M $1050M $1050M
$88M $1011M $1011M
$124M $1381M $1381M
$88M $600M $600M
$112M
Predictive Quantum
Predictive analytics analytics
$330M $330M
$50M $353M $353M
$0M $235M $235M
$10M $307M $307M
$10M $562M $562M
$20M
3D 3D
$379M $379M $409M $409M $366M $366M $563M $563M $347M $347M
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Deep learning Deep learning
$81M $81M $130M $130M $314M $314M $327M $327M $320M $320M
NOTE: Developer tools Developer tools
$163M $163M $233M $233M $719M $719M $283M $283M $202M $202M
Drone Drone
$89M $89M $146M $146M $163M $163M $157M $157M $164M $164M
biotech, secondary transactions, debt, Semiconductors Semiconductors $213M $213M $183M $183M $303M $303M $557M $557M $148M $148M
AIlending
alsocapital,
dominates the
grants. Please alsonumber
note the of deals invested in deep
SOURCE:
Virtual reality Virtual reality
Dealroom
$237M $237M $319M $319M $677M $677M $256M $256M $135M $135M
data excludes Israel. 2019 annualised based Radar $259M $252M $272M $131M $116M
tech companies.
Radar
Speech
$259M
Speech
$75M $75M
$252M
$88M $88M
$272M
$124M $124M
$131M
$88M $88M
$116M
$112M $112M
Quantum $50M $0M $10M $10M $20M
Quantum $50M $0M $10M $10M $20M
Lonodn 1035 2015 993 2016 9522017 2018
655 2019
788
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Paris 319 411 399 315 300
Number
NOTE:
of deals by deep tech Berlin 326 349 321 266 249
NOTE: sub-category Stockholm 170 321 334 200 177
Amsterdam 151 127 137 114 117
All Dealroom.co data excludes the following: Barcelona 137 157 161 131 108
biotech, secondary transactions, debt, Madrid 114 100 102 83 83
AI also dominates
biotech,
lending capital,AI also
lending
grants.
the
secondary transactions, number
capital,
Please
debt,
dominates ofalsodeals
grants. Please note theinvested in deep
also note the the number of deals invested
SOURCE:Munich
SOURCE: Dealroom Zurich
Dealroom 92
37
84
39
84
49
101
55
67
65
excludes Israel. 2019 annualised based the number of deals invested in deep
AI also dominates
echdata
companies. in deep tech companies.
Dublin
Copenhagen
74
71
182
67
126
83
84
50
64
59
tech 2019.
companies. Helsinki
Milan
114
73
135
82
122
78
87
88
56
53
Oslo 15 51 53 67 41
Lonodn Hamburg
1035 53 993 55 952 38 655 40 788 41
Paris Moscow319 80 411 104 399 110 315 72 300 39
Number of deals by deep tech Berlin Lonodn
Vilnius
326 1035
36 349 993
16 321 952
22 266 655
28 249 788
36
Paris 319 411 399 315 300
sub-category Number of deals by deep tech Stockholm Manchester170 23 321 22 334 47 200 20 177 36
Berlin
Vienna 326
23 349
50 321
45 266
34 249
35
Amsterdam Stockholm151 170 127 321 137 334 114 200 117 177
sub-category Barcelona Cambridge
Amsterdam137
Warsaw
25
151
55
157 38
127
38
161 28
137
49
131 23
114
19
108 28
117
25
Madrid 114
Barcelona 137 100 157 102 161 83 131 83 108
Munich Edinburgh 32 33 36 26 25
Madrid
Lausanne 92 114
21 84 100
39 84 102
27 101 83
24 67 83
25
Zurich Munich37 92 39 84 49 84 55 101 65 67
Dublin Bristol
74 20 182 23 126 31 84 20 64 25
Zurich
Istanbul 37
33 39
29 49
30 55
77 65
23
Copenhagen 71
Dublin
Lisbon 74
23 67 182
24 83 126
25 50 84
32 59 64
23
Helsinki Copenhagen114
Oxford 71
15 135 67
13 122 83
19 87 50
18 56 59
23
Milan Bucharest 73
Helsinki 114
17 82 135
16 78 122
14 88 87
12 53 56
23
Oslo Budapest 15
Milan 73
22 51 82
19 53 78
39 67 88
22 41 53
21
Hamburg 53
Oslo
Lyon 15
13 55 51
30 38 53
32 40 67
19 41 41
20
Moscow Hamburg 80 53 104 55 110 38 72 40 39 41
Vilnius Moscow 36 2015
80 16 2016
104 22 2017
110 28 2018
72 36 2019
39
Manchester 23
Vilnius 36 22 16 47 22 20 28 36 36
Vienna Manchester 23 23 50 22 45 47 34 20 35 36
NOTE: Cambridge Vienna25 23 38 50 28 45 23 34 28 35
Warsaw Cambridge 55 25 38 38 49 28 19 23 25 28
Hardware includes hardware manufacturing. Edinburgh Warsaw 32 55 33 38 36 49 26 19 25 25
All Dealroom.co data excludes the following: Lausanne Edinburgh 21 32 39 33 27 36 24 26 25 25
Bristol Lausanne 20 21 23 39 31 27 20 24 25 25
biotech, secondary transactions, debt, Istanbul Bristol
33 20 29 23 30 31 77 20 23 25
lending capital, grants. Please also note the Lisbon SOURCE: Dealroom
Istanbul
23 33 24 29 25 30 32 77 23 23
data excludes Israel. 2019 annualised based Oxford Lisbon
15 23 13 24 19 25 18 32 23 23
Bucharest Oxford
17 15 16 13 14 19 12 18 23 23
on data to September 2019. Budapest Bucharest 22 17 19 16 39 14 22 12 21 23
Lyon Budapest 13 22 30 19 32 39 19 22 20 21
Lyon 13 30 32 19 20
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
NOTE: NOTE:
Hardware includes hardware
Hardwaremanufacturing.
includes hardware manufacturing.
All Dealroom.co dataAllexcludes the following:
biotech, secondary biotech,
transactions, debt,transactions, debt,
secondary
SOURCE: Dealroom
lending capital, www.stateofeuropeantech.com
grants. Please also note the 29 In Partnership with &
data excludes Israel.data
2019excludes
annualised based
Israel. 2019 annualised based
on data to Septemberon 2019.
The UK is Europe’s leading destination for deep tech investment, attracting $2.9B in 2019
and close to $10B cumulatively since 2015. France and Germany are also European deep
tech powerhouses and Thesaw
UK iscombined
Europe's leading destination for deep tech investment, attracting $2.9B in 2019 and close to $10B
The UK isaEurope's $2B
leading invested
destination in those
for deep countries
tech investment, in 2019.
attracting Looking
$2.9B in 2019 and close to $10B
cumulatively
beyond the Top 10, Romania stands
cumulatively since
since out 2015.
2015.thanksFrance
France theand
to Germany
and Germany
large
are sums are also
deepEuropean
invested
also European into deep tech
UiPath,
tech powerhouses powerhouses
and saw a combined and saw a combined
$2B
$2B invested in those
invested in those
arguably Europe’s fastest-growing countries
countries in 2019. in
deep tech champion. 2019.
Looking Looking
beyond beyond
the Top the
10, Romania Top 10,
stands Romania
out thanks to stands
the large out thanks to the large
sums invested into UiPath, arguably Europe's fastest-growing deep tech champion.
sums invested into UiPath, arguably Europe's fastest-growing deep tech champion.
Capital invested ($M) in DATAS E T : TO P 1 0 C O U N T R I E S

European
Capital deep tech($M)
invested companies
in TOP 10 COUNTRIES
DATASET: TOP 10 COUNTRIES
by country
European deep tech companies
The
by UK is Europe's leading destination
country
LEGEND
for deep tech investment, attracting $2.9B in 2019 and close to $10B
United Kingdom
cumulatively
2014-2018 since 2015. France and Germany
France
are also European deep tech powerhouses and saw a combined
$2B invested in those countries in 2019.
LEGEND
2019
Germany Looking beyond the Top 10, Romania stands out thanks to the large
United Kingdom
sums invested into UiPath, arguablySwitzerland

2014-2018 Europe's fastest-growing
France deep tech champion.
2019 Netherlands
Germany
Sweden
Capital invested ($M) in DATASET: TOP 10 COUNTRIES
Switzerland
Ireland
European deep tech companies
Finland Netherlands
by country
The UK is Europe's leading destination for deep tech investment, attracting $2.9B in 2019 and close to $10B
Sweden Spain
cumulatively since 2015. France and Germany are also European deep tech powerhouses and saw a combined
Belgium
$2B invested in those countries in 2019. Looking beyond
LEGEND Unitedthe
KingdomTop 10, Romania stands out thanks to the large
Ireland
sums invested into UiPath, arguably Europe's fastest-growing
2014-2018
0 1,000
deep
2,000
tech3,000
champion.
4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000 11,000
France
Finland Capital invested ($M)
2019
NOTE: DATAS E T : C O U N T R I E S 1 1 - 2Spain
0 A ND R E ST O F E U R O P E
Germany
Capital invested ($M) in
2019 annualised
European based
deep on data
tech to September
companies COUNTRIES 11-20 AND REST OF EUROPE
2019. Romania gures might be overstated S O U R C E : Dealroom Switzerland
Belgium
by
duecountry
to $570M UiPath round taking place in
2019. Netherlands 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9
LEGEND Romania
2014-2018 Italy
Sweden
2019
NOTE: Russia Ireland
Norway
2019 annualised based on data to September Finland
2019. Romania gures might be overstated Austria SOURCE: Dealroom
due to $570M UiPath round taking place in Denmark Spain
2019.
Poland
Belgium
Iceland
Estonia 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9
Portugal
Rest of Europe
NOTE:
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 1,100 1,200 1,300 1,400
2019 annualised based on data to September Capital invested ($M)
2019. Romania gures might be overstated SOURCE: Dealroom
due to $570M UiPath round taking place in
NOTE:
2019.
2019 annualised based on data to September
2019. Romania gures might be overstated S O U R C E : Dealroom
due to $570M UiPath round taking place in
2019.
Quantum is a small but important emerging category for deep tech investments. On a global basis, cumulative
investments into quantum companies has reached more than $600M and this is likely to miss a number of
companies in stealth mode due to the sensitive nature of their technology.
Quantum is a small but important emerging category for deep tech investments. On a
global basis, cumulative investments into quantum companies250 has reached more than
$600M and this is likelyNumber
to missof deals and capital
a
invested ($M)
number of companies in stealth mode due to the sensitive
Quantum
nature of their technology. is a insmall
quantum
but important emerging category for deep tech investments. On a global basis, cumulative
globally
investments intobut
Quantum is a small quantum
importantcompanies has for
200
emerging category reached more
deep tech than $600M
investments. andbasis,
On a global this cumulative
is likely to miss a number of
investments into
companies in quantummode
stealth companies
duehas
to reached
the more than
sensitive $600M of
nature andtheir
this istechnology.
likely to miss a number of
LEGEND
companies in stealth mode due to the sensitive nature of their technology.
$155M
Capital invested ($M) 150
250 250
# of deals
Number
Number ofof deals
deals andand capital
capital
$222M
$120M
invested ($M) in quantum
invested ($M) in quantum $101M
globally 100
globally 200
200
LEGEND
$155M
LEGEND
Capital invested ($M) 150 43
# of deals
50 $155M
# of deals 30
Capital invested ($M) 150 21 $120M
$101M 10
# of deals 100 $13M
$120M
0
$101M
2015 2016 2017 2018
100 43
50
30 28
21
10
NOTE: $13M
0
43
All Dealroom.co data excludes the following: 201550 2016 2017 2018 30 2019
21
lending
NOTE:
capital. 2019 annualised based on 10
data to September 2019. $13M
biotech, secondary transactions, debt, S O U R C E : Dealroom 0
lending capital. 2019 annualised based on 2015 2016 2017 2018
NOTE:
lending capital. 2019 annualised based on

03.2
European strength in deep tech is also extending itself into new sub-categories that are growing in importance
Investment by Industry
as destinations for global investment. Quantum is a great example of how the region's research strength at
European universities (such as Bristol, Innsbruck, Oxford and UCL) is helping to underpin Europe's position as a
European strength incompetitive
deep tech isforce
alsoon the global
extending stage.
itself into new sub-categories
that are growing in importance as destinations for global investment. 100
Quantum is
a great example of howEuropean
the strength
region’s in
research deep
Share of quantum deals (%) by tech
strength is also
at extending
European itself into new sub-categories that are growing in importance
universities
asregion
destinations
(such as Bristol, Innsbruck, Oxford and for UCL)
globalisinvestment. QuantumEurope’s
helping to underpin is a greatposition
example of how the region's research strength at
European strength
European in deep tech
universities is also
(such extendingInnsbruck,
as Bristol, itself into newOxford
sub-categories
and UCL)that is
arehelping
growing in
toimportance
underpin Europe's position as a
as a competitive force on the global stage.
as destinations for global investment. Quantum is a great75example of how the region's research strength at
competitive
LEGEND force on
European universities the
(such as global stage. Oxford and UCL) is helping to underpin Europe's position as a
Bristol, Innsbruck,
United States and Canada
competitive force on the global stage.
% of quantum deals
Europe 100
Share
Asia of quantum deals (%) by
100
50
Share of quantum deals (%) by
region
region
Rest of world
75 75
LEGEND
LEGEND
United States and Canada 25
% of quantum deals
% of quantum deals
Europe
Europe
Asia 50
Asia
Rest of world 50
Rest of world
0
25 2015 2016 2017 2018
NOTE:
25
0
biotech, secondary transactions, debt, 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
lending capital. Please also note Europe data
excludes
NOTE: Israel but is included in 'rest of SOURCE: Dealroom
world'. 2019 based
All Dealroom.co on datathe
data excludes upfollowing:
to October
0
2019.
biotech, secondary transactions, debt, 2015 2016 2017 2018
excludes Israel but is included in 'rest of S O U R C E : Dealroom
NOTE:
world'. 2019 based on data up to October
2019.
excludes Israel but is included in 'rest of SOURCE: Dealroom
world'. 2019 based on data up to October
2019.
The brand of Bristol 10 years ago, UK founders would go to Silicon Valley and
be asked, ‘when are you going to relocate here?’ That’s no
where we are based is longer a question. Now the question is, ‘How can I invest in
now recognised globally. this incredible opportunity?’
We are on the map.
That’s proof of the shift in external perception about the
UK ecosystem. This reflects the work that the British
government has done to promote the UK, but also the Nigel Toon
large number of highly successful tech firms that have
Graphcore
come out of the UK. Now there are entrepreneurs who
Co-Founder & CEO
have ‘been there and done it.’ There are role models that
the next generation can look up to, and that is fuelling even
greater levels of aspiration and ambition.
And it’s not just the UK as a whole, the brand of Bristol where
Though many European quantumwe companies
are based isremain in stealth
now recognised mode,
globally. Weaare
growing number of promising quantum
on the map.
companies have raised early-stage rounds in the past year. Although not included in the below, a few of these
companies have also bene tted from grants from the European Union - Beit for example received an additional
$2.6m.
Capital
Stage Date City Country Lead Inv
Though many European quantum
Selected companies
early-stage deals remain in stealth mode, a growing number raised ($M)
of promising quantumraised
companies have
by European raised early-stage rounds
quantum IQM in the past year.
Seed 12.2
Jul-
Espoo Finland Vito Ventures;MIG Fonds;Tesi;
Though many European quantum companies remain in stealth mode, a growing 19 number of promising quantum
Although not includedcomputing
in
Though
companies
the below, a fewinquantum
many European
2019
of these companies
companies have
remain in also
stealth benefitted
mode, fromof promising quantum
a growing number
companies
companies
haveraised
raised early-stage rounds in theAlthough
past year. Although not included
Jun- in the below,
United a few of these
grants from the European Unionhave
companies - Beit
have for
also
early-stage
example
bene
rounds in the past
ttedreceived
from grants an year.
additional
Riverlane not included
$2.6m.
from the European
Seed in4.4
the below, a few of these
Cambridge
Union - Beit19for example receivedKingdom
Amadeus Capital Partners;Cam
an additional
companies have also bene tted from grants from the European Union - Beit for example received an additional
$2.6m.
$2.6m.
HQS Quantum Simulations Seed 2.6
Oct-
Karlsruhe Germany
High-Tech Gründerfonds;Unte
19 Partners;btov Partners
Capital
Stage Date City Country Lead Investors
Selected early-stage deals
raised ($M) Capital Oct- United
Rahko Stage
Seed 1.7 Date City
London Country Balderton Capital Lead Inv
raised ($M) 19 Vito Ventures;MIG Fonds;Tesi;OpenOcean;Maki.vc
Kingdom
Selected
raised byearly-stage deals
European quantum IQM Seed 12.2
Jul-
19
Espoo Finland
computing companies in 2019 Jul-
raised by European quantum IQM Seed
Jun- 12.2 United Oct- Espoo Finland Vito Ventures;MIG Fonds;Tesi;
Riverlane Beit Seed 4.4 Seed 1.4
Cambridge 19 Amadeus
Krakow Poland Innovation
Capital Partners;Cambridge Kindred
Capital Capital
computing companies in 2019 19 Kingdom 19
Oct- Jun- United
High-Tech Gründerfonds;Unternehmertum Venture Capital
Riverlane Seed
HQS Quantum Simulations 2.6 Seed
19 4.4
Karlsruhe Germany May- Cambridge
Partners;btov Partners Amadeus
High-TechCapital Partners;Cam
Gründerfonds;Unte
Kiutr a Seed 1.2 19 Munich Kingdom
Germany
19 Partners;APEX Ventures
Oct- United
Rahko Seed 1.7 London Balderton Capital
19 Kingdom Oct- High-Tech Gründerfonds;Unte
HQS Quantum Simulations Seed 2.6 May- Karlsruhe Germany
United
Phasecraft Seed 1.0 19 London Partners;btov
UCL TechnologyPartners
Fund;Parkwa
Beit See d 1.4
Oct-
Krakow Poland
19 Kindred Capital Kingdom
19
Oct- United
Rahko Seed 1.7 Oct- London United Balderton Ca pital
Kiutra NuQuantum
Seed 1.2
May-
Seed 0.8
Munich Germany 19 High-Tech
Cambridge Kingdom
Gründerfonds;Unternehmertum Venture Capital Capital Partners
Amadeus
19 19 Partners;APEX Ventures Kingdom
May- United Oct-
Phasecraft Beit Seed 1.0 Seed 1.4
London KrakowFund;Parkwalk
UCL Technology Poland
Advisors Kindred Capital
19 Kingdom 19
NOTE:
Oct- United
NuQuantum Seed 0.8 Cambridge Amadeus Capital Partners
May- High-Tech Gründerfonds;Unte
All Dealroom.co data excludes the following: 19 Kingdom
Kiutra Seed 1.2 Munich Germany
biotech, secondary transactions, debt, SOURCE: Dealroom 19 Partners;APEX Ventures
lending
NOTE:capital, grants. Please also note the
data excludes Israel. May- United
All Dealroom.co data excludes the following: Phasecraft Seed 1.0 London UCL Technology Fund;Parkwa
S O U R C E : Dealroom 19 Kingdom
data excludes Israel. Oct- United
NuQuantum Seed 0.8 Cambridge Amadeus Capital Partners
19 Kingdom
NOTE:
Investments by Geography
Cumulative capital investment since 2015 has

surpassed $10 billion in three European countries
(UK, Germany, France) and more than $1 billion in
a further eleven countries.
Cumulative capital investment since 2015 has surpassed $10 billion in three European countries (UK, Germany,
Cumulative capital
France) and more than investment sinceeleven
$1 billion in a further 2015countries.
has surpassed $10 billion in three European countries (UK, Germany,
France) and more than $1 billion in a further eleven countries.
Capital invested ($M) by country, DATAS E T : TO P 1 0 C O U N T R I E S
cumulative since 2015 and per
year
Capital invested ($M) by country, DATASET: TOP 10 COUNTRIES
TOP 10 COUNTRIES
cumulative
LEGEND
since 2015 and per
40,000
year
2015
2016
LEGEND
2017
30,000 40,000
2018
2015
2019
2016
20,000
2017
30,000
2018
2019 10,000
20,000
Cumulative capital investment since 2015 has surpassed
0 $10 billion in three European countries (UK, Germany,
United Germany France Sweden Spain Switzerland Netherlands Ireland Finland Italy
France) and more than $1 billion in a further elevenKingdom
countries.
NOTE:
All Dealroom.co data excludes the following: 10,000

biotech,
Capitalsecondary
invested transactions, debt,
($M) by country, DATAS E T : C O U N T R I E S 1 1 - 2 0
cumulative
data since
excludes Israel. 2015
2019 and per
annualised based
year
on data to September 2019. COUNTRIES 11-20
LEGEND
0
2,000 United Germany France Sweden Spain Switzerland Netherlands Ireland
2015 Kingdom
NOTE:
2016
2017
All Dealroom.co data excludes the following: 1,500
Cumulative
biotech, capital investment since 2015
2018 secondary transactions, debt,
has surpassed $10 billion in three European countries (UK, Germany,
lending SOURCE: Dealroom

2019capital, grants. Please also note the
France) and
data excludes more
Israel. than $1based
2019 annualised billion in a further eleven countries.
Capital invested ($M) by country, DATASET: TOP 10 COUNTRIES

500
year
Cumulative capital investment since 2015 has0surpassed

LEGEND Russia $10 billionBelgium
Denmark in threeRomania
European countries
Norway (UK, Germany,
Luxembourg Austria Poland Portugal Estonia
France)
NOTE:
and more than $1 billion in a further eleven countries.
40,000
2015
biotech,
Capital
lending invested
capital, ($M) by
grants. Please alsocountry,
note the SDATAS
O U R C EE: T
Dealroom
: OT H E R S
2017
year
OTHERS 30,000
2018
2019 400
LEGEND
2015
20,000
2016
2017 300
2018
2019
10,000
200
100 0
United Germany France Sweden Spain Switzerland Netherlands Ireland
Kingdom
NOTE:
0
All Dealroom.co data excludes the following: Cyprus Turkey Iceland Lithuania Hungary Croatia Czech Republic Guernsey Ukraine Montenegro
NOTE:
dataAll excludes
Dealroom.coIsrael. 2019 annualised
data excludes the following: based
on biotech,
data tosecondary
September transactions, debt,
2019.

03.3 Investment by Geography
I am even more optimistic I am even more optimistic than I was 12 months ago, if
that’s possible. In the last 12 months we have seen record
than I was 12 months ago, funding and the birth of new French unicorns. We’ve also
if that’s possible. seen some very promising initiatives from the government
like the new French Tech Visa for talent and Macron’s
recent announcement of a new massive fund for deep
tech. We are seeing more and more tier-1 international
investors and entrepreneurs scouting around and saying
Roxanne Varza
they are excited about what they are seeing. It’s all very
promising. Station F
Director
EUROPEAN TECH COMPANIES

London London is Europe’s
is Europe's tech as
tech capital, capital, as measured
measured by
by the total EUROPEAN TECH COMPANIES
13,000
the
numberLondon total number
of unique of unique
companies companies that have EUROPEAN TECH COMPANIES
techthat have raised funding
13,000
is Europe's capital, as measured by the total
raised
since 2015, funding
with more since
than 2015,the
twice with more than
number of thetwice
second of unique European tech
13,000
number of unique companies that have raised funding companies that have raised
the number
city by size,
sinceParis.
2015,In
of the
total,
with more
second
Europe city
is
than twice
bythe
home size,
to Paris.
more
number
In
than
of the second of unique European tech companies that
funding since 2015.
have raised funding since 2015.
total,
13,000 unique
city byEurope
size, is home
companies
Paris. Inthat to more
have
total, than
raised
Europe 13,000
is funding
home tounique
since
more than
companies that have raised of unique European tech companies that have raised funding since 2015.
2015. 13,000 unique companies thatfunding since
have raised 2015. since
funding
2015.
Top 20 hubs by number of unique DATASET: TOP 10 CITIES
funded companies, 2015-2019 TOP 10 CITIES
Top 20 hubs by number of unique DATASET: TOP 10 CITIES
funded companies, 2015-2019
London 2,747
Paris London 1,183 2,747
Berlin Paris 930 1,183
Berlin 930
Stockholm 776
Stockholm 776
Amsterdam 457
Amsterdam 457
Barcelona 437
London is Europe's tech capital, as measured Dublin by the total EUROPEAN
EUROPEAN TECHTECH
COMPANIES
COMPANIES
Barcelona 437
London is Europe's tech capital, as measured by the total 371
number of unique companies that have raised funding Dublinsince
13,000
371
number of unique companies that have raised funding359
13,000
Helsinki
2015, with more than twice the number of the second city by
since 2015, with more than twice the number of the second 359
Helsinki
size, Paris. In total, Europe is home to almost Madrid
13,000 unique 314
city by size, Paris. In total, Europe is home toMadrid more than 314
companies that have raised funding since 2015. Moscow 302 of unique European tech companies that have raised funding since 2015.
13,000 unique companies that have raised funding Moscow since 302
2015. 0 250
0
500
250 500
750
of unique
1,000
750
1,250
European
1,000
tech
1,500
1,250
1,750
companies
1,500
2,000
that have
1,750
2,250
2,000
raised
2,500
2,250
funding
2,500
2,750
since
2,750
3,000
2015.3,000
# of unique funded companies
NOTE:
Top 20 hubs by number of unique
NOTE: DATASET: TOP 10 CITIES
Number of unique funded companies
Top 20 hubs by9Mnumber of unique DATASET: CITIES 1 1-20
between funded
Number
2015 to ofcompanies,
unique
2019. funded 2015-2019
companies
All Dealroom.co
funded companies,
between
data excludes 20152015-2019
to biotech,
the following: 9M 2019. All Dealroom.co CITIES 11-20
data excludesdebt,
secondary transactions, the following:
lending biotech, SOURCE: Dealroom
secondary
capital, grants. transactions,
Please also debt, lending
note the data SOURCE: Dealroom
London 2,747
capital,
excludes Israel. grants. Please also note the data Munich 252
excludes Israel. Paris 1,183
Milan 219
Berlin 930
Copenhagen 197
Stockholm 776
Zurich 142
Amsterdam 457
Hamburg 138
Barcelona 437
Oslo Dublin 371 132
Vienna Helsinki 359 126
Warsaw Madrid 314 126
Tallinn Moscow 302 116
Istanbul 0 250 500 750 1,000 115 1,250 1,500 1,750 2,000 2,250 2,500 2,750 3,000
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275
NOTE: # of unique funded companies
Number of unique funded companies

NOTE:
between 2015 to 9M 2019. All Dealroom.co
data excludes
Number of unique funded the following: biotech,
companies
secondary transactions, debt, lending SOURCE: Dealroom
between 2015 to 9M 2019. All
capital, grants. Please also note the data
Dealroom.coexcludes
data excludes
Israel. the SOURCE: Dealroom
following: biotech, secondary
transactions, debt, lending capital,
grants. Please also note the data
excludes Israel.

FINTECH INVESTMENTS
The distribution of capital invested per country varies
50%
within keyThe distribution
European tech of capitalverticals.
industry investedThe per UK,
country
for FINTECH INVESTMENTS
FINTECH INVESTMENTS
varies
example,The is the within
most key European
important tech
destination industry
for
distribution of capital invested per country varies
verticals.
investments
within
�ows. example,
inkey
important
The UK,
�ntech, for
is destination
accounting for
investments
example,
accounting
European tech is verticals.
for half
industry the
of allmost
for investments
the most important
half of all
in �ntech,
destination
capital flows.
accounting
capital
The UK, for
in fintech,
for
for half of all capital
50%
50%
UK share of total European
UK share of total European ntech investments since
fintech 2018.
investments since 2018.
UK share of total European ntech investments since 2018.

�ows.
Share of capital invested (%) per DATASET: FINTECH
vertical per country, 2015-2017
vs. 2018-2019 YTD DATASET: FINTECH
Share of capital invested (%) per FINTECH
LEGEND
vs. 2018-2019 YTD
United Kingdom
100
Germany LEGE ND
Sweden United Kingdom
100
France Germany 75
% of capital invested
Switzerland Sweden
Netherlands France FINTECH INVESTMENTS
75
Spain TheSwitzerland
distribution of capital invested per 50 country varies FINTECH INVESTMENTS
50%
TheDenmark within
distribution key
ofEuropean
Netherlands tech industry
capital invested verticals.
per country The UK, for
varies
50%
within example,
Italy key European
Spain is the most
tech important
industry destination
verticals. The UK,forfor
50
Ireland investments
example, is the
Denmarkmost in �ntech, accounting
important destinationfor25 half of all capital
for UK share of total European ntech investments since 2018.
Rest of �ows.
investments Europe
in �ntech, accounting for half of all capital
Italy
�ows. Ireland 25
0
Rest of Europe 2015-2017 2018-2019 YTD
Share of capital invested (%) per DATASET: ENTERPRISE SOFTWARE
NOTE: vertical per country, 2015-2017

Share of capital invested (%) per DATASET: ENTERPRISE
0 SOFT WA R E
All vs.data
Dealroom.co 2018-2019
excludes YTD
the following: 2015-2017 2018-2019 YTD
vs. 2018-2019
NOTE: YTD
LEGE ND
ENTERPRISE SOFTWARE
September 2019.United Kingdom
LEGEND biotech, secondary transactions, debt, 100
Germany
United Kingdom
data excludes Israel. 2019 based on data to 100
France 2019.
September
Germany
Switzerland 75
France
Romania
Switzerland 75
Spain
Romania
Belgium 50
Spain
FINTECH INVESTMENTS
Portugal
BelgiumThe distribution of capital invested per 50 country varies
FINTECH INVESTMENTS
50%
Sweden FINTECH INVESTMENTS
The
within
Portugal distribution of capital
key European investedverticals.
tech industry per country
Thevaries
UK, for
50%
Finland 25
Sweden
within
example, keyisEuropean
the mosttech industry
important verticals.for
destination The UK, for
50%
within key European tech industry verticals. The
Denmark 25 UK, for
example,
Finland
investments is the most important
in �ntech, destination
accounting forall capital
for half of
example,investments
Denmark is the most in
Ireland
important destination for
�ntech, accounting for half of0all capital
�ows.
investments UK share of total European ntech investments2018-2019
sinceYTD2018.
�ows.in �ntech, accounting for half of0all capital
Rest of Europe
Ireland 2015-2017
�ows.
Rest of Europe
NOTE: 2015-2017 2018-2019 YTD
Share of capital invested (%) per DATASET: HEALTH
NOTE:
vertical
Share
biotech, ofper country,
capital
secondary 2015-2017
invested
transactions, (%) per
debt, DATASET: HEALTH
SOURCE: Dealroom
Share of capital
lending
All Dealroom.covs.data invested
capital,
2018-2019
vertical excludes YTD
the
perIsrael. (%)
grants. per
Please
following:
country,
also note the
2015-2017
DATASET: HEALTH
data excludes
biotech, secondary transactions, 2019 based
debt, on data to
vertical per
vs. country,
2018-2019
September
lending capital, grants.
2015-2017
2019.
Please YTD
also note the SOURCE: Dealroom
vs.
data2018-2019
excludesLEGE YTD
Israel. 2019 based on data to
ND
HEALTH
September 2019.
LEGE United
ND Kingdom 100
LEGEND
FranceKingdom
United 100
United Kingdom 100
Germany
France
France
Switzerland
Germany 75
invested
Germany
Netherlands
Switzerland 75
invested
Switzerland 75
Belgium
Netherlands
of capital
Netherlands
Sweden
Belgium 50
capital
Belgium
Ireland
Sweden 50
% of %
Sweden 50
Spain
Ireland
Ireland 25
Denmark
Spain
Spain 25
Italy
Denmark
Denmark 25
Rest of Europe
Italy
Italy 0
Rest of Europe
2015-2017 2018-2019 YTD
Rest of Europe 0
2015-2017 2018-2019 YTD
NOTE: 0
2015-2017 2018-2019 YTD
NOTE:
NOTE: biotech, secondary transactions, debt,
All Dealroom.co
lending data excludes
capital, grants. Please the
alsofollowing:
note the SOURCE: Dealroom
biotech,
All Dealroom.co data
data secondary
excludes
excludes thetransactions,
Israel. following:
2019 based ondebt,
data to
September 2019. debt,
data
lending capital, excludes
grants. Israel.
Please also2019
notebased
the on data to SOURCE: Dealroom
data excludesSeptember
Israel. 20192019.
based on data to
September 2019.

example, is the most important destination for 50%
50%
within
investments inkey European
�ntech, tech industry
accounting for half verticals. The UK, for
of all capital
example, is the most important destination for UK share of total European ntech investments since 2018.
�ows.
investments in �ntech, accounting for half of all capital
03.3 Investment by Geography UK share of total European ntech investments since 2018.
�ows.
Share of capital invested (%) per DATASET: ENERGY
Share
vs. 2018-2019 YTDof capital invested (%) per ENERGY DATASET: ENERGY
LEGEND vs. 2018-2019 YTD
United Kingdom 100
LEGE ND
Sweden
United Kingdom 100
Germany
Sweden
France 75
Germany
Switzerland
France 75
Netherlands FINTECH INVESTMENTS
Switzerland
The distribution of capital invested per
Spain 50 country varies
FINTECH INVESTMENTS
50%
Netherlands
within
Finland key European tech industry verticals.
Spain
The
50
UK, for
50%
example,
Denmark is the most important destination
Finland
for
UK, for
example,investments
is the most in �ntech, accounting
destinationfor
forhalf of all capital
Italy 25
important
Denmark UK share of total European ntech investments since 2018.
�ows.in �ntech, accounting for half of all capital
Rest of Europe
investments Italy 25
�ows. Rest of Europe 0
2015-2017 2018-2019 YTD
Share of capital invested (%) per DATASET: TR ANSPORTATION
NOTE: 0
vertical per country, 2015-2017 2015-2017 2018-2019 YTD
Share of capital invested (%) per DATASET: TR ANSPORTATION
vs.data
All Dealroom.co 2018-2019 YTD
vertical per country,
NOTE:
biotech, secondary 2015-2017
transactions, debt,
SOURCE: Dealroom
vs. 2018-2019
lending capital, YTD
grants. Please
All Dealroom.co
also note the
data excludes the following: TRANSPORTATION
data excludesLEGE
Israel.ND
2019 based on data to
September 2019.
Germany SOURCE: Dealroom
LEGEND 100
United Kingdom
Germany September 2019.
100
France
United Kingdom
Spain 75
France
Spain 75

Netherlands
Sweden
50%
FINTECH INVESTMENTS
Switzerland 50 UK, for
SwedenThe distribution of capital invested per country varies FINTECH INVESTMENTS
example, is the most important destination for
50%
Russia
within key
Switzerland
The distribution ofEuropean tech industry
capital invested verticals.
50
per country variesThe UK, for
investments in �ntech, accounting for half of all capital
Croatia
50%
Russia
within key example,
European is the
techmost important
industry destination
verticals. The UK,for for
25 UK share of total European ntech investments since 2018.
�ows.
Croatia
Finland
example,investments
is the most in
Ireland �ntech, accounting
important destinationfor
for
25
half of all capital
Finland
investments�ows.in �ntech, accounting for half of all capital
Rest of Europe
Ireland UK share of total European ntech investments since 2018.
�ows. Share of capital invested (%) per
Rest of Europe
DATASET:
0 HEALTH
2015-2017 2018-2019 YTD
Share of capital invested (%) per 0 DATASET: FOOD
vs. 2018-2019
NOTE: YTD 2015-2017 2018-2019 YTD
vertical per country, 2015-2017 DATASET: FOOD
Share of capital invested
All Dealroom.co data (%) perthe following:
excludes
NOTE: vs. 2018-2019
biotech,
NDsecondary
YTD
transactions, debt,
vertical per country,
LEGE
lending
2015-2017
vs. 2018-2019
biotech, data YTD
excludes
United
secondary Israel.debt,
Kingdom
transactions, 2019 based on data to 100
LEGE
SeptemberND 2019. FOOD Dealroom
SOURCE:
FrancePlease also note the
data excludes Israel. 2019
United based on data to
Kingdom
LEGEND 100
September 2019.Germany
United Kingdom France
Switzerland 100 75
invested
France Germany
Netherlands
Germany Spain 75
invested
Belgium
% of capital
Spain Finland
Sweden 75 50
Sweden
% of capital
Finland Ireland
Belgium 50
Sweden Spain
Norway
Belgium Denmark 50 25
Italy
Norway Italy
Netherlands 25
Italy Rest of Europe
Rest of Europe 25
Netherlands 0
2015-2017 2018-2019 YTD
Rest of Europe
0
NOTE: 2015-2017 2018-2019 YTD
All Dealroom.co data excludes the following: 0
NOTE: secondary transactions, debt,
biotech, 2015-2017 2018-2019 YTD
NOTE: All Dealroom.co data excludes the following:
September 2019. SOURCE: Dealroom
lending
All Dealroom.co capital, grants.
data excludes Please also note the
the following:
data excludes
biotech, secondary Israel.debt,
transactions, 2019 based on data to
September
lending capital, 2019. also note the
grants. Please SOURCE: Dealroom
September 2019.

Though the UK has a dominant share of capital invested in European fintech companies,
its share of deals is lower, a reflection of the fact that UK fintech companies have been
Though the UK has
Though theaUK
successful dominant
in ashare
has a dominant
raising number ofshare
capital
ofinvested
of giant capital in
ofEuropean
roundsinvested
moreinthan �ntech
$100M.companies,
European �ntech its share
In fact,companies,
looking itsofshare
at the dealsof
is deals is
lower, a lower,
re�ection of the
a re�ection
distribution fact that
of the
of deals UK
perfact �ntech
that UK
industry companies
�ntech
vertical per have
companiesbeen successful
have been
country shows in raising a number
successful characteristic
the distributed of giant
in raising a number of giant
rounds of
ofmore
rounds than
of
investment $100M.
more thanIn fact, looking
$100M.
activity acrossIn fact, at the distribution
looking
the region, of dealsof
atdemonstrated
as the distributionbyper industry
deals
the vertical vertical
per of
share industry
deals inper country shows shows
the per country
the distributed
the characteristic
distributed of investment
characteristic of activity across
investment activitythe region,
across the as demonstrated
region, as by the share
demonstrated by theofshare
dealsof
indeals in
transportation industry.
the transportation industry.industry.
the transportation
Share of deals
Share(%)
of per industry
deals (%) per industry TRANSPORTATION
DATASET: TR ANSPORTATION
DATASET: TR ANSPORTATION
vertical byvertical
countryby country
100 100
LEGEND LEGE ND
United Kingdom
United Kingdom
Germany Germany
France 75 75
France
Netherlands Netherlands
Spain Spain
% of deals
% of deals
Though
Sweden Swedenthe UK has a dominant share50of capital 50 invested in European �ntech companies, its share of deals is
Russia lower, a re�ection of the fact that UK �ntech companies have been successful in raising a number of giant
Russia
rounds of more than $100M. In fact, looking at the distribution of deals per industry vertical per country shows
Switzerland Switzerland
Italy
Though the Italy
the distributed
UK characteristic
has a dominant ofcapital
share of investment activity
25 invested
25 across the
in European region,
�ntech as demonstrated
companies, its sharebyofthe share
deals is of deals in
Norway
lower, a the transportation industry.
Norway
re�ection
Rest of Europe
of the fact
Rest of Europe
that UK �ntech companies have been successful in raising a number of giant
the distributed characteristic
Share of of investment activity
deals (%) per industry 0 across
DATASET:
0 the region,
ENTERPRISE SOFTWAREas demonstrated by the share of deals in
2015-2017 2015-2017 2018-2019 YTD2018-2019 YTD
the transportation industry.
vertical by country
NOTE: NOTE:
100
LEGE
All Dealroom.co
All dataNDexcludesdata
Dealroom.co the following:
excludes the following: ENTERPRISE SOFTWARE
biotech,
Share of secondary
deals transactions,
biotech,(%) debt,
per industry
secondary transactions, debt, DATASET: ENTERPRISE SOFT WA R E
lending capital, United
grants.
lending Kingdom
Please
capital, also note
grants. the also note the
Please SOURCE: Dealroom
SOURCE: Dealroom
vertical by country
data excludesdata
Israel. 2019 based
excludes
Germany on2019
Israel. databased
to on data to
September 2019.
September 2019.
France 100 75
LEGEND
Spain
United Kingdom
Netherlands
% of deals
Germany
Sweden 50
France 75
Switzerland
Spain
Italy
% of deals
Ireland
Sweden The
Though distribution
the UK has of capital
a dominant invested
shareper
50ofcountry
25 varies
capital invested in European �ntech companies, its share of deals is
50%
Denmark
within
Switzerland key European tech industry
lower, a re�ection of the fact that UK �ntech companies
Rest of Europe
verticals. The UK, for have been successful in raising a number of giant
Italy example,
rounds ofismorethe most important
than $100M. destination
In fact, looking atforthe distribution of deals per industry vertical per country shows
Though
Ireland the UK
investments
the has a dominant
distributed in �ntech, share of
accounting
characteristic ofcapital
for invested
half
ofactivity
0all capital
across the�ntech companies,
region, its sharebyofthe
as demonstrated deals is of deals in
share
25 UK share of total European ntech investments2018-2019
sinceYTD
2018.
lower, a �ows.
Denmark re�ection of the
the transportation industry. fact that UK �ntech companies have been successful2015-2017
in raising a number of giant
rounds of NOTE:
Rest of more than $100M. In fact, looking at the distribution of deals per industry vertical per country shows
Europe
the distributed characteristic

All Dealroom.co data excludes theof investment activity
following: across the region, as demonstrated by the share of deals in
DATASET: HEALTH
biotech, of
Share capital
secondary invested
transactions, (%) per
debt, 0 DATASET: HEALTH
Share
the transportation of deals (%)
lending capital,industry. per industry
grants. Please also note the SOURCE: Dealroom 2015-2017 2018-2019 YTD
vertical by Israel.
data excludes country2019 based on data to
NOTE: vs. 2018-2019
September 2019. YTD
100
All Dealroom.co
Share LEGE
of dealsdataND excludes the following:
(%) per industry HEALTH HEALTH
DATASET:
biotech, secondary
LEGEtransactions,
ND debt,
vertical
lending by country
capital, UnitedPlease
grants. Kingdomalso note the SOURCE: Dealroom
United Kingdom
data excludes Israel. 2019 based on data to 100
France
September 2019. 100
LEGEND France 75
Germany
United Kingdom Germany
Switzerland
France Switzerland 75
% ofinvested
Netherlands
deals
Germany Netherlands 75
Sweden 50
Switzerland Belgium
% of capital
Spain
Netherlands Sweden
Italy
50
% of deals
Sweden Ireland
Finland 50
Spain 25
Spain Belgium
Denmark 25
Italy Ireland
Italy
Finland Rest of Europe
25
Rest of Europe 0
Belgium
0 2015-2017 2018-2019 YTD
Ireland 2015-2017 2018-2019 YTD
NOTE:
Rest of Europe
NOTE:
All Dealroom.co
biotech, secondarydatatransactions,
excludes thedebt,
following: 2015-2017 2018-2019 YTD
biotech, secondary
lending capital, transactions,
grants. debt,
Please also note the SOURCE: Dealroom
NOTE: lending capital,Israel.
data excludes grants. Please
2019 also
based on note
data the
to SOURCE: Dealroom
data excludes
September Israel. 2019 based on data to
2019.
All Dealroom.co data excludes
September 2019. the following:
September 2019.

Though the UK has a dominant share of capital invested in European �ntech companies, its share of deals is
lower, a re�ection of the fact that UK �ntech companies have been successful in raising a number of giant
the
03.3 distributed characteristic
Investment by Geography of investment activity across the region, as demonstrated by the share of deals in
the distributed characteristic of investment activity across the region, as demonstrated by the share of deals in
Share of deals (%) per industry DATASET: ENERGY

ENERGY ENERGY
Share of deals (%)by
vertical percountry
industry DATASET:
vertical by country
100
LEGE ND 100
LEGE ND
United Kingdom
United Kingdom
France
France 75
Netherlands
Netherlands 75
Germany
Germany
Sweden
% of deals
Sweden
% of deals
Switzerland 50
Switzerland 50
Finland
Though the UK has a dominant share of capital invested in European �ntech companies, its share of deals is
Finland
Ireland
Ireland
Spain
rounds of more than $100M. In fact, looking at
Spain 25 the distribution of deals per industry vertical per country shows
Italy 25
Though the UK
Italy has a dominant
distributed share of
characteristic ofcapital invested
activity across the�ntech companies,
region, its sharebyofthe
as demonstrated deals is of deals in
share
Norway
lower, a re�ection of the fact
the transportation
Norway that UK �ntech companies have been successful in raising a number of giant
industry.
Portugal
rounds of more than $100M. In fact, looking at the distribution
Portugal
Rest of Europe 0 of deals per industry vertical per country shows
the distributed characteristic of investment activity
Rest of Europe 0 across
DATASET: FOOD
the region, as demonstrated
2015-2017
2015-2017
by the share of deals2018-2019
in YTD2018-2019 YTD
Share of deals (%) per industry
the transportation
NOTE: industry.
vertical by country
NOTE:
biotech,
All Dealroom.co secondary
data excludes thetransactions,
following: debt, 100
SOURCE: Dealroom
lending
biotech, secondary capital, grants.
LEGEtransactions,
ND Please also note the
debt, FOOD
Share of deals
data
lending capital, (%)Please
per
excludes
grants. industry
Israel.
also2019
notebased
the on data to
DATASET: FOOD
SOURCE: Dealroom
United Kingdom
vertical bySeptember
data excludes country
Israel. 20192019.
based on data to
September 2019.France
100 75
LEGE ND Germany
Italy
United Kingdom
France Spain
% of deals
Germany Netherlands 75 50
Italy Sweden
Spain Switzerland
% of deals
Netherlands Finland 50 25
Sweden Norway
Switzerland Ireland
Finland ThoughRest ofthe
EuropeUK has a dominant share of capital invested in European �ntech
FINTECH companies, its share of deals is
INVESTMENTS
Norway
The
lower, distribution
a re�ection ofof
capital
the fact invested
that UKper
25 country varies have been successful in raising a number of giant
�ntech 0companies
50%
2015-2017 2018-2019 YTD
within key European tech industry verticals. The UK, for
Ireland rounds of more than $100M. In fact, looking at the distribution of deals per industry vertical per country shows
Though the UK has
NOTE:
isathedominant share of destination
capital invested in European �ntech companies, its share of deals is
Rest of example,
the
Europedistributed most important
characteristic of investmentforactivity across the region, as demonstrated by the share of deals in
lower, a investments
re�ection ofdata
All Dealroom.co the
in factthethat
excludes
�ntech, UK �ntech
following:
accounting companies have been successful in raising a number of giant
for
0 half of all capital
the transportation
biotech, industry.
secondary transactions, debt,
UK share vertical
of total European ntech investments
2018-2019 YTD since 2018.
rounds of morecapital,
�ows.
lending thangrants.
$100M. In fact,
Please also note thelooking at the distribution
SOURCE: Dealroom of deals per industry
2015-2017
per country shows
the
NOTE:distributed characteristic
September 2019. of investment activity across the region, as demonstrated by the share of deals in
the transportation
Share
All Dealroom.co industry.
of deals
data excludes the(%) per industry
following: DATASET: FINTECH
biotech, secondary
Share transactions,
ofbycapital debt,
invested (%) per DATASET: HEALTH
vertical country
data excludesvertical
Israel. 2019per country,
based on data to2015-2017 FINTECH 100
September
Share of2019. vs.
deals
LEGE 2018-2019 YTD
(%) per industry
ND DATASET: FINTECH
vertical by country
United Kingdom
LEGE ND
Germany 100
LEGE ND United Kingdom 75
100
France
France
United Kingdom
Sweden
Germany Germany
Spain
% of deals
France Switzerland 75
75
Italy 50
Sweden Netherlands
Netherlands
Spain Belgium
Switzerland
% of deals
Italy Sweden 50 50
Ireland
25
Netherlands Ireland
Denmark
Switzerland Spain
Rest of Europe
Ireland Denmark 25
25
Denmark Italy 0
2015-2017 2018-2019 YTD
Rest of Europe
Rest of Europe
NOTE: 0
2015-2017 2018-2019 YTD
NOTE:
biotech, secondary transactions, debt, 2015-2017 2018-2019 YTD
NOTE: All
dataDealroom.co data 2019
excludes Israel. excludes the
based onfollowing:
data to
biotech,
September secondary
2019. transactions, debt,
lending the following:
data excludes Israel.debt,
lending capital, grants. Please
September 2019. also note the SOURCE: Dealroom
September 2019.

It is important to be cautious when analysing deal count per year due to the significant
impact of the reporting lag on total volumes reported for 2018 and, especially, 2019. Taking
this into account, countries such as Austria, Belgium and Denmark have all seen robust
deal
utious when analysing volume
deal in 2019
count per year compared
due to the to previous
signi cant impact of the It
reporting
ported for 2018 and, especially, 2019. Taking this into account, countries such as
years.
is important
lagAustria,
to be cautious when analysing deal count per year due to the signi cant impact of the reporting
on total volumes reported for 2018 and, especially, 2019. Taking this into account, countries such as Austria,
have all seen robust deal volume in 2019 compared to previous years. Belgium and Denmark have all seen robust deal volume in 2019 compared to previous years.
ry per UNITED KINGDOM - NUMBER OF DEALS PER YEAR

DATASET: UNITED KINGDOM Number of deals by country per GERMANY - NUMBER OF DEALS PER YEAR
DATAS E T : G E R M A N Y
year
L E G E ND 800
1,608 1,578 Germany 726 736
1,533 688
1,500
1,303 604
600
556
1,130
# of deals
# of deals
1,000
400
500
200
0 0
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
NOTE:
ollowing: All Dealroom.co data excludes the following:
ebt, biotech, secondary transactions, debt,
note the SOURCE: Dealroom lending capital, grants. Please also note the S O U R C E : Dealroom
ed based data excludes Israel. 2019 annualised based
utious when analysing deal count per year due to the signi cant impact of the Itreporting
is important to be cautious when analysing deal count per year due to the signi cant impact of the reporting
lagAustria,
ry per FRANCE - NUMBER OF DEALS PER YEAR

DATASET: FR ANCE Number of deals by country per SWEDEN - NUMBER OF DEALS PER YEAR
DATAS E T : SWE D E N
year
1,000 600
L E G E ND
877 Sweden 533 533
838
500
750
643 400
605 589
# of deals
# of deals
500 300
300 288 279
200
250
100
0 0
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
NOTE:
utious when analysing deal count per year due to the signi cant impact of the It
ed based reporting
is important
data to be
excludes Israel. 2019 cautious
annualised based when analysing deal count per year due to the signi cant impact of the reporting
lag
onAustria,
on
data total volumes
to September 2019. reported for 2018 and, especially, 2019. Taking this into account, countries such as Austria,
ry per DATASET: SWITZERL AND Number of deals by country per DATAS E T : S PA I N

SWITZERLAND - NUMBER OF DEALS PER YEAR year
SPAIN - NUMBER OF DEALS PER YEAR
200 L E G E ND
Spain 183 410
400 394 397
164 164 167
150
302
300
277
# of deals
# of deals
107
100
200
50
100
0 0
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
NOTE:

ed based reporting
is important
data to be
excludes Israel. 2019 cautious
lag
onAustria,
on
data total volumes
to September 2019. reported for 2018 and, especially, 2019. Taking this into account, countries such as Austria,
ry per DATASET: NETHERL ANDS Number of deals by country per DATAS E T : R O M A N I A

NETHERLANDS - NUMBER OF DEALS PER YEAR year
ROMANIA - NUMBER OF DEALS PER YEAR
L E G E ND
305 Romania 41
300 293 296 297
40
34
237 31 31
30
200 26
# of deals
# of deals
20
100
10
0 0
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
NOTE:

utious when analysing
03.3deal count per year due to
Investment bythe signi cant impact of the It
Geography reporting
lagAustria,
ry per FINLAND - NUMBER OF DEALS PER YEAR

DATASET: FINL AND Number of deals by country per BELGIUM - NUMBER OF DEALS PER YEAR
DATAS E T : B E LG I U M
year
125
250 L E G E ND
224 Belgium 110
210
200 100
183
86 85
81
150 75
138
# of deals
# of deals
61
100 95 50
50 25
0 0
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
NOTE:
ed based reporting
is important
data to be
excludes Israel. 2019
cautious
lagAustria,
ry per DATASET: DENMARK Number of deals by country per DATAS E T : I TA LY

DENMARK - NUMBER OF DEALS PER YEAR ITALY - NUMBER OF DEALS PER YEAR
year
L E G E ND
126 Italy 258
125 123 249
250 245
110
215
100 96 200
84
# of deals
# of deals
75 150 141
50 100
25 50
0 0
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
NOTE:
utious when analysing deal count per year due to the signi cant impact of the It is important to be cautious when analysing deal count per year due to the signi cant impact of the reporting
reporting
lagAustria,
ported for 2018 and, especially, 2019. Taking this into account, countries such as on total volumes reported for 2018 and, especially, 2019. Taking this into account, countries such as Austria,
IRELAND - NUMBER OF DEALS PER YEAR NORWAY - NUMBER OF DEALS PER YEAR
ry per DATASET: IREL AND Number of deals by country per DATAS E T : N O RWAY
year
300
L E G E ND
266 Norway 104
100
250
81
200 192 75
75
68
# of deals
# of deals
150
127 50
108
100
100
27
25
50
0 0
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
NOTE:

lagAustria,
AUSTRIA - NUMBER OF DEALS PER YEAR POLAND - NUMBER OF DEALS PER YEAR
ry per DATASET: AUSTRIA Number of deals by country per DATAS E T : P O L A ND
year
L E G E ND
83 Poland 128
125
75 74
106
101
100
60
54
51
# of deals
# of deals
76
50 75
56
50
25
25
0 0
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
NOTE:


Geography reporting
lagAustria,
ry per RUSSIA - NUMBER OF DEALS PER YEAR

DATASET: RUSSIA Number of deals by country per PORTUGAL - NUMBER OF DEALS PER YEAR
DATAS E T : P O RT UGA L
year
250 L E G E ND
60
225 Portugal 56 56
53 52
51
200
186
40
150 146
# of deals
# of deals
106
100
20
53
50
0 0
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
NOTE:
ed based
reporting
lagAustria,
ry per DATASET: LUXEMBOURG Number of deals by country per DATAS E T : C R OAT I A

LUXEMBOURG - NUMBER OF DEALS PER YEAR year
CROATIA - NUMBER OF DEALS PER YEAR
20 L E G E ND
18 Croatia 10 10
10
9
15
15 8
13 13 8
# of deals
# of deals
10
5
5
8
5
3
0 0
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
NOTE:
reporting
lagAustria,
TURKEY - NUMBER OF DEALS PER YEAR ESTONIA - NUMBER OF DEALS PER YEAR
ry per DATASET: TURKEY Number of deals by country per DATAS E T : E STO N I A
year
L E G E ND
100 96 81
Estonia
80
66
75 61
60
52
# of deals
# of deals
50 46 40
40
31
34
32
25 20
0 0
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
NOTE:

lagAustria,
GUERNSEY - NUMBER OF DEALS PER YEAR CYPRUS - NUMBER OF DEALS PER YEAR
ry per DATASET: GUERNSEY Number of deals by country per DATAS E T : CYP R U S
year
13 8
L E G E ND
Cyprus 11 7
10
6
6
5
8
# of deals
# of deals
5
5 3 3
2
3 2
0
0 0
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
NOTE:

Geography reporting
lagAustria,
ry per HUNGARY - NUMBER OF DEALS PER YEAR

DATASET: HUNGARY Number of deals by country per ICELAND - NUMBER OF DEALS PER YEAR
DATAS E T : I C E L A ND
year
L E G E ND
20
107 Iceland 19
100 17
16
15
15
75
# of deals
# of deals
10
50
41 41 7
29
5
25 21
0 0
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
NOTE:
isdata
on important
to Septemberto be cautious when analysing deal count per year due to the signi cant impact of the reporting
2019.
lagAustria,
ry per DATASET: CZECH REPUBLIC Number of deals by country per DATAS E T : U K R A I NE

CZECH REPUBLIC - NUMBER OF DEALS PER YEAR UKRAINE - NUMBER OF DEALS PER YEAR
year
L E G E ND 30
43 Ukraine 27
25
40 25
36
20 19
30
# of deals
# of deals
24
15
20 12
17
15 10 9
10
5
0 0
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
NOTE:
reporting
lagAustria,
MONTENEGRO - NUMBER OF DEALS PER YEAR LITHUANIA - NUMBER OF DEALS PER YEAR
ry per DATASET: MONTENEGRO Number of deals by country per DATAS E T : L I T H UA N I A
year
20 L E G E ND
18
Lithuania 51
50 49
15
40
12
32
# of deals
# of deals
30 28
10
24
7
20
6
5
3 10
0 0
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
NOTE:

lagAustria,
LATVIA - NUMBER OF DEALS PER YEAR ALBANIA - NUMBER OF DEALS PER YEAR
ry per DATASET: L ATVIA Number of deals by country per DATAS E T : A L BA N I A
year
L E G E ND
40
37 Albania 4
4
30
26 3
24
# of deals
# of deals
21
20 19
2
10 1 1 1
1
0
0 0
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
NOTE:


Geography reporting
lagAustria,
ry per SLOVAKIA - NUMBER OF DEALS PER YEAR

DATASET: SLOVAKIA Number of deals by country per SLOVENIA - NUMBER OF DEALS PER YEAR
DATAS E T : S LOVE N I A
year
L E G E ND
25 Slovenia 17 17
25
15
21 15
20
# of deals
# of deals
15 10
8
10
10
7 5
5 4
2
0 0
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
NOTE:
ed based
reporting
lagAustria,
ry per DATASET: GREECE Number of deals by country per DATAS E T : I S L E O F M A N

GREECE - NUMBER OF DEALS PER YEAR ISLE OF MAN - NUMBER OF DEALS PER YEAR
year
L E G E ND
32 Isle of Man 3 3 3
3
30 29
2
2
# of deals
# of deals
20
17
15
13
1
10 1
0 0
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
NOTE:
reporting
lagAustria,
BULGARIA - NUMBER OF DEALS PER YEAR BELARUS - NUMBER OF DEALS PER YEAR
ry per DATASET: BULGARIA Number of deals by country per DATAS E T : B E L A R U S
year
100 13
L E G E ND
89 Belarus 11
10
75 9 9
8
# of deals
# of deals
50
31
3
25
19 3 2
11
8
0 0
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
NOTE:

lagAustria,
MOLDOVA - NUMBER OF DEALS PER YEAR MALTA - NUMBER OF DEALS PER YEAR
ry per DATASET: MOLDOVA Number of deals by country per DATAS E T : M A LTA
year
8
L E G E ND
Malta 4 7
4
3 5 5
# of deals
# of deals
4
2
3
1 1 2
1
1
0 0
0 0
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
NOTE:


The top 10 European tech hubs for capital invested is becoming an increasingly
interesting set of cities. Places perhaps less known to European tech outsiders have
The top 10 European
established tech as
themselves hubs for capital
important invested is for
destinations becoming ancapital
inbound increasingly interesting set of cities. Places
flow, including
perhaps lessCambridge
Bucharest, known to European tech outsiders have established themselves as important destinations for
and Munich.
The top inbound capital
10 European techow,
hubsincluding Bucharest,
for capital investedCambridge
is becomingand
anMunich.
increasingly interesting set of cities. Places
perhaps less known to European tech outsiders have established themselves as important destinations for
inbound capital ow, including Bucharest, Cambridge
Top 20 European hubs by capital
and Munich.
London 3370 3324 5838 4859 8203
Top 20 European hubs by capital Berlin 2309 1203 2062 2424 3932
invested ($M), ranking based on Stockholm 920 1053 965 863 3139
Paris3370 984 1190 1515 2227 2982
2019 London 3324 5838 4859 8203
Top 20 European hubs by capital Berlin Munich2309 296 1203 306 2062 328 2424 541 3932 1078
Bucharest 920 6 13 49 390 762
invested ($M), ranking based on Stockholm
Barcelona 984 348
1053
323
965
587
863
902
3139
688
LEGE ND Paris 1190 1515 2227 2982
2019 Munich Helsinki 296 142 306 211 328 185 541 387 1078 628
up to 8,000 Madrid 6 149 232 281 350 509
Bucharest 13 49 390 762
1,000 to 4,000 Barcelona Cambridge 348 126 323 145 587 241 902 241 688 485
LEGEND
Helsinki Copenhagen 142 251 211 87 185 115 387 254 628 443
up to 8,000 800 to 1,000 Madrid Bristol 149 41 232 88 281 152 350 282 509 418
Amsterdam 318 141 427 412 413
1,000 to 4,000600 to 800 Cambridge 126 145 241 241 485
Copenhagen Zurich 251 58 87 43 115 581 254 418 443 411
800 to 1,000 400 to 600 Bristol Milan 41 73 88 154 152 101 282 274 418 282
Dublin 107 788 463 352 244
600 to 800 200 to 400 Amsterdam 318 141 427 412 413
Zurich Hamburg 58 151 43 257 581 219 418 530 411 239
400 to 600 100 to 200 Milan Oxford 73 56 154 34 101 170 274 126 282 192
Oslo 41 119 138 178 186
200 to 400 50 to 100 Dublin 107 788 463 352 244
Hamburg Brussels 151 57 257 32 219 125 530 105 239 185
100 to 200 up to 50
Oxford 56 2015 34 2016 170 2017 126 2018 192 2019
50 to 100 Oslo 41 119 138 178 186
NOTE: Brussels 57 32 125 105 185
up to 50
NOTE: lending capital, grants. Please also note the SOURCE: Dealroom
All Dealroom.co data to
on data excludes the following:
September 2019.
Similarly on the number of deals, it is interesting to see cities like Milan make the top 15%
list, a sign
Similarly onthat
the Italy
numberis starting
of deals,toitcatch up.
is interesting to see cities like Milan make the top 15 list, a sign that Italy is
starting to catch up.
Similarly on the number of deals, it is interesting to see cities like Milan make the top 15 list, a sign that Italy is
starting toTop
catch up.
20 European hubs by number
London
Paris
1035
319
993
411
952
399
655
315
788
300
Berlin 326 349 321 266 249
Stockholm 170 321 334 200 177
of deals, ranking based on 2019 Amsterdam 151 127 137 114 117
London Barcelona1035 137 993 157 952 161 655 131 788 108
Paris Madrid 319 114 411 100 399 102 315 83 300 83
Top 20 European hubs by number Berlin Munich 326 92 349 84 321 84 266 101 249 67
LEGE ND Stockholm Zurich 170 37 321 39 334 49 200 55 177 65
of deals, ranking based on 2019 Amsterdam Dublin 151 74 127 182 137 126 114 84 117 64
up to 1,000 Barcelona Copenhagen 137 71 157 67 161 83 131 50 108 59
Madrid Helsinki 114 114 100 135 102 122 83 87 83 56
LEGEND 600 to 800 Munich Milan 92 73 84 82 84 78 101 88 67 53
Zurich Oslo 37 15 39 51 49 53 55 67 65 41
400 to 600 Dublin Hamburg 74 53 182 55 126 38 84 40 64 41
up to 1,000 Copenhagen Moscow 71 80 67 104 83 110 50 72 59 39
Helsinki Vilnius 114 36 135 16 122 22 87 28 56 36
600 to 800 300 to 400 Milan Manchester 73 23 82 22 78 47 88 20 53 36
Oslo Vienna 15 23 51 50 53 45 67 34 41 35
400 to 600 200 to 300 Hamburg Cambridge 53 25 55 38 38 28 40 23 41 28
Moscow Warsaw 80 55 104 38 110 49 72 19 39 25
100 to 200 Vilnius Edinburgh 36 32 16 33 22 36 28 26 36 25
300 to 400 Manchester Lausanne 23 21 22 39 47 27 20 24 36 25
50 to 100 Vienna Bristol 23 20 50 23 45 31 34 20 35 25
200 to 300 Cambridge Istanbul 25 33 38 29 28 30 23 77 28 23
Warsaw Lisbon 55 23 38 24 49 25 19 32 25 23
100 to 200 25 to 50 Edinburgh Oxford 32 15 33 13 36 19 26 18 25 23
Lausanne Bucharest 21 17 39 16 27 14 24 12 25 23
50 to 100 up to 25 Bristol Budapest 20 22 23 19 31 39 20 22 25 21
Istanbul Lyon 33 13 29 30 30 32 77 19 23 20
Lisbon 23 24 25 32 23
25 to 50 Oxford 15 2015 13 2016 19 2017 18 2018 23 2019
Bucharest 17 16 14 12 23
up to 25 Budapest 22 19 39 22 21
NOTE: Lyon 13 30 32 19 20
All Dealroom.co
on data
data excludes the following:
to September 2019.

$1B+ Companies
There are now at least 174 European tech companies that have scaled to a valuation of more than $1 billion.
Before
There are now at least entering this
174 European techdecade, that number
companies that havestood at just
scaled to a13, meaning Europe has seen over 13x increase in the
number
valuation of more than of companies
$1 billion. scalingthis
Before entering to this milestone.
decade, This is a diverse set of companies, a large proportion of which
that number
(43%)Europe
stood at just 13, meaning scaled hasto $1seen
billion+ without raisingin
venture capital.
There are now at least over 13x increase
174 European the number
tech companies ofhave scaled to a valuation of more than $1 billion.
that
companies scaling toBefore
this milestone.
entering this Thisdecade,
is a diverse set of companies,
that number stood
200 at a
just large
13, meaning Europe has seen over 13x increase in the
number
proportion of which (43%)
There areof
scaled
Number now
of companies
toleast
at
VC-backed 174 scaling
$1 billion+
& European
non-VC- to this
without
tech milestone.
raising
companies ventureThis
that have is atodiverse
capital.
scaled set
a valuation of of companies,
more than $1 billion.a large proportion of which
Before entering this decade,
techthatwithout
number stood at just 13, meaning Europe has seen over 13x increase in the
(43%) scaled
backed to $1 billion+
$1B+ European raising venture capital.
number of companies
companies scaling to this milestone. This is a diverse set of companies, a large proportion of which
per year (cumulative)
(43%) scaled to $1 billion+ without raising venture capital.
150
200
LEGEND of VC-backed & non-VC-
Number 200
Number
backed of VC-backed
$1B+ & non-VC-
European tech
# of companies # of companies
# of VC-backed
backed $1B+ European tech
companies per year (cumulative)
# of non-VC-backed
companies per year (cumulative) 100
150 150
LEGEND
LEGEND
# of companies
# of VC-backed
# of VC-backed
# of non-VC-backed 100
# of non-VC-backed 50
100
50
0
50 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
0
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
NOTE:
AllNOTE:
biotech, secondary transactions, debt, SOURCE:
0 Dealroom
All Dealroom.co data excludes the following: 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
lending
biotech, capital,
secondarygrants. Please
transactions, debt,also note the S O U R C E : Dealroom
lending
data capital, grants.
excludes Israel.Please also note the
NOTE:

European founder attitudes to venture capital have undergone a

European founder attitudes to venture capital have undergone a transformation. While Europe has always
transformation. While Europe has always produced tech companies that can
produced tech companies that can reach billion-dollar milestones, these companies have not historically used
reach billion-dollar milestones, these
venture capital ascompanies
a means to have
nancenotthemselves.
historicallyAs
used
Europe’s venture capital base has matured and as
venture capital as a means
awareness of the bene ts of partnering with VCs hascapital
to finance themselves. As Europe’s venture grown, this trend has reversed itself entirely.
base has matured and European founderofattitudes
as awareness to venture
the benefits capital have
of partnering with undergone
VCs has a transformation. While Europe has always
produced tech companies
grown, this trend has reversed itself entirely. that can reach billion-dollar
100 milestones, these companies have not historically used
venture
Share ofcapital as &
VC-backed a non-VC-
means to nance themselves. As Europe’s venture capital base has matured and as
European founder
backed $1B+ attitudes
European techto venture capital have undergone a transformation. While Europe has always
awareness
produced techof the bene
companies tscan
that ofreach
partnering withmilestones,
billion-dollar VCs has these
grown, this trend
companies hashistorically
have not reverseduseditself entirely.
companies (%) per founding year
venture
decadecapital as a means to nance themselves. As Europe’
75 s venture capital base has matured and as
100
awareness of the bene ts of partnering with VCs has grown, this trend has reversed itself entirely.
Share of VC-backed & non-VC-
LEGEND
% of companies % of companies
backed $1B+ European tech 100

Share of VC-backed & non-VC-
companies (%)
# of VC -backed per founding
companies
backed $1B+ European tech
year 50
decade 75
# of non-VC-backed
companies companies
(%) per founding year
decade 75
LEGEND
LEGEND
% of companies
## of VC-backed
of VC -backed companies
companies 25
50 50
## of non-VC-backed
of non-VC-backed companies
companies
25
0
25 1990s 2000s
NOTE: 0
1990s 2000s 2010s
biotech, SOURCE:
0 Dealroom
lending capital, grants. Please also note the 1990s 2000s
NOTE:

03.4 $1B+ Companies
At the time of publication, there are 99 $1 billion+ VC-backed European tech companies. If Europe's not already
surpassed
At the time100, it's only a matter
of publication, thereofare
time
99before this VC-backed
$1 billion+ milestone isEuropean
surpassed.
tech companies.
At the time of
If Europe’s notpublication, there are100,
already surpassed 99 $1it’s
billion+
only aVC-backed European
matter of time tech
before thiscompanies. If Europe's
milestone is not already
surpassed.
At the time of publication,
surpassed 100, it'sthere
only aare 99 $1of
matter billion+ VC-backed
time before European is
this milestone tech companies. If Europe's not already
surpassed.
surpassed Number
100, it'sofonly
new a
and total $1B+
matter of time before this milestone is surpassed.
European tech companies per 100
year
Number of new and total $1B+
Number of European
new and total
tech$1B+
tech companies
companies per 100
LEGEcompanies
year ND
European tech per 100 75
year Exisiting
tech companies
New in year
# of VC-backed tech companies

LEGE ND 75
# of VC-backed
LEGEND 75 50
Exisiting
Exisiting
New in year
# of VC-backed
New in year
50
50 25
25
25 0
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
NOTE: 0
0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
All Dealroom.co data excludes the following: 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
NOTE:
NOTE: data excludes Israel.
SOURCE: Dealroom
All Dealroom.cobiotech, secondary
data excludes the transactions,
following: debt,
lending
transactions, debt,Please also note the SOURCE: Dealroom
lending capital,data excludes
grants. PleaseIsrael.
also note the
The UK is the single largest source of $1 billion+ VC-backed tech companies from Europe with 29, followed by
The UK is(17)
Germany theand
single largest
France (11). source
There areof $1
nowbillion+ VC-backed
VC-backed techEuropean
$1 billion+ companies from
tech Europe with
companies from 20 unique
29, followed
The UK is the
countries by
across Germany
single largest
Europe, (17) and France
source
including of (11).Poland
There
$1 billion+
Austria, arethe
nowCzech
VC-backed
and VC-backed
tech $1 billion+
companies
Republic. European
from Europe withtech
29, followed by
The UK is companies
the single largest20 source of $1 billion+ across
VC-backed techincluding
companies from Europe withthe
29,Czech
followed by
Germany (17)from unique
and France (11). countries Europe,
There are now VC-backed $1 billion+Austria,
EuropeanPoland and
tech companies fromRepublic.
20 unique
Germany (17) and France (11). There are now VC-backed $1 billion+ European tech companies from 20 unique
countries across Europe, including Austria, Poland and the Czech Republic.
countries across
NumberEurope, including Austria, Poland and the Czech Republic.
of $1B+ VC-backed
European tech companies by
country
Number ofof origin
$1B+ VC-backed
Number of $1B+ VC-backed
European tech companies by Germany France Sweden
European tech companies
country by
of origin
country of origin Germany France Sweden
Germany France Sweden
United Kingdom
United Kingdom Denmark Switzerland Ireland Russia

United Kingdom
Netherlands
Denmark Switzerland Ireland Russia
Denmark Spain Czech Republic
Switzerland Luxemburg
Ireland Poland Russia
Ukraine Romania
Ireland
Netherlands
Netherlands Portugal Austria Estonia Belgium
Spain Czech Republic
Luxemburg Poland Ukraine Romania
Ireland
Spain Czech Republic
Luxemburg Poland Ukraine Romania
NOTE: Ireland Portugal Austria Estonia Belgium
All Dealroom.co data excludes the following: Portugal Austria Estonia Belgium
lending
NOTE: data excludes Israel.
In France, the pipeline of potential $1B+ companies has

never been so promising, and has even started to deliver
with Doctolib. The first exits will follow soon, and with
them the ‘mafias’ of operators with firsthand rocketship
Pierre Entremont
experience that we lack. We perceive this as the last Frst
significant step before ecosystem maturity. Co-Founder &
Partner

03.4 $1B+ Companies
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
Acquired
Public
Private

The total aggregate value of $1 billion+ VC-backed companies from Europe is just short of $270B with
03.4 $1B+ Companies
companies founded during the 2000s delivering the greatest share of value to date. Companies founded during
the 2010s are on track to comfortably exceed that total based on the current trajectory of value accretion.
The total aggregate value of $1 billion+ VC-backed companies from Europe is just short of $270B
with
The companies
total
Total aggregate
value founded
value of
of VC-backed during the 2000s
$1 billion+ delivering
VC-backed the greatest
companies share of
from Europe is value to date.
just short Companies
of$144B
$270B with
The total aggregate
founded
European value
during
$1B+ ofcompanies
the
tech $12010s
billion+
areVC-backed
on track tocompanies
150
comfortablyfrom Europe
exceed istotal
that just short
based ofon$270B
the with trajectory
current
companies founded during the 2000s delivering the greatest share of value to date. Companies founded during
companies byfounded
foundingduring
decade the 2000s delivering the greatest share of value to date. Companies founded during
of value
the 2010saccretion.
are on track to comfortably exceed that total based on the current trajectory of value accretion.
of companies ($B)
the 2010s are on track to comfortably exceed that total based on the current trajectory of value accretion.
100 $96B
Total value of VC-backed 150
Total value of VC-backed
European $1B+ tech companies 150
$144B
$144B
Combined valuation
European $1B+ tech companies
by founding decade
($B)
by founding decade
Combined valuation of companies ($B)
Combined valuation of companies

50
100 $96B
100 $29B $96B
0
1990s 2000s 2010s
50
50
NOTE: $29B
$29B
All Dealroom.co data excludes the following: EUROPEAN SAAS
There are more billion-dollar companies for ntech (20)
16
0
than for any other industry vertical, though
0
there are a 1990s 2000s 2010s
growing number of $1billion+ VC-backed European 1990s 2000s 2010s
enterprise
NOTE:
software companies.
NOTE: All Dealroom.co data excludes the following: Europe has now produced 16 $1 billion+ VC-backed enterprise software
SOURCE: Dealroom EUROPEANEUROPEAN
SAAS SAAS
All Dealroom.co biotech, secondary
data excludes transactions, debt,
the following: companies.
There areThere
more are
billion-dollar
lending
biotech, secondary companies
more billion-dollar
capital, grants.
transactions, for ntech
companies for(20)
debt, Please also note thentech (20)
Thereforare more
data
billion-dollar
excludes Israel.
companies forthere
afintech
are(20)
a than for any EUROPEAN SAAS
16 16
than for any other
than industry
any
data excludes Israel. other vertical,
industrythough there
vertical, are
though
other industry vertical, though there are a growing number of $1billion+
16
growing
growing number
Numberofnumber of $1billion+
of$1billion+ VC-backed
$1B+ VC-backed VC-backed
EuropeanEuropean
VC-backed European enterprise software companies. Europe has now produced 16 $1
enterpriseenterprise
software software
companies.
European tech companiescompanies.
by
billion+ VC-backed enterprise
Europe
Europe has has now produced
now produced 16 $1VC-backed
16 $1 billion+ billion+ VC-backed
enterprise enterprise
software software
industry, all time
companies.
companies. Fashion software
Travel companies.
Gaming & Entertainment Health
Fintech
Number
Number of $1B+ of $1B+ VC-backed
VC-backed
European techEuropean tech companies
companies by by
industry, allindustry,
time all time Social & Consumer Apps
Fashion
Transportation
Travel
Security
Gaming & Entertainment
Semiconductors
Health
Fashion Travel Gaming & Entertainment Health
Fintech Fintech
Enterprise Software
Real Estate Adtech & Martech Music Classi ed
Food & Drink Retail (excl. Fashion)
Social
Social & Consumer & Consumer Apps
Apps TransportationTransportation
Construction
Security Security
Hosting Semiconductors
Semiconductors Media
NOTE:
All Dealroom.co data excludes the following: Enterprise Software

Enterprise Software
SOURCE: Dealroom Real Estate Adtech & Martech Music Classi ed
biotech, secondary transactions, debt, Real Estate Adtech & Martech Music Classi ed
Food & Drink Retail (excl. Fashion)
lending capital, grants. Please also note the Food & Drink Retail (excl. Fashion)
Construction Hosting Media
Construction Hosting Media
NOTE:
The NOTE:total value of VC-backed $1 billion+ European ntech
companies
All Dealroom.cobiotech,
data excludes
now
All Dealroom.co data exceeds
excludes
the following:
$50 billion.
the following:
SOURCE: Dealroom
The total The
value
biotech, secondary total
of value
secondary
debt,of
VC-backed
transactions,
VC-backed
transactions, debt,
Please $1
alsobillion+
note the
$1European
Sbillion+ European
ntech ntech
O U R C E : Dealroom
The
lending capital, total
grants.
companies Pleasevalue
also
now
data excludes Israel. noteof
theVC-backed
exceeds $50 $1 billion+
billion. European fintech companies now exceeds $50 billion.
companies nowvalue
Total exceeds of $1B+ $50 billion.
VC-backed
industry
Total value of $1B+ VC-backed Music Social & consumer Apps Gaming & entertainment
Total value of $1B+ VC-backed
European tech companies by Fintech
industry
industry Music
Music Social & consumer Apps
Social & consumer Apps
Gaming & entertainment
Gaming & entertainment
Fintech
Fintech
Food & drink Transportation Health
Fashion Food & drink Transportation Health

Food & drink Transportation Health
Enterprise software Security Semiconductors Classi ed Real estate
Fashion Travel
Fashion
Enterprise software AdtechSecurity
& martech Semiconductors ClassiConstruction
Retail (excl. fashion) ed Real estate
Hosting
Media
Enterprise software Travel Security Semiconductors Classi ed Real estate
Travel
Adtech & martech Retail (excl. fashion) ConstructionHosting
NOTE: Media
Adtech & martech Retail (excl. fashion) Construction Hosting
Media
NOTE:
NOTE:
All Dealroom.co biotech, secondary
data excludes transactions, debt,
the following: SOURCE: Dealroom
lending
transactions, debt, Please also note the S O U R C E : Dealroom
data excludes
lending capital, grants. PleaseIsrael.
also note the
03.4 $1B+ Companies
I’m very optimistic. We’ve seen so many exciting ideas being developed
by firms and embraced by consumers, including here at Monzo.
People are appreciating how technology can provide them with a much
better level of transparency and control, and I expect that trend to
continue. We’re seeing multiple world-class, growth-stage companies
coming out of Europe across multiple sectors, really for the first time Tom Blomfield
ever. In digital banking alone, we’ve got three or four companies with Monzo
multi-billion valuations. CEO
The latest cohort of $1billion+ VC-backed European tech

The latest cohort of $1billion+ VC-backed European tech companies founded during the 2010s
The latest cohort
companies founded of $1billion+
during theVC-backed European tech
2010s remains
remains overwhelmingly
companies founded
overwhelmingly in during
private
inthe
private
hands.2010s hands.
remains
The latest cohort of $1billion+ VC-backed European tech
companiesoverwhelmingly
founded during inthe
private
2010shands.
remains 100
overwhelmingly in $1B+
Share of private hands.
VC-backed 100
European techVC-backed
Share of $1B+ companies (%) by
ownership status and founding 100
European tech companies (%) by
status
Share of $1B+ VC-backed

year decade
ownership status and founding
75
status
European tech
yearcompanies
decade (%) by
by ownership
75
ownership status
LEGE NDand founding
by ownership
% of tech companies by ownership status
year decadeLEGE 75
Private
ND
50
companies
Public
Private
LE G E ND 50
companies
Acquired
Public
Private
50
of tech
Acquired
Public 25
tech
% of %
Acquired 25
25
0
1990s 2000s 2010s
0
1990s 2000s 2010s
NOTE:
0
NOTE:
All Dealroom.co data excludes the following: 1990s 2000s 2010s
All Dealroom.co
lending data excludes
capital, grants. Please the
alsofollowing:
note the
NOTE: biotech, secondary SOURCE: Dealroom
data excludes Israel.transactions, debt,
All Dealroom.codata
dataexcludes
excludesIsrael.
the following:
Because fewer unicorn companies have started in Europe

than in America, we have a less fixed mindset as to what
a successful business or a successful founder should
be. We’re more open to quirky business ideas and teams
that don’t quite fit the ‘socially awkward white guy with a Valentina Milanova
Daye
hoodie’ mould. Founder & CEO

03.4 $1B+ Companies
Europe's now produced 13 $1B+ VC-backed tech companies that have scaled to more than $5B, including four
Europe’s
that now
havenow produced
grown beyond1313 $1B+
the $10B VC-backed
milestone. tech companies that have scaled to more than $5B,
Europe's produced $1B+ VC-backed tech companies that have scaled to more than $5B, including four
including four that have grown beyond the $10B milestone.
Europe'sthat
nowhave grown 13
produced beyond the $10B milestone.
$1B+ VC-backed tech companies that have scaled to more than $5B, including four
that have Number
grown of
beyond the $10B milestone.
$1B+ VC-backed
European tech companies by $5B+
Number of $1B+ VC-backed 13
valuation group
Number of $1B+ VC-backed $5B+ 13
valuation group
European tech companies by $5B+ 13
valuation group
$2-5B+ 28
$2-5B+ 28
$2-5B+ 28
<$2B 58
<$2B 58
<$2B 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
58 60 65
# of tech companies
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65
NOTE: # of tech companies
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65
All time $1B+ VC-backed European tech
NOTE: # of tech companies
companies. All Dealroom.co data excludes
the following: biotech, secondary SOURCE: Dealroom
All time $1B+ VC-backed European tech
NOTE: transactions,
companies. Alldebt, lending capital,
Dealroom.co grants.
data excludes
Please also note the data excludes Israel. SOURCE: Dealroom
All time $1B+ the following: biotech, secondary
VC-backed European tech
transactions, debt, lending capital, grants.
companies. All Dealroom.co data excludes
Please also note the data excludes Israel. S O U R C E : Dealroom
the following: biotech, secondary
Please also note the data excludes Israel.
Share of VC-backed European

$1B+
Sharetech
Share of VC-backed companiesEuropean
European
of VC-backed (%) by Consumer 52%
business
$1B+ techmodel
$1B+ tech companies (%) by
companies (%) by Consumer Consumer 52% 52%
business model
business model
Enterprise 41%
Enterprise Enterprise 41% 41%
Deep tech 7%
Deep tech Deep tech 7% 7%
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
% of VC-backed tech companies
0 50 105 1510 15
20 20
25 25
30 30
35 35
40 40
45 45
50 50
55 55
% of
% of VC-backed VC-backed
tech tech companies
companies
NOTE:

NOTE:
NOTE: SOURCE: Dealroom
All Dealroom.co
All Dealroom.colending
data datafollowing:
excludes
capital, grants.
excludes the Please the
alsofollowing:
note the
biotech,
data secondary
excludes Israel.transactions, debt, SOURCE: Dealroom
lending capital,lending
grants.capital,
Pleasegrants. Please also note the
also note the
Great operating talent came out of the first generation of consumer

tech companies in Europe - people who are great marketers, great at
product, great at finance. That talent has been key in supporting a new
generation of deep tech companies as they commercialise. We now have
the ingredients to build big companies.
Nigel Toon
Graphcore
Co-founder & CEO

European Exit Landscape
Many will be surprised to know that Europe has produced more tech IPOs than the US for six consecutive years,
including
Many will be surprised to knowmore tech IPOs
that Europe in produced
has the rst nine months
more tech of 2019.
IPOs
than the US for six consecutive years, including more tech IPOs100in the first
nine months of 2019. Number of tech IPOs by region
including more tech IPOs in the rst nine months of 2019. 87
LEGEND
100
including
Europe more tech IPOs in the rst nine months of 2019.
75
Number of tech IPOs by region
United States 100 63 87
Number of tech IPOs by region
# of tech IPOs # of tech IPOs

LEGEND 87
75
50 49
Europe
LEGEND
75 41
Europe 63
United States
United States 63
32
30
# of tech IPOs
28
50 49 49
50 25
20
41 41
32 33
30 29 32
28
30
25 28
20
25
0 20
2015 2016 2017 2018
0
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
0
SOURCE: 2015 2016 2017 2018
NOTE:
SOURCE:
NOTE:
2019 based on data up to September 2019.
SOURCE:
NOTE:

03.5 European Exit Landscape
But you have to dig beneath the headline numbers to get the full story. First of all, looking at the
magnitude of the tech IPOs, as measured by market cap ($B) at IPO, it is clear that the US had a
dominant year in 2019. The combined value of the Top 10 tech IPOs in the US in the first nine months of
the year equated to a total market cap of $153B versus $22B for the ten largest European tech IPOs.
Uber’s market cap at IPO alone eclipsed the combined market cap of Europe’s top 10 tech IPOs in 2019.
Largest tech IPOs by market cap # 8205/1.

at IPO ($M) in Europe and United
) 815.3/
States, 2019

*% 8-+503.
' % 815-,3
%#$% 8,+5+03
(# 805221
!! 845-.+
# 8-5,.2
( 845214
& %# 8120
%! 8253-1
8/03
#!(%# 815132

!!!! 8.4+
#( 815+++
8,,.
* %# 8/5/+4
$$ $*$ 84-
!&# 8/5/++
!!% 812
+ ,+5+++ -+5+++ .+5+++ /+5+++ 0+5+++ 1+5+++ 2+5+++ 3+5+++

#%"% 687
Top 10 largest tech IPOs by

# 835,++
proceeds raised ($M) at IPO in
Europe and US, 2019 ) 8-5.-.

*% 8-5001
(# 8-5,11
%#$% 8,51.4
# 8,5.34
#( 8,5-/-
' % 8.32
( 8,5,22
& %# 8-0.
!! 831/
8,/1
%! 82/0
800
#!(%# 82+/
$$ $*$ 8.0
* %# 8100
&%! %# 8--
%# 81/,
(" 8,/
+ ,5+++ -5+++ .5+++ /5+++ 05+++ 15+++ 25+++ 35+++ 45+++

#!$#$687

Looking past the opening 2019 has been a highly eventful year in global tech listings,
with companies like Uber and Lyft in the US, and Nexi
day headlines, it’s notable and Trainline here in Europe. While numbers of European
that Europe’s 2019 crop listings have been a little subdued compared with 2018,
of IPOs, large and small, Europe has stretched its lead over the US in the number
of tech listings for the 6th year running. Looking past the
have delivered returns opening day headlines, it’s notable that Europe’s 2019 crop
for their investors of IPOs, large and small, have delivered returns for their James Clark
investors which exceed their US contemporaries.
which exceed their US London Stock
contemporaries. Exchange
Head of Tech and
Lifesciences,
Primary Markets
The numbers of sponsor-backed tech IPOs per region are at similar levels in Europe and the US. These relate to
IPOs where typically nancial investors, whether VCs or PE funds, play a 'sponsoring' role in bringing these
companies to the public market. The mix of VC versus PE sponsors between the US and Europe in 2019 has
been very different.
The numbers of sponsor-backed tech IPOsIn the
perUS, VCs have
region are atbeen
similar thelevels
dominant sponsor
in Europe and ofthe
techUS.IPOs, while in Europe they've been
led
These relate to IPOs The
whereby PE funds.
typically This marks a shift
financial investors, versus 2018, when Europe's largest tech public listings were 'sponsored' by
numbers of sponsor-backed techwhether
IPOs perVCs or PE
region arefunds, playlevels
at similar a ‘sponsoring’
in Europe and the US. These relate to
VCs,
role in bringing theseIPOs including
companies Spotify,
to the public Adyen and
market. Farfetch.
The mix of VCVCsversus PEfunds,
sponsors
where typically nancial investors, whether or PE play abetween the role in bringing these
'sponsoring'
US and Europe in 2019 has
companies
The beento
numbers very
of thedifferent.
sponsor-backed In the
public market.
tech IPOsUS,
The VCs
permix
regionhave
of been
similar the
VCatversus
are PE dominant
levelssponsors sponsor
between
in Europe and of tech
the
the US. These US and
relate to Europe in 2019 has
IPOs, while in Europebeen
they’ve
IPOs where
Number been
veryof led by
typically
different. InPE
nancial
sponsor-backed thefunds.
investors,
US, VCs
tech This marks
whether
have VCs ora15PE
been shift versus
funds,
the 2018, when
play a 'sponsoring'
dominant sponsor ofEurope’s
role in bringing
tech these
IPOs, while in Europe they've been
companies to the public market. The mix of VC versus PE sponsors between 14 the US and Europe in 2019 has
largest tech public listings
ledIPOs
byby were
PEregion‘sponsored’
funds. This marks by VCs, including
a shift Spotify,
versus 2018, whenAdyen and Farfetch.
Europe's largest tech public listings were 'sponsored' by
been very different. In the US, VCs have been the dominant sponsor of tech IPOs, while in Europe they've been
VCs,
led byincluding Spotify, Adyen and 2018,
Farfetch.
tech IPOs by region
PE funds. This marks a shift versus when Europe's largest tech public listings were 'sponsored' by
LEGEND
VCs, including Spotify, Adyen and Farfetch.
Europe 10 10
10
Number of sponsor-backed tech
United States
Number of sponsor-backed tech 15
15
14
IPOs byregion
IPOs by region 14 8 8
sponsor-backed
7
by region
# of sponsor-backed tech IPOs by region
LEGEND
LEGEND 6
Europe 10 10
Europe 10 5 10 10
# ofIPOs
United States 9
10
United States 8 8
# of sponsor-backed tech
3
7
8 8
6
7 5
5
6
0 3
5 2015 2016 2017 2018
3
0
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
SOURCE:
NOTE:
0
2019 based on data up to September 2019. SOURCE: 2015 2016 2017 2018
NOTE:
There is a divergence between European and US public markets in terms of the ability of tech companies of
SOURCE:
different
NOTE: scale (by market cap) to access them. While the number of US tech IPOs with a market cap of less
There is a divergence between European and US public markets in terms of the ability of tech
than $1B on
2019 based has
databeen in persistent
up to September 2019. decline for several years, Europe has seen the opposite trend as a result of the
companies of different scale (by market cap) to access them.
greater diversity in types of companies that can access While the number of US tech
the region's IPOs
public markets.
with a market cap of less than $1B has been in persistent decline for several years, Europe has seen
the opposite trend asThere
a result
is aof the greater
divergence diversity
between in typesand
European of companies that can
US public markets inaccess
terms ofthe the ability of tech companies of
Number
region’s public markets.
There is aof tech IPOsbetween
divergence with lessEuropean and US public markets in terms of the ability of tech companies of
different scale (by market cap) to access them. While the number of US tech IPOs with a market cap of less
than $1Bscale
market
80
different (bycap at IPO
market byto access them. While the
cap) 80
number of US tech IPOs with a market cap of less
than
year$1B
than
has
andhas
$1B regionbeen in persistent decline for several years, Europe has seen the opposite trend as a result of the
been in persistent decline for several years, Europe has seen the opposite trend as a result of the
greater diversity
greater diversity in types
in types of companies
of companies that can
that can access access
the region's themarkets.
public region's public markets.
LEGEND 60
56
Europeof tech IPOs with less
# of tech IPOs
Number
Number
than of tech
$1B States
United market capIPOs
at IPOwith
by less 80 46
80
80
than $1Bregion
year and market cap at IPO by 80
40
year and region 36
LEGEND 60
56
Europe
# of tech IPOs
LEGEND 60 46
United States 56
Europe 20
16
# of tech IPOs
40
36 15 15
46 11
United States 29
40
20 36
0 16 15 15
2015 2016 11 2017 2018
8
0
20
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
16 15 15
11
SOURCE:
NOTE:
SOURCE:
NOTE: 0
2019 based on data up to September 2019. 2015 2016 2017 2018
SOURCE:
NOTE:

At the other end of the market cap scale, while European has consistently delivered multiple billion-dollar tech
IPOs each year, the US has delivered a greater volume of larger tech IPOs of $1B+ market cap at issuance. Since
03.5 2015, there have 2.8x as many $1B+ tech IPOs from the US versus Europe.
Number of tech IPOs with $1B+

At the other end of themarket
market capIPOscale, while European has consistently delivered multiple billion- 21
AtAtthe other
cap atend
the other endhas of market
per
of the the
yearmarket
and
cap a cap
scale, scale,
while while
European European has consistently delivered multiple billion-dollar tech
20 has consistently delivered multiple billion-dollar tech
dollar tech IPOs eachIPOs
year,
regionthe US delivered greater volume of larger tech IPOs of $1B+ market
IPOs each year,
each year, thethe USdelivered
US has has delivered
a greateravolume
greater volume
of larger of larger
tech IPOs of $1B+tech IPOs
market ofissuance.
cap at $1B+ market
Since cap at issuance. Since
cap at issuance. Since 2015,
2015,
2015, there
there
there have have
have
2.8x as 2.8x
2.8x many as many
as many
$1B+ $1B+
tech $1B+
tech
IPOs fromtech
IPOs IPOs
the US from from
versusthe theversus
US
Europe. US versus Europe.
Europe.
LEGEND
# of tech IPOs per year

15
15
Europe
Number of tech IPOs with $1B+
12 21 21
Unitedcap
Number
market States
ofattech IPOs
IPO per yearwith
and $1B+
20
region 21
market cap at IPO per year and 10
20
region
LEGEND

15
Europe
15 7 7
LEGEND

5 15
15
Europe 10 3
5 5
5 0
10 4
2015
3 2016 2017 2018
7 7
0
2015 5 2016 2017 5 2018 2019
5
NOTE:
SOURCE: 3
NOTE:
2019. SOURCE:
2019 annualised based on data to September 0
2019. 2015 2016 2017 2018
Of course, the 2.8x difference should be put in additional context. It’s only one consideration to
account for the difference
NOTE: between Europe and the US, butSOURCE: it’s relevant to note the gap in terms of
Of course,
relative levels of capital annualisedthe
investment
2019 based2.8x
into
on difference
data tech
to in shouldand
Europe
September be put
the in
US. additional context.
Since 2015, It'ssaw
the US onlyaone
4.0xconsideration to account for the
2019.
difference between Europe and the US, but it's relevant to note
greater level of venture capital investment versus Europe, a number that puts into additional context the gap in terms of relative levels of capital
investment
Of course,
the 2.8x multiple on $1B+ tech IPOs. into
the tech
2.8x in Europe
difference and
shouldthe
beUS.
put Since
in 2015, the
additional US saw
context. a
It's4.2x
onlygreater
one level of venture
consideration capitalfor the
to account
investmentbetween
difference versus Europe,
Europeaand number that
the US, puts
but it's into additional
relevant to notecontext
the gapthe 2.8x multiple
in terms on $1B+
of relative levelstech IPOs.
of capital
investment into tech in Europe and the US. Since 2015, the US saw a 4.2x greater level of venture capital
500
investment versus Europe, a number that puts into additional context the 2.8x multiple on $1B+ tech
Number of tech IPOs with market
& IPOs.

cap at IPO of $1B+ and total
" #

$&%
500
capital invested ($B) by region
invested ($B)
400
Number of tech IPOs with market
cap at IPO of $1B+ and total
LEGEND
capital invested ($B) by region
($B)
400
2015-2019 300
capital
invested
LEGEND
/ total
2015-2019 300
capital
200
totalIPOs
&!
# of/tech

200 105
# of tech IPOs
100
74
26 105
100
0 "

$&% 74
Europe - # of tech IPOs Europe - Capital invested ($B) US - # of tech IPOs US
The long-standing dominance of the US in the global tech industry and the sustained decades-long gaps in 26
relative capital investment in tech in different0 regions are best captured by the difference in total market cap of
public tech companies by region. The total aggregate value of public USEurope
Europe - # of tech IPOs
tech- Capital
companies
invested ($B)
(around US
$5.9T) is 5.5x
- # of tech IPOs US
SOURCE: Dealroom
greater than
The long-standing dominance of Europe
the US in(around $1T).tech
the global This industry
too, however, is insustained
and the part a re decades-long
ection of the fact that relative levels of
venture
gaps in relative capital capitalin
investment investment in the US
tech in different and Europe
regions have
are best been onby
captured very
thedifferent
differencescales. More than $800B of
venture
in total market cap ofThe capital has
long-standing
public been invested
dominance
tech companies in the
of theThe
by region. US
US in since
SOURCE:
2000
theaggregate
total versus
global techvalue between
Dealroom
industry $150-200B
and the
of public tech in decades-long
USsustained Europe. gaps in
relative
companies (around $5.9T) iscapital investment
5.5x greater in tech (around
than Europe in different
$1T). regions
This too,are however,
best captured by the
is in part a difference in total market cap of
The long-standing dominance byofregion.
the US inThe
the global tech industry and the sustained decades-long gaps in
reflection of the factpublic
that
Total tech companies
relative
market caplevels
($B) ofof venture
public capital total aggregate
investment
relative capital investment in tech in different regions are in value
the USofand
best captured by the
public US tech
Europe have companies
difference in total market cap of
(around $5.9T) is 5.5x
greater
tech
been on very differentpublic
scales. than
companies
tech MoreEurope
by
companies (around
region
than in 2019
by$800B
region. The$1T).
oftotal This
venture too, however,
capital
aggregate
6,000
value has is
been
of public in part a
invested
US tech re
$5,880B
ection
in the
companies US $5.9T)fact
of
(around the that relative levels of
is 5.5x
venture capital
greater than
since 2000 versus between Europe
$150-200B investment
(around $1T). in
in Europe. the
This too,US and Europe
however, is in part have beenofon
a re ection thevery different
fact that scales.
relative levels of More than $800B of
venture capital investment in the US and Europe have been on very different scales. More than $800B of
venture capital has been invested in the US since 2000 versus between $150-200B in Europe.
venture capital has been invested in the US since 2000 versus between $150-200B in Europe.
Market capitalisation ($B) Market capitalisation ($B)
4,000
Total market
Total market cap
cap ($B)($B) of public
of public
6,000 $5,880B $5,880B
tech companies by region in 2019in 2019 6,000
tech companies by region
Market capitalisation ($B)
2,000
4,000
4,000 $1,070B
2,000
0
United States China
$1,070B $1,060B
2,000
0
United States China $1,070BEurope
SOURCE:
NOTE:
Data as of 21 October 2019.
SOURCE: 0
NOTE: United States China
www.stateofeuropeantech.com 53
SOURCE:
In Partnership with &
NOTE:
Though Europe
Thoughhas yet tohas
Europe produce
yet toaproduce
company that comes
a company close
that to rival
comes theto
close value
rivalcreation of creation
the value trillion-dollar
of
market cap companies to rival Microsoft or Apple, it's often forgotten that Europe has produced more than one
trillion-dollar market cap companies to rival Microsoft or Apple, it’s often forgotten that Europe has
$100B tech
Thoughcompany.
Europe SAP, Europe's largestapublic techthat
company byclose
market cap,the
hasvalue
now grown to of
betrillion-dollar
valued at
produced morehas yetone
than to produce
$100B tech company
company. comes
SAP, Europe’s to rival
largest public creation
tech company by market
more than $150B.
market If companies
cap SAP has done it, why
to rival can't others?
Microsoft or Apple, it's often forgotten that Europe has produced more than one
cap, has now grown to be valued at more than $150B. If SAP has done it, why can’t others?
$100B tech company. SAP, Europe's largest public tech company by market cap, has now grown to be valued at
moretech
Top 10 largest thancompanies
$150B. IfbySAP has done it, why
DATAS E T : E Ucan't
R O P E others?
market cap ($B) in Europe, US
and China in 2019 EUROPE
Top 10 largest tech companies by DATASET: EUROPE
market cap ($B) in Europe, US SAP $158B
and China in 2019
ASML $108B
Dassault SAP $40B $158B
Amadeus ASML $31B $108B
Ericsson Dassault $31B $40B
Nokia Amadeus $30B $31B
Infineon Ericsson $23B $31B
Though Europe has yet to produce a company Spotifythat comes

Nokia close
$21B to rival$30B
the value creation of trillion-dollar
market cap companies to rival Microsoft or Ayden
Apple, Infineon
it's often$21B
forgotten
$23Bthat Europe has produced more than one
$100B tech company. SAP, Europe's largest public tech company by market cap, has now grown to be valued at
Capgemini Spotify $20B $21B
more than $150B. If SAP has done it, why can't others?
0 Ayden 20 $21B
40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Market cap ($B)
Capgemini $20B
Top 10 largest tech companies by DATAS E T : U N I T E D STAT E S
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
market cap ($B) in Europe, US
Market cap ($B)
and China in 2019 UNITED STATES
SOURCE:
NOTE:
Based up data up to 21 October 2019. Apple $1,068B

SOURCE:
NOTE: Microsoft $1,057B
Based up data up to 21 October 2019. Amazon $874B
Alphabet $863B
Facebook $530B
Intel
Though Europe has yet to produce a company that comes$228B
close to rival the value creation of trillion-dollar
market cap companies to rival Microsoft or Apple, it's often
Cisco $198B forgotten that Europe has produced more than one
Though $100B
Europetech
has company. SAP, aEurope's
yet to produce company largest
Oracle public close
that comes tech$179B
company byvalue
to rival the market cap, has
creation of now grown to be valued at
trillion-dollar
more than $150B. If SAP has done it, why
market cap companies to rival Microsoft or Apple,
Adobe can't others?
it's often$129B
forgotten that Europe has produced more than one
$100B tech company. SAP, Europe's largest public tech company
Salesforce $126B by market cap, has now grown to be valued at
more thanTop
$150B. If SAP
10 largest techhas done it,
companies bywhy can't others?
DATASET:
0
EUROPE 200
100 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 1,100 1,200
market cap ($B) in Europe, US Market cap ($B)
and China in 2019
Top 10 largest tech companies by DATAS E T : C H I N A
market cap ($B) in Europe, US SAP $158B
and China in 2019 SOURCE:
NOTE: CHINA
ASML $108B
Based up data up to 21 October 2019.
Dassault
Alibaba $40B $463B
Foxconn
Amadeus $43B $31B
Ericsson
Hikvision $40B $31B
NetEaseNokia $37B $30B
Infineon
Baidu $36B $23B
Spotify
Qihoo 360 $22B $21B
TencentAyden $22B $21B
Capgemini
Luxshare Precision $22B $20B
BOE Technology 0 $18B 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180

Market cap ($B)
Avary $14B
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500

Market cap ($B)
SOURCE:
NOTE:
SOURCE:
NOTE:

Whilst
Whilstthe
theUSUShad
hadaabumper
bumperyear yearininterms
termsofofthe
thescale
scaleofofitsits
tech IPOs
tech IPOsin 2019, those
in 2019, those companies
companies have not gained
have
value
Whilstas a
not gained cohort
the USvalue since
had as listing,
a bumper
a cohort yearas the public
in terms
since ofas
listing, markets
the scale
the have
of its
public been impacted
tech IPOs
markets have by
in been increased
2019, impacted volatility.
those companies The weighted
have not gained
by increased
aftermarket
Whilst the US as
value hada a
volatility. performance
bumper
cohort
The year
since
weighted inofterms
listing, theas2019
aftermarket the class
of the
public of
scale tech
of itsIPOs
markets
performance tech
have
of from
theIPOs
beenthe
2019 US was
inimpacted
2019,
class down
those 6% at
by companies
of techincreased
IPOs the
from endUS
have
the of October
not
volatility. gained
The
was 2019;
weighted
value asEurope's
a cohort
aftermarket2019
sincevintage
listing,was
as up
the 18%
public at the end
markets of the
have same
been period.
impacted Of
by course,
increasedit's still much
volatility. too
The early to
weighted judge the
down 6% at performance
the end of Octoberof the 2019
2019;class of tech
Europe’s IPOs
2019 from the
vintage wasUSupwas
18%down
at the 6%end at of
thethe
end of October
same period.2019;
performance
aftermarket performance
Europe's 2019 of these
vintage companies.
of the
was 2019
up classatofthe
18% tech
endIPOs
of from
the the period.
same US wasOf down 6% at
course, the
it's end
still of October
much too early2019;
to judge the
Of course, it’s still much too early to judge the performance of these companies.
Europe'sperformance
2019 vintageofwas up 18%
these at the end of the same period. Of course, it's still much too early to judge the
companies.
performance of these companies.
Weighted aftermarket 205%
performance of tech IPOs by 200
Weighted aftermarket
vintage year (%) 205%
Weighted performance
aftermarket of tech IPOs by
(%) (%)
200
205%
154%
performance
performance of tech
vintage yearIPOs
(%) by 200 150
LEGE ND
vintage year (%) 154%
performance
Europe Weighted aftermarket performance (%) 150
LEGE ND 154%
106%
150 100
United States
aftermarket
L E G END Europe
106% 80%
Europe United States 100
aftermarket
106%
100 80%
United States 50 42% 40%
Weighted
30% 80%
22% 18%
50 42% 40%
Weighted
30%
50 0 22% 42% 40% 18%
30%
22% -6%
18%
0
0 -6%
-50
2015 2016 2017 2018 -6% 2019
-50
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
-50
NOTE: 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Aftermarket performance is weighted by SOURCE:

NOTE:
market cap at IPO. 2019 based on data to 21
NOTE: October 2019.performance is weighted by
Aftermarket SOURCE:
market cap at IPO. 2019 based on data to 21 SOURCE:
Aftermarket performance is weighted by
October 2019.
market cap at IPO. 2019 based on data to 21
October 2019.
There are a lot of things happening right now in tech that are raising a lot
of questions. Looking at what happened to WeWork most recently, we’re
seeing investors shy away from companies that might not
be clearly profitable from the get-go.
I think there will be some kind of movement when it comes to funding Maria Raga
for startups. Startups will need to prove themselves, and their business Depop
models even more. It’s going to be trickier; if you rely on funding, a far CEO
more uncertain future is ahead. Combined with the delay of Brexit in the
UK, we’re entering an extended state of uncertainty for businesses.
Photo by: Jussi Railainen

Besides simply looking at the scale of public tech companies, there are a number of other cultural
Besides simply looking
differences betweenBesides
European simply
and US at
looking theat
public scale
the ofscale
publicof
markets. tech companies,
public
One techthere are a number
companies,
is a greater level of other
there
of openness arecultural
a number
to differences
existing
between European and US public markets. One is a greater level of openness to existing investors selling down
of other cultural differences
between
investors selling downtheir
their European
position
position at IPOat
and
forIPO
US
for As
liquidity.
public markets.
liquidity. One
As aisresult,
a result, there
is a
there
a materially
greater level
is ashare
higher
of
materially openness
higher
of secondary
to
shareshare
existing investors selling down
sales on
their
European
of secondary share sales position
on than on
European atUSIPO for liquidity.
markets.
than As a result, there is a materially higher share of secondary share sales on
on US markets.
European than on US markets.
Average share of primary versus DATAS E T : P R I M A RY S H A R E S A L E S
secondary shares sold at IPO by
region
Average share of primary versus PRIMARY SHARE SALES
DATASET: PRIMARY SH ARE SALES
Besides
LEGEND simply looking at the scale of public tech companies, there are a number of other cultural differences
99%
region 100 98%
between European and US public markets.
Europe 96% One is a greater level of openness to existing investors selling down
Average share of secondary/primary shares sold

United States 94% 94%
their position at IPO for liquidity. As a result, there89%is a materially higher share of secondary
LEGEND
91% share sales on
99%
European
Europe than on US markets. 90 87% 100
96%
98% 88%
sold of secondary/primary shares sold

United States 94% 9
81%
80%
91%
80
Average share of primary versus DATASET: PRIMARY SH ARE SALES 89% 76% 76%
90 87% 74%
Besides
region simply looking at the scale of public tech70
companies, there are a number of other cultural differences
67%
between European and US public markets. One is a greater level of openness to81% existing investors
66%
selling down 8
their position
LEGEND
at IPO for liquidity. As a result, there is a materially
80 higher share of secondary share sales on
99% 76%
European than on US markets. 60 100 98%
Europe 2012 201396% 2014 2015 2016 74%
2017 2018 2019
sharesshare
United States 94% 9
Average share of primary versus DATAS E T : S E C O NDA RY S H A R E S A L E S
91%
Average
70 67%
secondary shares sold at IPO by 89% 66%
SSECONDARY
OURCE: SHARE SALES
region
NOTE: 90 87%
2019 based on data up to September 2019. Average share of secondary/primary
LEGEND
60 33% 81% 34%
Europe 8
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Average share of secondary/primary shares sold
United States 80
30 76%
26% 74%
24% 24%
20%
SOURCE: 19%
NOTE: 20 70 67%
66%
13%
12%
11%
9%
10
60 6% 6%
4%
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
2%
1%
0
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
SOURCE:
NOTE:
2019 based on data up to September 2019. SOURCE:

NOTE:
There is a strong pool of sophisticated European public market investors that have built large
There
portfolios is a strong
of holdings poolEuropean
in public of sophisticated European
tech companies. publicgiant
Norway’s market investors
sovereign that
wealth have built large portfolios of
fund,
Norgesholdings ThereManagement,
Bank Investment
in public isEuropean
a strong pool of companies.
is the
tech sophisticated European
single largestNorway's
European public market
investor
giant investors
in European
sovereign thatfund,
have built
public
wealth largeBank
Norges portfolios of
Investment
tech companies, holdings
as measured in public European
by the largest
size of its tech companies.
portfolio at Norway's
the end in giant
of European sovereign
Septemberpublic wealth fund, Norges Bank Investment
2019. tech companies, as measured by the
Management, is the single European investor
Management, is the single largest European investor in European public tech companies, as measured by the
size of its portfolio
size of itsatportfolio
the endatof September
the 2019. 2019.
end of September
# of# Investments
of Investmentsin
in European Tech
European Tech Companies
Companies
Top 10 European
Topinvestors in investors in
10 European Norges
Norges Bank Bank Investment
Investment Management
Management 332332
European techEuropean
companiestech companies
Legal & General Investment Management 203
Legal & General Investment Management 203
DWS Investment 255
DWS Investment 255
Baillie Gifford 143
Baillie Gifford 143
BNP Paribas Asset Management 162
BNP Paribas Asset Management 162
Allianz Global Investors 208
Allianz Global Investors

Amundi Asset Management 208152
UBS Asset
Amundi Asset Management
Management 152 257
UBS AssetHenderson Global Investors

Management 257224
ABN AMRO 157
Henderson Global Investors 224
ABN AMRO 157
SOURCE:
SOURCE:

03.5 2018 was
a record year for European VC-backed exits, including the IPOs of Spotify, Adyen and Farfetch,
amongst other highlights. By comparison, 2019 has been a very quiet year in terms of large-scale VC-backed
exits, with the largest exit coming in at just over $850M.
2018 was a record year for European VC-backed exits, including the IPOs of Spotify, Adyen
and Farfetch, amongst other highlights. By comparison, 2019 has been a very quiet yearCountry
Exit Type
in terms City Value at IPO/EV in M&A ($M) Acquirer
Top was
2018 10 largest
a VC-backed
record year exits
for European VC-backed
Kiwi.com exits, including
Acquisition the IPOs of Spotify, Adyen and
853 Farfetch,
of large-scale VC-backed
2018by
was exits, with
a record
value at exityear the
for largest
in 2019 Europeanexit comingexits,
VC-backed in atincluding
just over
the$850M.
Czech Republic Brno
IPOs of Spotify, Adyen and Farfetch,
General At
amongst other highlights. By comparison, 2019 has been a very quiet year in terms of large-scale VC-backed
amongst other highlights. By comparison, 2019 has Drivy
been a very quiet Acquisition Franceof large-scale
year in terms Paris VC-backed300 Getaround
exits,
exits, withwith the largest
the largest exit coming
exit coming in at justinover
at just over $850M. Acquisition France
$850M.
MeilleursAgents.com Paris 220 Axel Sprin
Audio Network
Exit Type Exit Type
Acquisition
Country Country
United Kingdom
City London
Value City in M&A ($M)
at IPO/EV Value at
215 IPO/EV(ifinany)
Acquirers M&A ($M) Acquirer
Entertainm
TopTop 10 largest
10 largest VC-backed
VC-backed exits exits Kiwi.com Kiwi.com Acquisition Czech Republic
Acquisition Brno Republic
Czech 853
Brno 853 General Atlantic General At
by value at exit Graze Acquisition United Kingdom Richmond 200 Unilever
by value atinexit
2019in 2019 Drivy Acquisition France Paris 300 Getaround
Drivy
iyzico Acquisition
Acquisition France
Turkey Paris
Istanbul 300
165 Getaround
PayU
MeilleursAgents.com Acquisition France Paris 220 Axel Springer
MeilleursAgents.com
data Artisans Acquisition
Acquisition France
Germany Paris
Berlin 220
103 Axel Sprin
Alibaba
Audio Network Acquisition United Kingdom London 215 Entertainment One
Audio Network
Crypto Facilities Acquisition
Acquisition United Kingdom
United Kingdom London
London 215
100 Entertainm
Kraken
Graze Acquisition United Kingdom Richmond 200 Unilever
Graze
Usabilla Acquisition
Acquisition United Kingdom
Netherlands Richmond
Amsterdam 200
80 Unilever
SurveyMon
iyzico Acquisition Turkey Istanbul 165 PayU
data Artisans iyzico

mnubo Acquisition Acquisition
Acquisition
Germany Turkey
Spain
B erlin Istanbul
Sant Pere de Ribes
103 165
78 Alibaba PayU
Aspen Tec
data Artisans
Crypto Facilities Acquisition Acquisition
United Kingdom Germany
London B erlin
100 103 Kraken Alibaba
Usabilla Acquisition
Crypto Facilities Netherlands
Acquisition Amsterdam
United Kingdom 80
London 100 SurveyMonkey Kraken
NOTE:
mnubo SOURCE: Acquisition Spain Sant Pere de Ribes 78 Aspen Technologies
EUR to USD conversion taken by date of exit Usabilla Dealroom Acquisition Netherlands Amsterdam 80 SurveyMon
from Bloomberg; Graze value at exit based
on rumours.
The slow year in terms of VC-backed exitsmnubo
NOTE:
is re ected in Acquisition Spain Sant Pere de Ribes 78 Aspen Tec
the
EUR count
to USD oftaken
conversion total M&A
by date of exit transactions.
SOURCE: Dealroom
from Bloomberg; Graze value at exit based
NOTE:
on rumours.
EUR to USD conversion taken by date of exit SOURCE: Dealroom

600
VC-backed
The
fromslow M&A
year
Bloomberg; inexit
Graze count
terms
value byVC-backed exits is re ected in
at exitof
based
The slow year in terms deal size
ofcount
VC-backed
on rumours.
the of totalexits
M&Aistransactions.
reflected in the count of total M&A transactions.
The slow year in terms of VC-backed exits is re ected in500
the count of total M&A transactions.
LEGEND
<$100M 600
VC-backed M&A exit count by
VC-backed exit count
400
600
VC-backed
deal size M&A exit count by
$100M-$250M
deal size
$250M-$500M 500
500 300
LEGEND
>$500M
LEGEND
<$100M
<$100M
400
400
$100M-$250M 200
$100M-$250M
$250M-$500M
300
$250M-$500M
>$500M
300
>$500M 100
200
200
100 0
2015 2016 2017 2018
NOTE: 0 100
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
NOTE:
All Dealroom.co
lending capital,data excludes
grants. the following:
Please also note the SOURCE:
0 Dealroom
biotech, secondary transactions, debt, 2015 2016 2017 2018
Looking beyond just venture-backed European tech M&A activity, total deal value hit $88B in the rst nine
todata
September 2019.
excludes Israel. 2019 based on data up
NOTE:
months of 2019 and is on track to surpass 2018's total for the year of nearly $100B. Non-VC-backed companies
to September 2019.

have been
biotech, thetransactions,
secondary key driver debt,of that gure, accounting for almost 80% of total deal value up until the end of
September 2019.
to September 2019.
Looking beyond just venture-backed European tech M&A activity, total deal value hit $88B
in the first nine months of
Looking 2019
European and
beyond
M&A exitis on
just track
($B) to surpassEuropean
venture-backed
value 2018’s totaltechforM&Athe year of nearly
activity, total deal value hit $88B in the rst nine
$100B. Non-VC-backed percompanies
year by have
VC-backed been
or not the key driver
European techof that
M&A
100 figure,
months of 2019 and is on track to surpass 2018's total for the yearhit
Looking beyond just venture-backed activity, total accounting
deal value forin the$100B.
of$88B
nearly
100
rst nine
Non-VC-backed companies
months of 2019 and is on track to surpass 2018's total for the year of nearly $100B. Non-VC-backed companies
almost 80% of total deal
have value up until
key the end
driver of of September
that gure, 2019.
have been the key driver of that gure, accounting for almost 80% of total deal value up until the end value
been the accounting for almost 80% of total deal of up until the end of
LEGEND
September 2019.
September 2019.
Exit value ($B)/exit count
VC-backed exit value 75 72
Non-VC backed exit value 66

European M&A exit value ($B)
European M&A exitorvalue
per year by VC-backed not ($B) 100
100
100
per year by VC-backed or not 100
50 48
45
LEGEND
VC-backed exit value 75 72

LEGEND 32 66 67 31
Non-VC backed exit value
VC-backed exit value 75

25 72
Non-VC backed exit value 50 48

45
66
8
32 31
500 48
25 45 20
2015 2016 2017 2018
8
32 31
0
25
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
SOURCE: Dealroom
NOTE:
8
2019 is based on data up to September 2019. S O U R C E : Dealroom
NOTE:
0
2019 is based on data up to September 2019. 2015 2016 2017 2018
SOURCE: Dealroom
NOTE:
2019 is based on data up to September 2019.

TECH M&A BUYERS
European tech M&A is dominated by exits to European
60%
03.5 buyers, which accounted for 60% of exit by deal count in
2019. One in four M&A transactions in 2019 was a US buyer,
a record high over the past ve years. TECH M&A BUYERS
of European tech companies are sold to European buyer
European tech M&A is dominated
European techbyM&A
exitsisto Europeanby exits to European TECH M&A BUYERS
dominated
60%60%
buyers, which accounted buyers,
forwhich
60% of accounted
exit by dealforcount
60% of inexit by deal count in
100
2019.One in four M&A2019. One in four
transactions
Share of M&A in M&A was
2019 transactions
exitsisbydominated
buyer a US in 2019 was a US buyer,
buyer, TECH M&A BUYERS of European tech companies are
European tech M&A
over the past byve exits to European sold to European buyers.
a record high over thea pastrecord byhigh
regionfive years.
year years.
60%
buyers, which accounted for 60% of exit by deal count in of European tech companies are sold to European buyer
2019. One in four M&A transactions in 2019 was a US buyer,
75
aLEGEND
record high over the past ve years.
100 of European tech companies are sold to European buyers.
Europe
Share of M&A exits by buyer
% of M&A exits
region by year 100
Share
Asia of M&A exits by buyer 50
region by year
Other (incl. unknown buyer country) 75
LEGEND
75
LEGEND
Europe
Europe
% of M&A exits
United States and Canada 25
% of M&A exits
Asia
Asia 50 50
Other (incl.
Other unknown
(incl. buyerbuyer
unknown country)
country)
25 0
2015 2016 2017 2018
25
NOTE:
VC-backed and non-VC backed deals 0
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
included. All Dealroom.co data excludes the
following:
NOTE: biotech, secondary transactions, 0 Dealroom
debt, lending capital, grants. Please also SOURCE: 2015 2016 2017 2018
VC-backed and non-VC backed deals
note the data
included. excludes
data 2019
excludes thebased on
data
NOTE: to September
following: 2019. transactions,
biotech, secondary
debt, lending capital, grants. Please also S O U R C E : Dealroom
note the data excludes Israel. 2019 based on
VC-backed and non-VC backed deals
included. All Dealroom.co data excludes the
following: biotech, secondary transactions,
Despite the slow exit year in 2019, Europe has aDealroom
SOURCE:
debt, lending capital, grants. Please also large pipeline of potential exit candidates with close to $103B of
Despite the slow exitunrealised
year in 2019, Europe
$1B+ has a for
candidates large pipeline
exits acrossofapotential
note the data excludes Israel. 2019 based on
number ofexit candidates with close
industries.
to $103B of unrealised $1B+ candidates
Despite the slow exitfor exits
year across
in 2019, a number
Europe has aof industries.
large pipeline of potential exit candidates with close to $103B of
unrealised $1B+ candidates for exits across a number of industries.
Realised andslow
Despite the unrealised $1B+
exit year Fintech
in 2019, Europe has a large pipeline of potential exit candidates with close to $103B of $50B
exits by industry
unrealised vertical for exits across a number of industries.
$1B+ candidates $41B
Enterprise software
$19B
Realised and unrealised $1B+ Fintech
$50B
LEGEND $47B $91B
exits by industry
Realised vertical
and unrealised $1B+ Fintech
Gaming
$2B
$50B
$41B
exits of
Value byrealised
industry$1B+
vertical
exits Enterprise software $41B
Enterprise software $19B
$19B $39B
Value of unrealised $1B+ startups Food
LEGEND
LEGEND $6B $47B $47B
Gaming Gaming
$2B $2B
Value ofofrealised
Value $1B+
realised $1B+ exits
exits $21B
Transportation $39B
Value of unrealised $1B+ startups Food $11B $39B
Value of unrealised $1B+ startups $6BFood
$6B $21B
$21B
Transportation Music$11B $1B $21B
Transportation
$21B $11B
Music
$1B
$7B
Travel
$10B $21B
Travel
Music
$7B
$10B $1B
$6B
Health
Health
$6B $4B $7B
$4B Travel
$10B
0 10 0 20 1030 4020 50 30 60 40 70 50
80 90 60 100 70 80
$6B
Health Realised and unrealised value ($B) ofRealised and unrealised value ($B) of $1B+ startups
$1B+ startups
$4B
NOTE:
NOTE: 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
biotech, secondary excludesdebt,
transactions, the following: Realised and unrealised value ($B) of $1B+ startups
data excludes Israel. Data from 2013 to 2019; SOURCE: Dealroom
NOTE:
lending capital,
2019 based grants.
on data Please also
up to September 2019.note the
data excludes Israel. Data from 2013 to 2019;
data excludes Israel. Data from 2013 to 2019;
Entrepreneurs I tend to think that a high-performing ecosystem is

made up of three main things: talent, capital and a ‘belief
believe they can build system’. I think Europe has more and more phenomenal
extraordinary success talent, including people who move from the US to come to
stories in Europe, Europe for any number of reasons - for their studies, for
lifestyle or world experience, to move back to where their
because either they know families are, etc.
of others, or perhaps, Leila Rastegar
I don’t have to tell you there’s more capital than ever
increasingly, they know before, and more high-quality capital, I should add. But
Zegna
someone directly who it’s really the ‘belief system’ that I think has had the most Kindred Capital
Founding General
has been a part of one marked change. Entrepreneurs believe they can build
Partner
extraordinary success stories in Europe, because either
of those stories. That’s they know of others, or perhaps, increasingly, they know
hugely powerful. someone directly who has been a part of one of those
stories. That’s hugely powerful.

Investors
What is the definition of a European tech investor?

As investment into European startups continues to set records,
capital providers have proliferated at all stages from angel to growth.
Investors at more than 100 funds are on track to raise over $100B,
and we saw a record number of first-time funds.

VCs and LPs
It’s hard to point to a single reason why the level of interest in European tech
has increased in the way it has over the past five years. But it would be foolish
to look
It's hardpast the hard
to point data. reason
to a single The fact whyis that European
the level VC returns
of interest are now
in European techglobally
has increased in the way it has
competitive
over the pastand vethat has
years. caused
But it would LPsbeto waketo
foolish up. On past
look a one-,
thethree- and five-
hard data. The fact is that European VC returns
It's hard toIt's
point totoapoint
singletoreason why the level of interest in European tech hastechincreased in the way it has
year
are horizon,
hard
now Cambridge
globally a single
competitiveAssociates
reason whyhas
and that data,
the the most
level
caused ofLPs widely
interest in cited
to wake benchmark
European
up. On a one-, has ofincreased
three- in the
and ve-year way it has
horizon,
over the past
over ve years.
the past
Cambridge
But it would
veperformance,
years.data,
Associates
be
But itthefoolish
would
most
to look
bewidely
foolish past the
to look hard
past data.
the of The
hard fact
data. is that European
The factperformance, VC returns
is that European VCthat
returns
venture capital shows that itscited
index benchmark
for European venture
VC capital
performance shows its
are now globally
are
indexnow competitive
forglobally
European andperformance
VC that has
competitive caused
andoutperforming
thatishas LPs to
onwake
caused
either LPs
par orup.
to On acantly
wake
signi one-,
up.USOn three-
a one-,and ve-year
three-
outperforming and horizon,
indices ve-year
for bothhorizon,
US VC and,
Cambridge
is either
Associates
on par or significantly
data, the most widely cited benchmark
indices for both
of venture
VC and,
Cambridge
importantly,
importantly, Associates
Europeandata,
European the
Private
Private most
Equity.
Equity.widely cited benchmark of capital
ventureperformance, shows that
capital performance, its that its
shows
index for European VC performance is either on par or signi cantly outperforming indices for both US VC and,
index for European VC performance is either on par or signi cantly outperforming indices for both US VC and,
importantly, EuropeanEuropean
importantly, Private Equity.
Private Equity.
Horizon pooled return (net) by
fund index, June 2019
Horizon pooled return
Horizon (net)return
pooled by (net) by 30.0
fund index, June 2019 June 2019
LEGE ND
fund index,
(%)Return (%)
Europe Developed Venture Capital Index

30.0
L E G E ND ($) 30.0
LEGE ND
Horizon Pooled Net Return (%)
ReturnNet
Cambridge
Europe Developed Associates
Venture Capital US Venture Capital
Index
Europe 20.0
Index Developed Venture Capital Index
NetPooled
($) ($)
EuropeUS
Cambridge Associates Developed
Venture Private Equity Index ($)
Capital
Cambridge Associates US Venture Capital 20.0
Horizon
Index MSCI Europe Index ($) 20.0

Index
Horizon Pooled
Europe Developed Private

Europe Equity Index
Developed ($)Equity Index ($)
Private 10.0
MSCI Europe Index
MSCI($)Europe Index ($)
10.0 10.0
0.0
25 year 20 year 15 year 10 year 5 year 3 year 1 year
0.0 0.0
25 year 25 year20 year 20 year 15 year 15 year 10 year 10 year 5 year 5 year 3 year 3 year 1 year 1 year
SOURCE: Cambridge Associates

NOTE:
As of 30 June 2019, $
S O U R C E : Cambridge
SOURCE:Associates
Cambridge Associates
NOTE: NOTE:
As of 30 June 2019,
As of$ 30 June 2019, $
LPs from around the world are becoming increasingly

interested in European tech. They recognise the quality
of technical talent in Europe and want access to this
potential. There is also a realisation that the next Silicon
Valley isn’t going to be a single location; instead, it will be Alice Bentinck
a number of cities that attract and aggregate the world’s Entrepreneur First
Co-founder
best talent and build ecosystems around this.

04.1 VCs and LPs
2018 was another record year with European VCs FUNDS

FUNDS > €100M> €100M
2018 was another record year with European VCs raising FUNDS > €100M
raising more than $13B, and fundraising activity in in the rst six
66%
66%
more than $13B, and fundraising activity
2018 was another record year with European VCs raising of all VC funds raised in 2018
the first six months of 2019than
months (>$7.5B) indicates
of 2019 (>$7.5B) that
indicates that the full year total for
66%
more
2019 could go$13B, and fundraising
on to surpass activity
that level. Larger funds in
of the rst six are from funds with a size of
the full year total for months
2019 could
greater than go
of 2019 on to
€250M(>$7.5B)surpass
representindicates
over 40% ofthat the
capital
of all VC funds raised in 2018 are from funds with a size of >€100M.
fullinyear total for
raised >€100M.
that level. Larger funds ofcould
2018.
2019 greater
go onthanto €250M
surpass that level. Larger funds of
represent over 40% of capital raised in 2018. of all VC funds raised in 2018 are from funds with a size o
greater than €250M represent over 40% of capital raised in
2018.
VC funds raised ($M) and number DATAS E T : F U ND S R A I S E D
FUNDS > €100M
of VC funds closed per year by
2018
fundwas another record year with European VCs raising
size (€M)
66%
more than $13B, and fundraising activity in the rst six
FUNDS RAISED
DATASET: FUNDS R AISED
VC funds raised ($M) and number
LEGEND
months<€25M of 2019 (>$7.5B) indicates that the full year total for
of VC funds closed per year by
2019
fundcould
€25-50M go on to surpass that level.
size (€M)
12,500
Larger funds of
of all VC funds raised in 2018 are from funds with a size o
Funds raised ($M) / # of funds closed

greater than
€50-100M
€100-250M
€250M represent over 40%
10,000
of capital raised in
2018.
LEGEND
>€250M
FUNDS > €100M
2018<€25M
was another record year with European 7,500 VCs raising
66%
12,500
more than $13B, and fundraising activity in the rst six
€25-50M
VC€50-100M
funds raised ($M) and number DATASET: FUNDS R AISED

months of 2019 (>$7.5B) indicates that the full5,000
year total for
of VC
2019 funds
could go closed per year
on to surpass bylevel. Larger funds of 10,000
that
€100-250M of all VC funds raised in 2018 are from funds with a size of >€100M.
fund size
greater (€M)
than €250M represent over 40% of capital
2,500 raised in
>€250M
2018.
LEGEND 0 7,500
2015 2016 2017 2018 H1 2019
VC<€25M
funds raised ($M) and number DATAS E T : F U ND S C LO S E D
of €25-50M
VC funds closed per year by
NOTE: 12,500
5,000
fund
H1 2019size (€M)
gures are preliminary. Taken from Funds raised ($M) / # of funds closed
the€50-100M
European Data Cooperative, developed S OFUNDS
U R C E : CLOSED
by Invest Europe. EDC data converted at
LEGEND
€100-250M
EUR:USD of 1.1367, the rate on 30 June 2019. 250 10,000
<€25M
2,500
>€250M
€25-50M
200
€50-100M 7,500
0
€100-250M 2015 2016 2017 2018
>€250M 150
5,000
NOTE:
H1 2019 gures are preliminary. Taken from 100

the European Data Cooperative, developed SOURCE:
2,500
EUR:USD of 1.1367, the rate on 30 June 2019. 50
0
2015 2016 2017 2018
0
2015 2016 2017 2018 H1 2019
NOTE:
NOTE:
H1 2019 gures are preliminary. Taken from
the European
the European Data
Data Cooperative,
Cooperative, developeddeveloped SOURCE: SOURCE:
by
by Invest Europe.
Invest Europe. EDCEDC data converted
data converted at at
EUR:USD of 1.1367, the rate on 30 June 2019.
AVER AGE VC FUND SIZE

The overall median fund size at nal closing reached $53M
$53M
in the rst six months of 2019, continuing the gradual
increase in average fund size in Europe over the past ve
The overall median fund
years.size at final closing AVERAGE VCAVER FUND
AGESIZE
VC FUND SIZE
The overall median fund size at nal closing reached $53M Size of median VC fund closed in Europe in H1 2019
reached $53M in the first six months of 2019,
$53M$53M
in the rst six months of 2019, continuing the gradual Size of median VC fund closed in
continuing the gradual increase in average fund
increase in average fund size in Europe over the pastAVER
veAGE VC FUND SIZE Europe in H1 2019
size in Europe over theMedian
Thepast five
overall
and years.
median fund size at nal closing reached $53M
120
$112M
sixmean fund size ($M)
$53M
years.
in the rst months of 2019, continuing the gradual $106M
at nal closing
increase by fund
in average year size in Europe over the past ve Size of median VC fund closed in Europe in H1 2019
$100M
years. 100
Size of median VC fund closed
$92Min Europe in H1 2019
LEGEND
120
Medianand mean fund size ($M) $112M
Median
120 $106M
at naland
closing by year
Fund size ($M)
Mean
Median mean fund size ($M) 80 $112M
$100M $106M $105M
at nal closing by year
$100M
100
100 $92M
LEGEND $92M
LEGEND
60
Median
Median $51M $50M
$48M
Fund size ($M)
Mean 80
Fund size ($M)
Mean 80 $43M
40
60 $53M
$51M $50M
60 $48M
$51M$43M $50M
$48M
40 20 $43M
2015 2016 2017 2018
40
20
NOTE: 2015 2016 2017 2018 H1 2019

NOTE:
20
by
H1 Invest Europe.
2019 gures EDC data
are preliminary. converted
Taken from at 2015 2016 2017 2018
the European SOURCE:
EUR:USD ofData Cooperative,
1.1367, the rate developed
on 30 June 2019.
NOTE:

In the UK and Germany the mean fund size at nal closing has surpassed $100M, but elsewhere in Europe
average fund sizes are still much lower. On a European-wide basis, the mean VC fund has a nal closing at
04.1 VCs and LPs $45M.
$117M
Median and mean fund size ($M) UK & Ireland
In the UK and Germany the
Inatthe mean
UK
nal andfund
closing
size at
Germany the
by year by sub-
final closing
mean has surpassed
fund size at nal closing$100M,
has but
surpassed $100M, but elsewhere in Europe
elsewhere in Europeaverage
average
In the UK fund
fund
and sizes
sizes
Germany
region, 2014-H1 2019 are
are
the still
still
mean much
much
fund size lower.
lower.
at On
nal Ona a
closing European-wide
European-wide
has surpassed
DACH basis,
basis,
$100M, but the the
meanin VC
elsewhere fund has a $101M
Europe nal closing at
average fund sizes are still much lower. On a European-wide basis, the mean VC fund has a nal closing at $156M
mean VC fund has a final
$45M. closing
$45M.
at $45M. $46M
LEGEND All Europe
$98M
Median
$45M $117M $117M
Median and
Median mean fund size ($M)
Mean and mean fund size ($M)
UK & Ireland France
UK&&Benelux
Ireland $186M
at nal closing by year by sub- $73M
atregion,
nal closing by year by sub-
2014-H1 2019 DACH
$101M
$28M $156M$101M
region, 2014-H1 2019 DACH
Southern Europe
$46M $41M $156M
LEGEND All Europe
$98M
Median $20M $46M
LEGEND All Europe
CEE $45M
Mean
France & Benelux $27M $98M
$73M
Median
$28M $17M $45M
Southern Europe France & Benelux
Nordics
Mean $41M $65M $73M
$20M
CEE 0 20 $28M 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Southern Europe$27M
$41M Fund size ($M) at nal closing
$17M
Nordics
$20M
$65M
CEE
NOTE: 0 20 40 60 $27M
80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Fund size ($M) at nal closing
Taken from the European Data Cooperative, $17M
developed by Invest Europe. EDC data SOURCE: Nordics $65M
NOTE:
converted at EUR:USD of 1.1367, the rate on
Taken from the European Data Cooperative, 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
30developed
June 2019.
by Invest Europe. EDC data SOURCE:
converted at EUR:USD of 1.1367, the rate on Fund size ($M) at nal closing
30 June 2019.
NOTE:
Taken from the European Data Cooperative,
The median size of �rst-time VC funds closed in SOURCE:
The median size of first-time
developed
converted VC funds
by Invest Europe.
closed
EDC data
in Europe hitEurope
$62.5m hit $62.5m
in thein first
the �rst halfof
half of 2019.
2019. This is up nearly 3x
on medianatfund
EUR:USD
sizesof 1.1367,
fromthe�verate on
years ago. The increased fund size is a re�ection of the sophistication of new
The median
This is up nearly 3x ongeneration
median �rst-time
30 June 2019. size
fund sizes of �rst-time
fundfrom
managers
VC funds
fiveinyears closed
Europe,ago. The
as well
in Europe
as aincreased
hit $62.5m
fund size
necessary response
inincreased
to theis athe �rst half of 2019. This is up nearly 3x
round sizes in
on median fund sizes from �ve years ago. The
reflection of the sophistication of new generation first-time fund managers in Europe, as
European early-stage venture. increased fund size is a re�ection of the sophistication of new
generation �rst-time fund managers in Europe,
well as a necessary response to the increased round sizes in European early-stage venture. as well as a necessary response to the increased round sizes in
European early-stage
Median and mean fund size ($M)venture. DATAS E T : I N I T I A L F I R ST VC F U ND
at nal closing per year by fund
type (2014-H1 2019)
INITIAL FIRST VC FUND
Median DATASET: INITIAL FIRST VC FUND
LEGEND and mean fund size ($M) $122.0M
at Median
nal closing per year by fund 125.0
type
Mean(2014-H1 2019)
$97.3M
100.0
$82.6M
LEGEND
Fund size ($M)
125.0
Median 75.0
$62.5M
Mean
$97.3M $45.7M
The median size of �rst-time VC funds closed50.0in Europe
$43.5M
hit $62.5m in the �rst half of 2019. This is up nearly 3x $44.6M
100.0
on median fund sizes from �ve years ago. The increased fund size is a re�ection of the$82.6M sophistication
$32.5M
of new
$22.7M $24.6M
generation �rst-time fund managers in Europe,
25.0 as well as a necessary response to$22.9M
the increased round sizes in
The median size ofventure.
�rst-time VC funds closed75.0in Europe $15.9M
hit $62.5m in the �rst half of 2019. This is up nearly 3x
Fund size ($M)
European early-stage
on median fund sizes from �ve years0.0ago. The increased fund size is a re�ection of the sophistication of new
generation
Median and mean�rst-time
fund size ($M)fund managers
DATAS E T :in
F I REurope,
ST-T I ME VC F Uas
2014
ND Owell
F E STA Bas
2015
L I S Ha
E Dnecessary
FIRM
2016
response
2017
to$45.7M
the increased
2018
round
H1 2019
sizes in
50.0 $43.5M $44.6M
European
at
early-stage
nal closing per year by fund
NOTE:
type (2014-H1 2019)
venture.
H1 2019 gures are preliminary. Taken from $32.5M
the European Data Cooperative, developed S OFIRST-TIME
URCE: VC FUND OF ESTABLISHED FIRM
$22.7M $22.9M $24.6M
LEGEND
EUR:USD of 1.1367, the rate on 30 June 2019. 300.0 25.0 $15.9M $280.9M
Median and mean fund size ($M)
Median DATASET: FIRST-TIME VC FUND OF ESTABLISHED FIRM
at Mean
nal closing per year by fund
type (2014-H1 2019) 0.0
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
200.0
Fund size ($M)
LEGEND
NOTE: 300.0 $280.9M
Median
theMean
European Data Cooperative, developed SOURCE:
$97.3M
$90.9M
The median
by Invest size
Europe. EDCofdata
�rst-time VC
converted at funds closed in Europe
100.0
$69.9Mhit $62.5m in the �rst half of 2019. This is up nearly 3x
on median
EUR:USD fund sizes
of 1.1367, the ratefrom
on 30 �ve
Juneyears
2019. ago. The increased fund size is a re�ection of the sophistication of new
$40.0M
$39.1M
generation �rst-time fund managers in Europe, as well as a necessary response to the increased round sizes in
200.0 $10.2M
European early-stage venture. $6.9M
Fund size ($M)
0.0
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 H1 2019
Median and mean fund size ($M) DATAS E T : FO L LOW O N VC F U ND

NOTE:
at nal closing per year by fund
type
the (2014-H1
European Data 2019)
Cooperative, developed S OFOLLOW
URCE: ON VC FUND $90.9M
100.0
by Invest Europe. EDC data converted at $69.9M
EUR:USD of 1.1367, the rate on 30 June 2019. 120.0
LEGEND $112.0M
Median $40.0M
$39.1M $105.5M $105.4M
$99.7M
Mean
100.0
$92.1M
$10.2M
0.0
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Fund size ($M)
80.0
$67.8M
NOTE:
60.0 $52.6M
$48.3M $49.9M
$41.6M $43.3M
40.0
20.0
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 H1 2019
NOTE:

04.1 VCs and LPs
GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
Lookingback
Looking backon onaacumulative
cumulativebasisbasis atat total
total funds
funds GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
$9B$9B
GOVERNMENT AGENCIESAGENCIES
GOVERNMENT
committed
committed
Looking back on aback to
to European
European
cumulative VCsVCs since
since
basis at total 2014,
2014, government
government
Looking on a cumulative basisfunds
at total funds Funds allocated by government
$9B
agencies
agencies have
have been
been the
thelargest
largestcontributors
contributors - supporting
- supporting
$9B
committed to European
committed VCs since
to European 2014,
VCs government
since 2014, government agencies to European VCs since
the
the European
European
agencies agencies
have beenhave VC
VC
the beenecosystem
ecosystem
largest with
with$9B.
$9B.They
They are followed
are by
followed by
thecontributors - supporting
largest contributors - supporting Funds allocated by government agencies
2014 to European VCs since 2014
corporate
corporate
the European investors
investors
VC ecosystem and
andprivate
with private
$9B. individuals
They individuals
are They asas
followed the next
the
by two
next two
the European VC ecosystem with $9B. are followed by
Funds allocated by government agenciesagencies
to European VCs since 2014
corporatelargest LP types.
largest LPinvestors
types. Funds allocated by government to European VCs since 2014
investors
corporate and private
andindividuals as the next
private individuals twonext two
as the
largest LPlargest
types.LP types.
VC funds raised ($B) by LP type,
2014-2018 cumulative
VC funds raised ($B) by
VC funds LP type,
raised ($B) by LP type,
2014-2018
2014-2018 cumulative
LEGE ND cumulative Private individuals Fund of funds Family o ces
Government agencies
up to 12.0
L E G E ND LEGE ND Private individuals
Private individuals Fund of funds Fund of funds Family o cesFamily o ces
8.0 to 10.0 Government agencies
Government agencies
up to 12.0 up to 12.0
6.0 to 8.0
8.0 to 10.0 8.0 to 10.0
4.0 to 6.0
6.0 to 8.0 6.0 to 8.0
2.0 to 4.0
4.0 to 6.0 4.0 to 6.0
1.0 to 2.0 Pension funds Banks Insurance companies
2.0 to 4.0 2.0 to 4.0
0.0 to 1.0 Other asset managers (including PE houses other than fund of funds)
1.0 to 2.0 1.0 to 2.0 Corporate investors Pension fundsPension funds Banks Banks Insurance companies
Insurance companies
up to 0.0
0.0 to 1.0 Other asset
Other asset managers managers
(including (including
PE houses PEthan
other houses
fundother than fund of funds)
of funds)
0.0 to 1.0
Corporate investors
Corporate investors
up to 0.0 up to 0.0 Endowments and foundations Capital markets
Sovereign
Academicwealth
institutions
funds
Endowments
Endowments and and foundations
foundations Capital
Capital markets
Sovereignmarkets
Academic Sovereign
Academic
wealth funds wealth
institutions institutions
funds
NOTE:
NOTE:
developed by Invest Europe. Excludes SOURCE:
NOTE:
Unclassi ed. EDC data converted at
Taken from the Taken fromData
European
EUR:USD
the Cooperative,
European Data Cooperative,
of 1.1367, the rate on 30 June 2019. SOURCE:
developed by Invest Europe. Excludes
The record high of more than $13B raised by European

VCs in 2018 came despite a decline in government agency
investment of almost $1B. This drop was more than offset
by large
The increases
record in investment
high of more than $13Bby fund by
raised of funds, pension
European VCs in 2018 came despite a decline in government
funds
agencyand family offices.
investment of almost $1B. This drop was more than offset by large increases in investment by fund of
funds, pension funds and family o ces.
VC funds raised ($M) per year by

LP type, 2014-2018
LEG E ND
Government agencies 12,500
Fund of funds
Corporate investors 10,000
Funds raised ($M)
Family o�ces
Private individuals
7,500
Pension funds
Other asset managers (including PE
houses other than fund of funds) 5,000
Banks
Insurance companies 2,500
Endowments and foundations
Capital markets
0
Sovereign wealth funds 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Academic institutions
Unclassi�ed
NOTE:

developed by Invest Europe. EDC data SOURCE:
30 June 2019.

PENSION FUNDS
Indeed, pension funds appear to be waking up to the
$902M
European VC opportunity. They contributed just short of
04.1 VCs and LPs $1B to European VCs in 2018, a material increase on the
average commitment of just $395M per year for the period

Size of total
PENSION FUNDSinvestment by pension funds in European VC
between
Indeed, 2014 and
pension 2017.appear
funds The emergence
to be waking of fund
up toofthe
funds
Indeed, pension funds appear to be waking up to the European VC PENSION record)
FUNDS
with a mandate for European VCcontributed
is also notable.just Fund
shortof
$902M
European VC opportunity. They of
opportunity. They contributed just short of $1B to European VCs inother LP
$902M
funds contributed $1.2B in 2018, more than
$1B to European VCs in 2018, a material increase on the any
2018, a material increase
type on the
except average
government commitment
agencies. oftojust $395M PENSION FUNDS Size of total investment by
average commitment
Indeed, pension of to
funds appear just $395Mupper
be waking year for the period
the pension fundsbyin European VC inin European VC
per year for the period between 2014
andand 2017. The emergence ofof of funds Size of total investment pension funds
$902M
European
between VC opportunity.
2014 They
2017. contributed
The emergencejust short
of fund 2018 (a record)
fund of funds with a mandate for European
VCs in 2018, aVC is also record)
isnotable.
$1B to European material increase on theFund of
with a mandate
Funds
average committed
commitment forofEuropean
($M) to VC
just VCyear
$395M per also notable.
for the period Fund of
Government agencies
funds contributed $1.2B

fundsin 2018, more
fundscontributed
between by2014
LP type than
$1.2B
(>$500M),
and 2017. any other
in 2018,of
2014-
The emergence LP
more type
than
fund of except
fundsany otherSize
LP of total investment by pension funds in European VC in 2018 (a
Fund of funds
record)
government agencies. 2017 vs 2018
type except government agencies.
with a mandate for European VC is also notable. Fund of
Corporate investors
funds contributed $1.2B in 2018, more than any other LP
type except government agencies.
LEGEND Family offices
Government agencies
Funds committed
VC Funds 2018 ($M) ($M) to VC Private individuals
funds
Funds by VC
LPFunds
committed
Average type (>$500M),
($M) to VC ($M) 2014-
2014-2017
Government agencies
Fund of funds
fundsvs
by 2018
LP type (>$500M), 2014- Pension funds
2017 Fund of funds
2017 vs 2018 Corporate
Other asset managers (including PE investors
houses other than
Corporate investors
fund of funds)
LEGEND
LEGEND Family offices Family offices
Banks
VC Funds
VC Funds2018 ($M) ($M)
2018 Private individuals Private individuals
Average VC Funds 2014-2017 ($M) Insurance companies
Average VC Funds 2014-2017 ($M) Pension funds
Pension funds
Other asset managers (including PE houses other than
fund of funds)
Banks fund of funds) 0 250 500 750 1,000 1,250 1,50
Insurance companies Banks Funds committed ($M)
Insurance companies
NOTE: 0 250 500 750 1,000 1,250 1,500 1,750 2,000
Endowments and foundations Funds committed ($M)
NOTE:
Unclassi ed. EDC data converted at 0 250 500 750 1,000 1,250 1,50
EUR:USD
Taken from of
the1.1367, the
European rate
Data on 30 June 2019.
Cooperative, Funds committed ($M)
NOTE:

Looking atEDC
Unclassi ed. 2018converted
commitments as a multiple of average commitments in the four previous years, pension funds,
Looking at 2018 commitments asdata
EUR:USD of 1.1367, a multiple at
of2019.
average commitments
family o cesthe rate on 30 June
and endowments and foundations have shown the greatest increase in their allocations to
in the four previous years, pension funds, family offices and
European VC, a clear indication of the increased institutional investor interest in the asset class.
endowments and foundations have shown the greatest increase in
their allocations to European VC, a clear indication of the increased
institutional investorLooking atin2018 commitments by as a multiple of average Endowments
commitments in the four previous years, pension funds,
and foundations
Funds committed
interest to VC funds
the asset class.
family
Lookingoat 2018
cescommitments
and2018
LP type (multiple), endowments
versus andoffoundations
as a multiple have shown
average commitments theprevious
in the four greatest
Family offices increase
years, in their allocations to
pension funds,
average per
European year
VC, a 2014-2017
clear indication of the increased institutional investor interest intothe asset class.
family o ces and endowments and foundations have shown the greatest increase in their
Pension funds allocations 2.3
European VC, a clear indication of the increased institutional investor interest in the asset class.
LEGEND Insurance companies 2.1x
Funds committed
Multiple to VC
(2018 vs. average funds by
2014-2017)
Funds committed to VC funds by Endowments and foundations Fund of funds 2.9x 2.0x
LP type(multiple),
LP type (multiple),2018 2018
versusversus Family offices Family offices 2.4x
Banks 1.5x
average
average perper year
year 2014-2017
2014-2017
Pension funds 2.3x
Other asset managers Pension
(including PE houses otherfunds
than 2.3
1.4x
LEGEND Insurance companies fund of funds) 2.1x
LEGEND Insurance companies 2.1x
Multiple (2018 vs. average 2014-2017) Fund of funds Private individuals 2.0x 1.1x
Multiple (2018 vs. average 2014-2017) Fund of funds 2.0x
Banks Government agencies 1.5x 1.0x
Banks 1.4x 1.5x
fund of funds)
Corporate investors 0.9x
Private individuals 1.1x
1.4x
fund of funds) 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Government agencies 1.0x
Private individuals Multiple of funds committed in 2018 vs average per year in
1.1x
Corporate investors 0.9x
0.0 Government
0.5 agencies1.0 1.5 2.0 1.0x
2.5 3.0
NOTE:
Multiple of funds committed in 2018 vs average per year in 2014-2017
Taken from the European Data Cooperative, Corporate investors 0.9x
developed
NOTE: by Invest Europe. Excludes SOURCE:
Unclassi 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Taken from ed. EDC data
the European converted
Data Cooperative,at
EUR:USD ofInvest
developed by 1.1367, the Excludes
Europe. rate on 30 June 2019. SOURCE: Multiple of funds committed in 2018 vs average per year in
NOTE:
The value creation in venture The European VC market has matured and
grown and has been proven by successful
is based on innovation. Great exits. Still, many managers are too young to
companies can be created have experienced a market downturn. But
anywhere and at any time in a the increased market size makes the market
more resilient to a potential correction.
market cycle. That makes venture
an interesting complement to Christina Brinck
other asset classes where the Sixth Swedish
value creation are more related to National Pension
Fund - Investment
interest rates and stock markets. Director

04.1 VCs and LPs
Thediversi
The diversification
cation ofofthetheLP LPbase
basefor
for
GPsGPs
in in different
different regions
regions is very
is at at very different
different levels
levels depending
depending on the
The diversi cation of the LP base for GPs in different regions is at very different levels depending on the
on the maturity
maturity of the
of the local VClocal VC ecosystem.
ecosystem. The GPbase
The GP investor investor
in the base
UK,in thethe UK,developed
most the most developed
European VC market,
maturity of the local VC ecosystem. The GP investor base in the UK, the most developed European VC market,
European
The diversi
bene cation VCthe
of
ts from market, tobenefits
LP base
access a for GPsfrom
heavily access
in different
diversi ed LP tobase.
a heavily
regions is atdiversified
This very
is different
in contrast LPtobase.
GPs This
levels is in
depending
based in Central
contrast
on the & to
Eastern
bene ts from access to a heavily diversi ed LP base. This is in contrast to GPs based in Central & Eastern
maturityEurope,
of the
GPs local
basedwhereVCCentral
in ecosystem.
there is&still aThe
Eastern GP
large investor
dependency
Europe, base
where infunds
onthere theisUK, the
raised
still a mostdependency
from
large developed European
government agencies.
on funds VC
Themarket,
raisedNordics,
from
Europe, where there is still a large dependency on funds raised from government agencies. The Nordics,
bene ts meanwhile,
from accesshas
government to athe
heavily diversi
strongest
agencies. The ed LP
relative
Nordics, base. This
support
meanwhile, fromhas ispension
inthe
contrast to GPs
funds,
strongest whichbased
make
relative inupCentral
support of&all
16%from Eastern
VC funds raised in
pension
meanwhile, has the strongest relative support from pension funds, which make up 16% of all VC funds raised in
Europe, where
the there
whichismake
sub-region
funds, still
sincea large
2014. dependency on funds
raisedraised in thefrom governmentsinceagencies. The Nordics,
the sub-region sinceup 16%
2014. of all VC funds sub-region 2014.
meanwhile, has the strongest relative support from pension funds, which make up 16% of all VC funds raised in
the sub-region since 2014.
VC funds raised ($M) by GP UK & Ireland $1538M $1218M $1254M $132M $1692M $430M $274M $935M $1333M $42M $268M $1081M $709M
region and LP type, 2014-2018
region and LP type, 2014-2018 Southern Europe $916M $271M $299M $50M $362M $364M $484M $74M $93M $1M $0M $56M $3M
Southern Europe $916M $271M $299M $50M $362M $364M $484M $74M $93M $1M $0M $56M $3M
LEGE ND Nordics $428M $169M $130M $104M $262M $265M $197M $87M $324M $5M $0M $54M $0M
region andLEGE
LP type,
ND 2014-2018 Nordics $271M
$428M $169M $130M $104M $262M $265M $197M $87M $324M $5M $0M $54M $0M
up to 3,500 Southern Europe $916M $299M $50M $362M $364M $484M $74M $93M $1M $0M $56M $3M
up to 3,500 France & Benelux $3442M $2695M $2300M $1228M $1194M $1194M $868M $673M $526M $128M $86M $74M $11M
L E G E ND 2,500 to 3,000 France & Benelux $3442M $2695M $2300M $1228M $1194M $1194M $868M $673M $526M $128M $86M $74M $11M
2,500 to 3,000 Nordics $428M $169M $130M $104M $262M $265M $197M $87M $324M $5M $0M $54M $0M
up to 3,500 2,000 to 2,500
2,000 to 2,500
DACH $1915M $1738M $280M $163M $173M $474M $193M $914M $172M $40M $26M $35M $2M
DACH $1915M $1738M $280M $163M $173M $474M $193M $914M $172M $40M $26M $35M $2M
France & Benelux $3442M $2695M $2300M $1228M $1194M $1194M $868M $673M $526M $128M $86M $74M $11M
2,500 to 3,0001,500 to 2,000
1,500 to 2,000 CEE $788M $104M $109M $0M $62M $38M $163M $13M $33M $0M $4M $0M $7M
2,000 to 2,5001,000 to 1,500
1,000 to 1,500 DACH $1915M
CEE $788M
$1738M
$104M
$280M
$109M
$163M
$0M
$173M
$62M
$474M
$38M
$193M
$163M
$914M
$13M
$172M
$33M
$40M
$0M
$26M
$4M
$35M
$0M
$2M
$7M
1,500 to 2,000 500 to 1,000
s s
s s
s s
es es
s s
es es
s s
fu fu us us rs rs
s s
ns ns
s s
ts ati ati nd nd
ts ts
ie ie
or or
al al
nd nd
nk nk
500 to 1,000
nd nd
nd nd
adnsan ho hoge ge
ke ke
ni ni
fic fic
tio tio
ke d d s a s a
du du
nc nc
fuPefuPde o d os s
Ca Ca onsons
st st
Ba Ba
fu fu
fu fu
fu fu
CEE $788M $104M $109M $0M $62M $38M $163M $13M $33M $0M $4M $0M $7M
n ne e
pa pa
ar ar
tuhn th E E na na
250 to 500
of of
itu itu
ve ve
vi vi
ar un unnt nt
ge ge
ndnsndnsf f
of of
n n
lth lth
l ml m
mm
1,000 to 1,500 250 to 500
erf er P P a a
di di
in in
lm f f e e
s)ios)io
ly ly
st st
ta ta
st)iho th in in t mt m
co co
m
d d
in in
ea ea
i
ta ta
mm
e
in in
un un
en en
w w
at at
te te
w
ndnos ofud ud se se
pi pi
ce ce
Fa Fa
100 to 250
m
ic ic
do do
i
F
mm
e
or or
o
iva iva
n
fuPe idncolincrlsasr as
500 to 1,000 100 to 250
emem
n
w
ig ig
rn rn
nEsn En
rp rp
ra ra
F
Go Go ies
In In ies
es
fu se e s
ad ands
re res
tio nd
Pr Pr
o
n
ve ve
or
al
nd
nk
n OotuhOther
ve vend
n
g
Co Co
su su
fic
Ac Atcio
da s a
up to 100 du
nc
n
st
ha h ag
Ba
fu
So Sofu
n( ( e
pa
250 to 500
of
itu
ve
vi
ge
un t
r t PE an
up to 100
of
fo men
n
th
m
di
in
ily
st
ta
he g m
al
co
nd
in
ta
m
e
in
we
en
ot din et
w
at
te
Fu
pi
e
Fa
100 to 250
ic
do
s
nc
m
or
iva
Ca
n
cl as
em
ig
rn
En
rp
ra
Pr
(in er
re
ve
ad
Co
su
u
h
ve
up to 100
Go
Ac
In
Ot
So
NOTE:
NOTE:
Taken fromby
developed the European
Invest Data
Europe. Cooperative,
EDC data SOURCE:
developed byEUR:USD
Invest Europe. EDCthe
data SOURCE:
NOTE: converted at of 1.1367, rate on
converted
30 at EUR:USD of 1.1367, the rate on
June 2019.
Taken from the30European
June 2019.
Data Cooperative,
30 June 2019.
UK-based VCs have raised $17B in cumulative funds since FUNDS R AISED IN VC
VC2014, FUNDS
UK AND ITALYRAISED IN UK AND ITALY
VC FUNDS R AISED IN UK AND ITALY
UK-basedfollowed
VCs haveby raised
French$17B in cumulative
($11.7B) and Germanfunds sinceVCs. Given its status
($7.6B)
$1.2B vs $17B
UK-based VCs have raised $17B in cumulative funds since
$1.2B vs vs
$17B
2014, followed by French ($11.7B) and German ($7.6B) VCs.
$1.2B $17B
as Europe’s
2014, followed fourth-largest
by French ($11.7B)economy by GDP,
and German the fact
($7.6B) that Italian VC FUNDS R AISED IN UK AND ITALY
VCs.
UK-based
Given its status VCs havefourth-largest
as Europe's raised $17B ineconomy
cumulative byfunds since
VCs have
Given raisedasonly
its status $1.2Bfourth-largest
Europe's over the sameeconomy
period isby particularly
$1.2B vs $17B
2014,that
GDP, the fact followed
Italianby French
VCs have($11.7B) and $1.2B
raised only German over($7.6B) VCs.
noteworthy.
GDP, the fact The
that launch of the
Italian VCs recent
have raised€1B National
only Innovation
$1.2B over Fund
Total amount inraisedTotal
by Italian
amountandraised
UK funds respectively
by Italian since 2014
and respectively
UK funds
the same Given
perioditsisstatus as Europe's
particularly fourth-largest
noteworthy. The launcheconomy
of by Total amount raised by Italian and UK funds since 2014
the same
Italy with period
a is particularly
mandate that noteworthy.
includes investing The in launch
VC of could help to
funds respectively since 2014
the recentGDP,
€1B
the
the
recent
fact that
National
€1B
Italian VCs
Innovation
National Fundhave
Innovationin raised
Italy only
with a $1.2B over
Fund in Italy with a
move thatperiod
number in the right direction. Total amount raised by Italian and UK funds respectively since 2014
the
mandate that same
includes is particularly noteworthy. Thetolaunch of
mandate that investing in VC
includes investing funds could
in VC fundshelp
could help to
move thatthe
move
recentin€1B
number theNational
that number right Innovation Fund in Italy with a
direction.
in the right direction.
mandate that includes investing in VC funds could help to
move that number in the right direction.
VC funds raised ($M) by country,
2014 to H1 2019
2014 to H1 2019
L E G E ND 2014 ND
LEGE to H1 2019
France Germany Netherlands
up to 17,000 France Germany Netherlands
up to 17,000
LEGE ND
9,000 to 13,000
9,000 to 13,000
France Germany Netherlands
5,000 to 9,000 up to 17,000
5,000 to 9,000 United Kingdom
United Kingdom
1,000 to 5,000 9,000 to 13,000
1,000 to 5,000
500 to 1,000 5,000 to 9,000
500 to 1,000 United Kingdom
250 to 500 1,000 to 5,000
250 to 500 Spain Italy Sweden Belgium
500 to 1,000 Spain Italy Sweden Belgium
100 to 250 100 to 250
50 to 100 250 to 500 Switzerland Switzerland
50 to 100 Spain Italy Sweden Belgium
0 to 50 100 to 250 Luxembourg Luxembourg
Finland Hungary
Finland Denmark
Hungary Ireland
DenmarkPoland
Ireland Poland
0 to 50 Norway Norway
50 to 100 Switzerland
up to 0 up to 0 Austria Portugal Lithuania
Estonia
Czech Lithuania
Republic
Greece
Latvia
Romania Ukraine
Bulgaria
Serbia
Slovakia
Austria Portugal Estonia
Czech Republic
Greece
Latvia
Romania
Bulgaria
Ukraine
Slovakia
Serbia
0 to 50 Luxembourg Finland Hungary Denmark Ireland Poland
Norway
NOTE: NOTE:
up to 0 Austria Estonia
Czech Republic
Portugal Lithuania Greece
Latvia Bulgaria
Romania Ukraine
Slovakia
Serbia
2019 based on data
2019tobased
H1 2019. H1 2019
on data to H1 2019. H1 2019
gures are preliminary.
NOTE: Taken
gures are from theTaken from the
preliminary.
European Data Cooperative,
European Data developed by developed by
Cooperative,
SOURCE: SOURCE:
2019
Invest Europe. EDC based
data
Invest on data
EDC to
converted
Europe. atH1 converted
data 2019. H1 2019
at
EUR:USD of 1.1367, the rate on from
EUR:USD of 1.1367, gures
the are
ratepreliminary.
on 30 June Taken
2019. the 2019.
30 June SOURCE:
European Data Cooperative, developed by
Invest Europe. EDC data converted at

04.1 VCs and LPs
On a population-adjusted basis, VCs based in Luxembourg and Switzerland have raised the highest
On a population-adjusted
amount of funds,basis, VCs based
a reflection in Luxembourg
of their attractiveness andas
Switzerland have raised
global financial theThe
centres. highest amount of
Netherlands and
funds, a On
re�ection
theaUK of their attractiveness
also rank high on abasis,
population-adjusted as
per capita global �nancial
basis,inwhile
VCs based centres. The
large European
Luxembourg Netherlands
marketshave
and Switzerland and the
suchraised UK
as Italy,
the also
Spain rankamount of
highest
high on afunds,
pereven
and capita basis, while
Germany
a re�ection ofstill
theirlarge
have Europeanunderdeveloped
relatively
attractiveness markets
as globalsuch asVCItaly,
�nancial Spain and
ecosystems
centres. Theeven Germany
compared
Netherlandswith still
and the have
themost
UK also rank
relativelyhigh
underdeveloped
on a per VC ecosystems
capita basis, compared
while large Europeanwith the most
marketsofsuch advanced
as Italy,European
Spain countries. Estonia
still is an
advanced European countries. Estonia is an example a country that hasand
seeneven Germany
a rapid development have
examplerelatively
of a country that has
underdeveloped seen a rapid development in the local VC ecosystem with the emergence of a new
in the local VC ecosystemVC ecosystems
with the emergencecompared withgeneration
of a new the most advanced European
of VC funds, such ascountries.
Karma Estonia is an
generation of VC of
example funds, such as
a country thatKarma Ventures
has seen and
a rapid Tera Ventures.
development in the local VC ecosystem with the emergence of a new
Ventures and Tera Ventures.
generation of VC funds, such as Karma Ventures and Tera Ventures.
VC funds raised per capita by DATASET: TOP 10
country of GP by year TOP 10
VC funds raised per capita by DATASET: TOP 10
country of GP by year $280
L E G END Luxembourg
$771
$ raised per capita (2013-2015) $189 $280
LEGE ND Switzerland Luxembourg
$191 $771
$ raised per capita (2016-2018)
Netherlands Switzerland $183 $191
$ raised per capita (2016-2018) $94
United Kingdom Netherlands $86
$153 $183
Norway $99 $94
United Kingdom $124 $153
$5 $99
Estonia Norway $120 $124
On a population-adjusted basis, VCs basedFrance
in Luxembourg $55 $5 and Switzerland have raised the highest amount of
Estonia
funds, a re�ection of their attractiveness as global �nancial $56
centres.
$114
$55
$120
The Netherlands and the UK also rank
Finland France
high on a per capita basis, while large European markets such as Italy, Spain and even Germany still have
$85 $114
$7 $56
relatively underdeveloped VC ecosystemsSwedencompared with
Finland
$80 the most $85 advanced European countries. Estonia is an
example of a country that has seen a rapid development
Hungary Sweden $72in the local VC ecosystem with the emergence of a new
$10 $7
$80
generation of VC funds, such as Karma Ventures 0 and
HungaryTera $10Ventures.
100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
$72
Funds raised per capita ($)
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
DATASET: R ANK 1 1-20 Funds raised per capita ($)

NOTE: VC funds raised per capita by
country
Taken from of GP Data
the European by year
Cooperative, RANKS 11-20
NOTE: SOURCE:
developed by Invest Europe. EDC data
converted at EUR:USD
Taken fromof the
1.1367, the rateData
European on Cooperative, $30
LEGEND
30 June 2019.developed by Invest Europe. EDC data SOURCE:
Germany
$57
converted
$ raised at EUR:USD
per capita of 1.1367, the rate on
(2013-2015) $33
30 June 2019. Ireland
$57
$ raised per capita (2016-2018)
$23
Belgium
$54
$12
Denmark
$54
Spain $20
On a population-adjusted basis, VCs based in Luxembourg and Switzerland have raised $30the highest amount of
$18
funds, a re�ection of their attractiveness as global �nancial centres.
Austria
$16 The Netherlands and the UK also rank
high on a per capitabasis, VCs
basis, based
while in Luxembourg
large European
Italy and
markets
$5
Switzerland
such as Italy, have
$16 raised
Spain andthe highest
even Germany amount of
still have
relatively underdeveloped VC ecosystems
funds, a re�ection of their attractiveness as global compared with the The
Greece �nancial centres.
$0 mostNetherlands
advanced European
and the countries.
UK also rank Estonia is an
$11
high on aexample of abasis,
per capita country that
while hasEuropean
large seen a rapid development
markets
Lithuania
$2such asin the Spain
Italy, local VCand ecosystem with the
even Germany stillemergence
have of a new
relativelygeneration of VC funds,
underdeveloped such as Karma
VC ecosystems Ventures
compared withand
the
$3
Tera
most Ventures.
$10
advanced European countries. Estonia is an
Bulgaria
example of a country that has seen a rapid development in the local $8
VC ecosystem with the emergence of a new
generation of VC funds, such as Karma VenturesDATASET: and Tera
0
Ventures.
5
R ANK 1 1-20
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65
VC funds raised per capita by Funds raised per capita ($)
country of GP by year
NOTE:
VC funds raised per capita by DATASET: REST OF EUROPE
$30
Taken LEGE NDEuropean Data Cooperative,
country offrom the
GP by year
developed by Invest Europe. EDC data RESTSOURCE:
OF EUROPE
Germany
$57
converted at EUR:USD of 1.1367, the rate on Ireland
$57
30 June 2019.
L E G END $ raised per capita (2016-2018)
$23 $5
Czech Republic Belgium $54
$12
Denmark
Latvia $20
Spain $7
$30
$18
Austria $2 $16
Poland
Italy $5 $7
$16
$0 $0
Serbia Greece $11
$7
$2
Lithuania
$10
$0
Romania Bulgaria $3
$8 $4
0 5 10 15 20 25 $430 35 40 45 50 55 60 65
Portugal Funds raised per capita ($)
$3
NOTE: 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Funds raised per capita ($)
NOTE: converted at EUR:USD of 1.1367, the rate on
30 June 2019.
30 June 2019.

It's interesting to look at the geographic distribution of VC funds raised in different sub-regions of Europe and
04.1 VCs and LPs
their stage of focus. The distribution of VC funds with an early-stage venture focus is fairly even across Europe,
but there are greater levels of regional concentration for multi-stage and later-stage venture VC funds.
It’s interesting to lookSouthern Europe stands
at the geographic out for its
distribution ofsmaller share
VC funds of VC
raised funds raised
in different across Europe in the past ve years.
sub-
regions of Europe and It'stheir stage of
interesting tofocus.
look atThethe distribution of VC fundsofwith
geographic distribution an early-
VC funds raised in different sub-regions of Europe and
17%
stage venture focustheir
isShare
fairly ofeven across
total VC Europe,
funds closed but there are greater
& Benelux levels of regional
stage of focus. The distribution of VC funds with an early-stage venture focus is fairly even21%
France
across Europe,
(%)interesting
concentration for multi-stage
It's by GP region
andto by venture
later-stage
look at the venture
geographic VCconcentration
funds.
distribution of VCSouthern
funds raised Europe
in differentstands
sub-regions of Europe and
3
but there
stage are
focus, greater
2014-H1 levels
2019 of regional for multi-stage and later-stage venture VC funds. 26%
out for its smaller sharetheirofstage of focus.
VCEurope
funds The
raiseddistribution ofEurope
VC fundsin
with anUKpast
early-stage venture focus is fairly even across Europe,
Southern standsacross
out for its smaller the
share offive
& Ireland years.
VC funds raised across Europe in the past 21%
but there are greater levels of regional concentration for multi-stage and later-stage venture VC funds. ve years. 26%
Southern
LEGEND Europe stands out for its smaller share of VC funds raised across Europe in the past ve years. 16%
DACH 9%
Early stage venture 17%
Share of total VC funds closed 15%
France & Benelux 17% 21%
Laterofstage
Share totalventure
VC funds closed 9%
(%)
(%)
by GP region
by GP region
by venture
by venture
France & Benelux
Southern Europe
21%
32%
32
Venture (all stages) 9%
stage focus, 2014-H1
stage focus, 2014-H1 20192019 26%
15%
26%
UK & Ireland UK & Ireland 21% 21%
15%
26% 26%
LEGEND
L EGEND CEE 3% 16%
16%
Early stage venture DACH 9% 7%
DACH 15% 9%
Early stage venture
Later stage venture 17%
9% 15%
Later stage
Venture venture
(all stages) Southern Europe Nordics 9%
9%
5% 15%
Venture (all stages) Southern Europe 15% 9%
CEE 3% 0 5 10 1515% 20 25 30
7%
15% % of total VC funds closed
17%
Nordics
CEE 3% 36%
5% 7%
NOTE:
0 5 10 15 17%
CEE VC FUNDING20 25 30 35 40
H1 2019 gures are preliminary. Taken from Nordics % of total VC funds closed
Butthe looking
European Data atCooperative,
the dollar-weighted
developed distribution
SOURCE: of VC funds 5%
4%
raised
byNOTE:
due
by VC across the
Invest Europe. Total may not sum to 100%
to rounding.
region shows there is a greater
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
level of
the Europeanconcentration
Data Cooperative, developedof capital S
by Invest Europe. Total may not sum to 100%
availability.
OURCE: VCs in the UK % of total VC funds closed
anddueFrance
to rounding. hold the greatest repower in terms of dollar CEE VC FUNDING
NOTE: Share of total European early-stage venture funds raised
But looking
amounts at thewhile
raised, dollar-weighted
GPs in CEE and distribution
SouthernofEurope
VC funds
CEE since 2014
4%
raised
have
But looking at the dollar-weightedfar
the European bylessVC
Data across
capital
distribution
Cooperative, the
to region
deploy.
developed of VCshows
funds there
raisedis aby
SOURCE: greaterCEE VC FUNDING
VC across the regionleveldue to of
shows concentration
theretheisdollar-weighted
a greater of capital
level ofavailability.
concentration VCs in theCEE
UKVC FUNDING
4%
rounding.
ButFrance
and looking athold the greatest distribution
repower of VC
in funds of dollar
terms Share of total European early-stage
of capital availability. VCs inby
ofthe UK VCand the France hold theisgreatest
4%
50%
raised
Share VC
totalacross funds region
raisedshows there a greater UK&Ireland Share of total
venture European
funds raised by early-stage
VCs basedventure in funds raised
amounts raised, while GPs in CEE and Southern Europe
firepower in terms of dollar amounts raised, while GPs in CEE and
level
(%) of
by concentration
GP region by of capital
venture availability. VCs in the UK CEECEEsince
since2014
2014 35%
have
and
stage far
France less
focus, hold capital
the greatest
2014-H1 to deploy.
2019 repower in terms of dollar 11%
Southern Europe haveamounts
far less capital
raised, whileto deploy.
GPs in CEE and Southern Europe
France&Benelux Share of total European early-stage
15% venture funds raised by VCs based in
CEE since 2014 31%
have far less capital to deploy.
LEGEND 18% 50%
Share of total VC funds raised UK&Ireland
DACH 25%
Early stage venture
(%) byof
Share GP region
total by raised
VC funds venture UK&Ireland
17% 50% 35%
58%
Later stage venture
stage
(%) by focus,
GP region2014-H1 2019
by venture 11% 13% 35%
France&Benelux
Nordics 2% 15%
stage focus,
Venture 2014-H1 2019
(all stages) 11%
France&Benelux 15% 8% 31%
31%
LEGEND 4% 18% 18%
LEGEND
DACH
Southern Europe 0% 25%
Early stage
Early stage venture
venture DACH 25%
17% 7% 17%
Later stage
Later stage venture
venture 13%
Nordics
4% 13%
Venture (all stages) 2%
Venture (all stages) Nordics
CEE8% 1%2%
4% 2% 8%
Southern Europe 0%
4%
7% 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Southern Europe 0%
4%
7% % of total VC funds raised ($B)
CEE 1%
2%
4%
NOTE: 0 5 CEE10 1%15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65
2% % of total VC funds raised ($B)
the European Data Cooperative, developed SOURCE: 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
NOTE:
The geographic target focus of funds raised by GPs from different European sub-regions
H1 2019
due gures are preliminary. Taken from
to rounding.
also
% of total stands
VC funds out
raised ($B)
because ofTotal
by Invest Europe. themaywide
not sum tovariance.
100% VC funds raised from the UK & Ireland are most likely to be investing with a pan-
NOTE:
due to rounding.
regional or global mandate, while VC funds raised by GPs based in the CEE are most likely to have a local
mandate
the Europeanspeci c to one
Data Cooperative, country or a small
developed set of neighbouring countries.
SOURCE:
The geographic targetby focus

due of funds raised by GPs from different European sub-regions
Invest Europe. Total may not sum to 100%
to rounding.
also stands out because of the wide variance. VC funds raised from the UK & Ireland are
The geographic
Distribution of VCtarget
funds byfocus
GP of funds raised by GPs from different European sub-regions also stands out
most likely to be investing
region
because
The
with
and
geographic
a pan-regional
ofgeography
the wide
target target for global
variance.
focus
or
of funds VC funds
raised
mandate,
by GPsraised
while
from the
from100different
VC fundsIreland
raisedare
3% UK &sub-regions
European
by
alsomost
standslikely
out to be investing with a pan-
GPs based in the CEEregional
are most
all venture
because ofor likely
stages,
the wide to have
2014-H1
variance. a
2019
VC local
funds mandate
raised from specific
the UK & to
Ireland
global mandate, while VC funds raised by GPs based in the CEE one
are country
most likely or
to a
be investing
arewith
mosta pan-
likely to have a local
small set of neighbouring
regionalcountries.
or global mandate, while VC funds raised by GPs based in the CEE are most likely to have a local
mandate speci c to one country or a small set of neighbouring countries.
mandate
LEGEND speci c to one country or a small set of neighbouring countries. 45%
Distribution of funds (%)
75 47%
% of local
69%
Distribution of VC funds by GP 76%
% of pan-European/Global
Distribution of VC funds by GP
region and geography target for 100 3%
region and geography
all venture stages, target for
2014-H1 2019 50
100 97%
3%
all venture stages, 2014-H1 2019
LEGEND 45%
75 47%
% of local
LEGEND 55%
45%
69% 53%
47%
75
25 76%
% of pan-European/Global 83%
% of local
50 97% 31%
69%
24%
76%
% of pan-European/Global
50
0 97%
55%
25 CEE 53% DACH Southern Europe Nordics France & Benelu
31%
24%
17%
NOTE:
0 55% 53%
CEE 25 DACH Southern Europe Nordics France & Benelux UK & Ireland
31%
by Invest Europe. Only includes VC funds
NOTE: 24%
stating
H1 2019 their geography
gures are targets.
preliminary. Taken from
0
by Invest Europe. Only includes VC funds CEE DACH Southern Europe Nordics France & Benelu
stating their geography targets.
NOTE:
www.stateofeuropeantech.com
H1 2019 gures are preliminary. Taken from 67 In Partnership with &
by Invest Europe. Only includes VC funds
stating their geography targets.
04.1 VCs and LPs
There are interesting differences in the LP composition of VC funds in different regions

across Europe. VC funds from less mature markets in CEE are more dependent on
government agency There
funding,arewhile
interesting differences
those funds in the advanced
from more LP compositionmarkets of VC
likefunds
the in different regions across Europe. VC
funds from
There are
UK have a greater level of LP less mature
interesting
type markets
differences
diversity. in
in the LP CEE are more
composition dependent
of VC funds on
in different government
regions agency
across Europe. VC funding, while those funds
funds from less mature markets in CEE are more dependent on government agency funding, while those funds
from more advanced markets like the UK have a greater level of LP type diversity.
from more advanced markets like the UK have a greater level of LP type diversity.
VC
VC funds raised
funds raised byregion
by GP GP region
and and
LP type, 2014-2018
LP type, 2014-2018
CEE
LEGEND CEE
LEGEND
Government agencies
Southern Europe
Corporate investors
Government agencies
Southern Europe
Private individuals
Corporate investors DACH
Fund of funds
Private individuals
Family o�ces
France & Benelux DACH
Fund of funds
Other asset managers (including PE
houses other than fund of funds)
Family o�ces
Pension funds Nordics
France & Benelux
Other
Banks asset managers (including PE
houses
Insuranceother than fund of funds)
companies UK & Ireland
Endowments
Pension and foundations
funds Nordics
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Capital markets
Banks % of funds raised
Sovereign wealth funds
Insurance companies
Academic institutions UK & Ireland

NOTE: 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Capital markets
Taken from the European Data Cooperative, % of funds raised
Sovereign
developed wealth
by Invest funds
Europe. Excludes SOURCE:
Unclassi�ed. EDC data converted at
Academic
EUR:USD institutions
of 1.1367, the rate on 30 June 2019.
NOTE:

Unclassi�ed. EDC data converted at
The overwhelming share of VC funds

The overwhelming raised
share of VCin Europe
funds raised flows
in Europe to�owsfollow-on funds,
to follow-on funds, which account for almost 80%
of the 80%
which account for almost total. That
of thebeing said, more
total. Thatthan $1.7Bsaid,
being has beenmore committed to 28 �rst-time
than $1.7B has Europe VC fund managers in
The overwhelming
just the �rst six monthsshareof 2019.of VC funds raised in Europe �ows to follow-on funds, which account for almost 80%
been committed to 28 first-time Europe VC fund managers in just the first six
of the total. That being said, more than $1.7B has been committed to 28 �rst-time Europe VC fund managers in
months of 2019. just the
Funds �rst
raised ($B)six
and months
number of of 2019.DATAS E T : F U ND S R A I S E D
funds closed per year by fund
type
Funds
LEGEND raised ($B) and number of FUNDS RAISED
DATASET: FUNDS R AISED
The overwhelming
funds VC fund per yearshare
closed
First-time by fundof VC funds raised in Europe �ows to follow-on funds, which account for almost 80%
12.5
oftype
the total. That being said, more than $1.7B has been committed to 28 �rst-time Europe VC fund managers in
First-time VC fund of established rm
Funds raised ($B) / # of funds closed
Follow-on VC fund
just the �rst six months of 2019. 10.0
LEGEND
First-time VC fund 7.5
12.5 FUNDS R AISED
DATASET:
Funds raised
First-time ($B)ofand
VC fund number
established rmof
funds closed per year by fund
raised ($B) / # of funds closed
Follow-on VC fund 5.0
type 10.0
The overwhelming share of VC funds raised in 2.5Europe �ows to follow-on funds, which account for almost 80%
ofLEGEND
the total. That being said, more than $1.7B has been committed to 28 �rst-time Europe VC fund managers in
just the �rst six months of 2019. 7.5
2015 2016 2017 2018 H1 2019
12.5
Funds raised ($B) and number of DATAS E T : F U ND S C LO S E D
closed
NOTE:
Follow-on VC fund 5.0
funds
2019 closed
gures areper year byTaken
fund FUNDS CLOSED
Funds
H1 preliminary. from
SOURCE: 10.0
type
the European Data Cooperative, developed
Funds raised ($B) / # of funds

LEGEND
2.5
250.0
200.0 0.0
Funds raised ($B) / # of funds closed
Follow-on VC fund 2015 2016 2017 2018

5.0
NOTE: 150.0
H1 2019 gures are preliminary. Taken from 2.5

100.0
0.0
50.0 2015 2016 2017 2018
NOTE:
0.0
2015 2016 2017 2018 H1 2019
NOTE:
EUR:USD of 1.1367,
H1 2019 gures the rate
are preliminary. on from
Taken 30 June 2019. SOURCE:

First-time fund managers are most dependent on raising from government agencies and corporate investors,
but also receive meaningful contributions from private individuals and banks. Follow-on funds, unsurprisingly,
are able to raise from a more diversi ed LP base.
04.1 VCs and LPs
Share of funds (%) raised by fund

Corporate investors
type and type of LP, 2014-2018 14%
First-time fund managers are most dependent on raising from government agencies
and corporate investors, but also receive meaningful contributions from private
LEGEND Government agencies
20%
First-time
individuals and banks. Follow-on fund managers
funds,
Initial rst VC fund
are most dependent
unsurprisingly, are able toon raiseraising
fromfrom a more government agencies and corporate investors,
but also receive meaningful contributions from private individuals and banks. Follow-on funds, unsurprisingly,
diversified LP base. First-time
Follow onfund managers are most dependent on raising
VC fund from government agencies and corporate investors, 17%
are
but able to raise
also receive from acontributions
meaningful more diversifromed LP base.
private individuals and banks. Follow-on funds, unsurprisingly,
fund of funds)
5%
are able to raise from a more diversi ed LP base.
10%
Banks
28%
Corporate investors 4%
type andtype
type and type of 2014-2018
of LP, LP, 2014-2018 Corporate investors
14% 14%
8%
20% 20%
LEGEND
LEGEND Government agencies Private individuals
Government agencies 26%13%
Initial rst VC fund
Initial rst VC fund
Follow on VC fund 17%
Other asset managers (including PE houses other than 5%
Follow on VC fund fund of funds) 17%
Fund
Other asset managers (including PE houses5% of funds
other than
fund of funds) 11%
10% 5%
Banks
4% 5%
Insurance companies 10%
Banks
8% 5%
Private individuals 4%
13%
4%
Family
5% offices 8%
Fund of funds Private individuals 8%
11%
13%
5% 3%
Pension funds
5% of funds
Fund 8%
11%
4%
Family offices
8%
2%
Endowments and foundations 5%
3%
Pension funds 5%
8%
0%
Academic institutions 4%
2%
Endowments and foundations Family offices 0%
4% 8%
0%
0%
Academic institutions Sovereign wealth funds 3%
0% Pension funds 1%
8%
0%
Sovereign wealth funds 0%
1% Capital markets 2%
0% 4%
Capital markets
3% 0 5 10 15 20
0%
% of funds raised
0 Academic5 institutions 10 15 20 25 30
0% % of funds raised
NOTE:
NOTE: 0%
Taken from the European Data Cooperative, Sovereign wealth funds
developed SOURCE:
developed byby Invest
Invest Europe.
Europe. Excludes
Excludes SOURCE: 1%
Unclassi ed.
Unclassi ed. Total
Total may may not
not sum to sum
100% to
due100% due
to rounding.
to rounding.
0%
Capital markets
3%
Europe has produced some very strong performing rst-time VC fund managers. 0
The
5
European
10
Investment
15 20
Europe has producedFund's
somereturns
very strong analysisperforming
shows thatfirst-time VCVC
rst-time fund
fundmanagers.
managers make a large share - approaching half
% of - ofraised
funds their
The European Investment
Top 10Fund’s returns analysis
best-performing funds. shows that first-time VC fund managers
make a large share - Europe
NOTE: has produced some very strong performing rst-time VC fund managers. The European Investment
approaching half - of their Top 10 best-performing funds.
Fund's returns
Taken from analysis
the European shows that rst-time
Data Cooperative,
VC fund managers make a large share - approaching half - of their
SOURCE:
Distribution of top-performing
Top 10 best-performing
Unclassi funds.
ed. Total may not sum to 100% due
Europe
EIF
to has produced
backed
rounding. some very strong performing rst-time VC fund managers. The European Investment
VC fund managers 20
Fund's
split by returns analysis
emerging shows that rst-time VC fund managers make a large share - approaching half - of their
versus
Top 10 best-performing
established funds funds.
15
of funds
EIF backed VC fund managers 20

LEGEND
split by emerging versus 20
EIF backed VC fund managers
Distribution ofDistribution
IRR, Emergingfunds
established
split by emerging versus 10
15
funds
TVPI, Emerging
established funds
15
Distribution of funds
LEGEND
IRR, Established
LEGEND
IRR,
TVPI, Emerging
Established
IRR, Emerging 5
10 10
TVPI, Emerging
TVPI, Emerging
IRR, Established
IRR, Established
TVPI, Established
5
TVPI, Established 0
5
IRR TVPI IRR TVPI IRR
Top 5 Top 10
0
IRR TVPI IRR TVPI IRR TVPI
0 Top 5 Top 10 Top 20
NOTE:
IRR TVPI IRR TVPI IRR
Data
NOTE:relates to EIF-backed European ICT Top 5 Top 10
funds only. Emerging funds are de ned as SOURCE:
Data relates to EIF-backed European ICT
any fund
funds only.between FundareI and
Emerging funds III.as
de ned Based on SOURCE:
data
NOTE: up between
any fund to Q2 2019.
Fund I and III. Based on
data up to Q2 2019.
Data relates to EIF-backed European ICT
funds only. Emerging funds are de ned as SOURCE:
any fund between Fund I and III. Based on
data up to Q2 2019.

04.1 VCs and LPs
I see far more openness I see far more openness to European VC than when we
raised our first fund four years ago. There are more
to European VC than examples of big outcomes in recent years that I think are
when we raised our first fuelling that interest, and far lower in-prices and relatively
fund four years ago. less competition (although I think that’s changing in the
later stage rounds when it’s more of a global investor
universe). There are also more operators coming onto the
investment side (instead of retiring!), and that’s a really Leila Rastegar Zegna
positive force for the ecosystem as a whole.
Kindred Capital
Founding General
Partner
Based on their interactions with different LP types VC respondents to the survey stated that corporates, family
o ces and private individuals are the LP types, most frequently cited as having shown an increased appetite
for investment in the European VC asset class in the last 12 months.
Based on their interactions with different LP types VC respondents to the survey stated
that corporates, family offices and private individuals are the LP types, most frequently
Based last
on their interactions with different LP types VC respondents to the survey stated that corporates, family
cited as having shownInanthe 12 months, which LP Family offices & Private HNW individuals
increased appetite for investment in the European VC asset class
oBased
ceson
types and
have private
you
their spoken individuals
interactionsto with areLP
and different the LPVC
types types, most to
respondents frequently
the survey statedcitedthat
as having shown
corporates, familyan increased appetite
in the last 12 months.for investment
ohow has
ces andtheir inindividuals
thefor
appetite
private European VC
are the LP asset
types, class
most in thecited
frequently lastas12
Corporate investors
months.
having shown an increased appetite
for investment
European in theInvestment
Venture European VC asset class in the last 12 months.
Sovereign wealth Funds
changed?
InIn the last1212
the last months,
months, whichwhich
LP LP Family
Family offices & Private offices & Private HNW individuals
HNW individuals Insurance companies
types have
types have
LEGEND you
you spoken
spoken to andto and
Corporate investors
how has Corporate
agenciesinvestors
how hastheir
Increased
appetite
their for for
appetite
appetite Government (e.g. EIF)
European Venture Investment
European
changed? Venture
Same appetite Investment Sovereign wealth Funds
SovereignFund
wealthofFunds
funds
changed?
Decreased appetite Insurance companies
LEGEND
Insurance companies
Pension funds
Increased appetite Government agencies (e.g. EIF)
LEGEND
Same appetite
Fund of Government
funds agencies (e.g. EIF)
Increased appetite Endowments, foundations & fcademic institutions
Decreased appetite
Same appetite Pension funds
Fund of funds 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Decreased appetite Endowments, foundations & fcademic institutions % of respondents
Pension funds
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
NOTE:
% of respondents
Venture Capitalist respondents only, Endowments, foundations & fcademic institutions
NOTE:
excluding respondents that answered 'I do
not feelCapitalist
Venture su ciently informed
respondents only, to comment'
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
and 'I have not interacted with any LPs of this SOURCE: The State Of European Tech Survey
not feel su ciently informed to comment' % of respondents
type'. Numbers
and 'I have may not
not interacted withadd to 100
any LPs due to
of this S O U R C E : The State Of European Tech Survey
rounding.
type'. Numbers may not add to 100 due to
NOTE:
rounding.
Venture Capitalist respondents only,

European Buyout raises funds from a diverse
not feel su ciently informed to comment' LP geographic footprint, with European LPs accounting for less
and 'I have not interacted with any LPs of this
than 50% of total LP commitments. By contrast, European VC funds are still overwhelmingly backed by
rounding.
European investors. There are, however, clear signs of the geographic diversi cation of the European VC LP
European Buyout raises funds from a diverse LP geographic footprint, with European LPs
base as international interest in the asset class grows. Non-European investors accounted for 20% of
accounting for less than 50% of
European
commitments total
Buyout LP commitments.
raises
to European funds
VCsfrom aBy
in 2018 contrast,
diverse
versus LP European
angeographic
average VC funds
footprint,
of 10% for thewith European
period LPs accounting for less
2014-2017.
are still overwhelmingly
thanbacked
50% ofby European
total investors. By
LP commitments. There are, however,
contrast, European clear signsare still overwhelmingly backed by
VC funds
of the geographic diversification of the European
European investors. There are,VC LP baseclear
however, as100international interest in diversi cation of the European VC LP
signs of the geographic
European Buyout
Funds raised by raises funds
fund type from
and LP a diverse LP geographic footprint, with European LPs accounting for less
the asset class grows. Non-European
base
than as international
50%2014-2017
of total LPvs
investors
interest
commitments.
accounted
in the asset for 20%
class of commitments
grows. Non-European
By contrast, European VC funds are still overwhelmingly
to investors
backed byaccounted for 20% of
region, 2018
European VCs in 2018commitments
versus investors.
European an average
to Thereofare,
European10% for the
VCs
however, period
inclear
2018 of2014-2017.
versus
signs the an average
geographic of 10%
diversi forofthe
cation the period
European2014-2017.
VC LP
base as international interest in the asset class grows. Non-European
LEGEND 75 investors accounted for 20% of
commitments to European VCs in 2018 versus an average 100of 10% for the period 2014-2017.
Europe
Funds raised by fund type and LP
% of funds raised
North America 100

region, 2014-2017
Funds raised vs 2018
by fund type and LP
Asia &2014-2017
region, Australia vs 2018 50
Rest of the world 75
LEGEND 75
LEGEND
Europe
Europe
% of funds raised
% of funds raised
North America
North America
25
Asia & Australia 50
Asia & Australia 50
Rest of the world
Rest of the world
25
0
VC funds (2014-2017) VC funds (2018) Buyout funds (2014-2017)
25
NOTE: 0
VC funds (2014-2017) VC funds (2018) Buyout funds (2014-2017) Buyout funds (2018)
NOTE: 0
Unclassi ed. Total may not sum to 100% due VC funds (2014-2017) VC funds (2018) Buyout funds (2014-2017)
Taken
to from the European Data Cooperative,
rounding.
Unclassi ed. Total may not sum to 100% due
NOTE:
to rounding.

to rounding.

04.1 VCs and LPs
A large share of European VCs reported increased appetite for European venture investment from LPs inside
and outside Europe and across all regions, most obviously from Asia and the Middle East.
A large share of European VCs reported increased appetite for European venture
investment from LPsAinside
large and outside
share Europe and across all regions, most obviously
of European
In the last 12 months, how has VCs reported increased appetite for European venture investment from LPs inside
from Asia and the Middle
and East.
theoutside Europe
appetite for and across all regions, most
European obviously from Asia and the Middle East.
Europe
Aventure
large share of European
investment VCs reported increased appetite for European venture investment from LPs inside
of Limited
and outside
Partners Europe
from and across all regions, most obviously from Asia and the Middle East.
the following
regions
In the lastchanged?
12 months, how has North America
Europe
the appetite
In the for European
last 12 months, how has
Europe
the appetite
venture
LEGEND for European
investment of Limited
venture investment of Limited
Partners
Increased
Partners
from the following
appetite
from the following
regions
regions changed?
changed?
Same appetite North America
Asia
North America
Decreased appetite
LEGEND
LEGEND
Increased appetite
Increased appetite Asia
Middle East
Same appetite
Asia
Same appetite
Decreased appetite
Decreased appetite
Middle East 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 8
% of respondents
Middle East
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
NOTE: % of respondents
Venture
NOTE: Capitalist respondents only,
excluding respondents that answered 'I do 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 8
Venture Capitalist respondents only,
not feel su ciently informed to comment'
% of respondents
and
not'Ifeel
havesu not interacted
ciently informed towith any LPs of this
comment'
S O U R C E : The State Of European Tech Survey
type'.
and 'I Numbers
NOTE: may not
have not interacted withadd
any to
LPs100 due to
of this
rounding. US LP INTEREST IN EUROPEAN VC
rounding.Capitalist respondents only,
US LP interest in European VC has strengthened as the
Venture
5x
European tech industry has proven its ability
not feel su ciently informed to comment' to deliver
and 'I have not interacted with any LPs of this
outsized returns. This is re ected in a 5x increase in funds
rounding.
committed from US-based LPs in 2018 versus 2017. There
Increase
US in commitments
LP INTEREST to VC
IN EUROPEAN European VC funds from US
is also
US an increase,
LP interest though much
in European VC hassmaller, in LP as the
strengthened
US LP interest in European VC has from
strengthened as the European US LP INTEREST IN EUROPEAN VC
5x
commitments
European Asia.has proven
tech industry its ability to deliverUS LP INTEREST IN EUROPEAN VC
tech industry has provenUS LPits ability to deliver outsized returns.
as theThis is
5x
interest in European VC has strengthened
outsized returns. This is re ected intoadeliver
5x increase in funds Increase in commitments to European
reflected in a 5x increase in funds committed from US-based LPs in There
5x
European tech industry has proven its ability 10.0
committed
outsized from
returns. US-based
This is
Funds committed ($B) to VC re ected LPs
in a in
5x 2018
increase versus
in funds 2017. VC funds from US LPs in 2018
2018 versus 2017. There is also
iscommitted
also
funds an
by LP
an increase,
increase,
from
region perthough
US-based though
LPs
year, in much much
smaller,
2018 versus smaller,
2017. in LPin
There
Increase in commitments to European $8.7B VC funds from US
Increase in commitments to European VC funds from US LPs in 2018
LP commitments from Asia.
is2014-2018
also an increase, though much smaller, in LP
commitments from Asia.
commitments from Asia. 7.5 $7.1B
LEGEND 10.0
Funds committed ($B)Funds committed ($B)
10.0
Funds
Funds committed
committed
Europe ($B) ($B)
to VC to VC
$8.7B
funds by LP region per year, $8.7B
funds
Asia &by
2014-2018
LP region
Australia per year, 5.0
$8.2B
2014-2018
North America
7.5
$4.2B
$4.4B
$7.1B
LEGEND 7.5 $7.1B
Funds committed ($B)
Europe
LEGEND
Asia & Australia 5.0
Europe 2.5 $4.4B
North America $4.2B
Asia & Australia 5.0
$4.4B
North America $4.2B $0.7B
2.5 $0.5B $0.5B
$0.2B $0.3B $0.3B
$0.0B $0.1B $1.7B
0.0
2014 2015$0.7B 2016 2017
$0.5B $0.5B
2.5 $0.2B $0.3B $0.3B $0.3B
$0.0B $0.1B
0.0
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
NOTE:
Taken
NOTE: from the European Data Cooperative, $0.7B
SOURCE: $0.5B $0.5B
developed by Invest Europe. Excludes $0.1B $0.2B $0.3B $0.3B
Taken from the European Data Cooperative, $0.0B
Unclassi ed.
developed by EDC
Invest data Excludes
Europe. converted at SOURCE: 0.0
EUR:USD ofEDC
Unclassi ed. 1.1367, the rateaton 30 June 2019.
data converted 2014 2015 2016 2017
NOTE:
As venture capital and innovation continue their global

growth, Europe and its surrounding ecosystem remain
increasingly attractive on many fronts, including
valuations and capital flows. Our Silicon Valley neighbours
have echoed this sentiment and are moving teams to David York
Top Tier Capital
Europe in increasing numbers. Partners
Managing Director

04.1 VCs and LPs
The scale of European VC is small when compared against the level

of LP commitments to European Buyout funds. Since the beginning
The scalemore
of 2018, of European VC is small
than a $100B whenraised
has been compared against
by Buyout the level
funds versusof LP commitments to European Buyout
funds.
around
The Since
$20B the beginning
raised byVC of 2018,
European more than
VC funds. a $100B
That the
said,has been
thethegap raised by commitments
Buyout funds versus
iscommitments around $20B
The scale of scale of European
European VC is small is small
when when
compared compared
against against
level of level
LP of LP to Europeanto European
Buyout Buyout
raised
funds. by European
Since thefirstVC funds.
beginning That
of 2018,said,
more the gap
than is closing.
a $100B In the rst six months of 2019, the difference was
closing.
funds. Since the In the
beginning ofsix months
2018, more of 2019,
than the
a $100B beenhas
difference
has wasbeen
raised byraised
3.7x versus
Buyoutbyfunds
Buyout fundsaround
versus versus$20B
around $20B
3.7x versus 7x as recently as 2017.
raised byraised
7x by European
as recently
European VCThat
as 2017.
VC funds. funds. That
said, thesaid, the
gap is gap is In
closing. closing.
the rst In six
themonths
rst sixof
months of 2019,
2019, the the difference
difference was was
3.7x7xversus
3.7x versus 7x as recently
as recently as 2017. as 2017.
Funds raised ($B) by fund type
$82.6B
per year
Funds
Funds raised ($B)raised ($B)
by fund by fund type
type 80.0
$75.6B
$82.6B $82.6B
per year per year
LEGE ND 80.0 80.0
$71.2B
$75.6B $75.6B
Buyout funds $71.2B $71.2B
L E G END LEGE ND 60.0
($B) ($B)
VC funds
Buyout funds Buyout funds
Funds raised
60.0 60.0
Funds raised ($B)
VC funds VC funds Funds raised

40.0 $38.1B
40.0 40.0
$38.1B $38.1B $28.6B
20.0 $28.6B $28.6B
$11.7B $13.0B
$10.3B
20.0 20.0 $7.7B $7.7B
$11.7B $13.0B $13.0B
$10.3B $10.3B $11.7B
0.0 $7.7B $7.7B $7.7B $7.7B
2015 2016 2017 2018 H1 2019
0.0 0.0
2015 2015 2016 2016 2017 2017 2018 2018 H1 2019 H1 2019
NOTE:
NOTE: NOTE: SOURCE:
H1 2019 guresby Invest
H1are
2019 Europe.
gures
preliminary. EDC data
areTaken converted
preliminary.
from at
Taken from
the European EUR:USD
the of 1.1367,
DataEuropean the rate on 30developed
Datadeveloped
Cooperative, Cooperative, June 2019. SOURCE: SOURCE:
by Invest
by Invest Europe. Europe.
EDC data EDC data
converted at converted at
EUR:USD
EUR:USD of 1.1367, of 1.1367,
the rate on 30the rate
June on 30 June 2019.
2019.
PENSION FUND COMMITMENTS

Pension
Pensionfundsfunds have
haveinvested
invested $100B
$100Bin European
in European Buyout PENSION FUND COMMITMENTS
40x40x
funds
Buyout funds since 2014, but only $3B in Europeana
since 2014, but only $3B in European VC funds, PENSION FUND COMMITMENTS
PENSION FUND COMMITMENTS
PensionPension
difference
funds funds
have have
of 40x. The
investedinvested
multiple
$100B $100B
in is evenin European
European more extreme
Buyout Buyout
for Difference in pension funds
VC funds, a difference of 40x. The multiple is
40x
commitments to European Buyout funds
40x
funds
sovereign
funds since since 2014,
wealth but
funds, only $3B
which in
haveEuropean
invested VC
79xfunds,
more a
even2014,
moreof
difference
but only $3B
extreme
40x. The forinsovereign
Europeanwealth
multiple is even
VC funds,
more
a
funds,
extreme for
Difference in pension fundsversus
commitments
European toVC
European
funds Buyout funds
capital
difference in European
of 40x. The Buyout
multiple funds
ismore than
even more European
extreme VC
for funds.
which
sovereignhave invested 79x capital in European versus European VC funds
sovereign wealthwealth
funds, funds, which
which have have invested
invested 79x more 79x more
Difference in pension funds commitments to European Buyout funds
Buyoutinfunds than European VCthan
funds. VC funds. Difference in pension funds commitments to European Buyout funds
capitalcapital
in EuropeanEuropean
BuyoutBuyout funds
funds than European European
VC funds. versus European VC funds
versus European VC funds
VC
Buyout VC as % of Total Commitments to European VC Multiple
LP Type Funds
Funds committed ($B) to VC and ($B)
Funds ($B) and Buyout Funds (Buyout/VC)
Buyout funds by LP type, 2014- VC
1 Sovereign wealth funds VC 0 30 Buyout 1 VC as % of Total Commitments to European VC 78.8xMultiple
2018
Funds committed ($B) LP Type Buyout
Funds VC as % of Total Commitments to European VC Multiple
Funds committed ($B) to VC andto VC and LP Type Funds
($B)
Funds
($B) ($B)
Funds ($B) and Buyout Funds
and Buyout Funds (Buyout/VC) (Buyout/VC)
2 Pension funds 3 99 3 40.0x
Buyout
Buyout funds byfunds by LP
LP type, type, 2014-
2014-
1 1
Sovereign Sovereign
wealth fundswealth funds 0 030 30 1 1 78.8x 78.8x
2018 2018 3 Insurance companies 2 29 6 17.1x
2 2 funds
Pension Pension funds 3 399 99 3 3 40.0x 40.0x
4 Fund of funds 4 38 9 10.2x
3 3 companies
Insurance Insurance companies 2 229 29 6 6 17.1x 17.1x
5 Endowments and foundations 1 10 11 8.0x
4 4 funds
Fund of Fund of funds 4 438 38 9 9 10.2x 10.2x
Other asset managers (including PE houses other
6 3 15 15 5.6x
5 5
Endowments than fund
and of funds)
foundations 1 110 10 11 11 8.0x 8.0x
Other7 6assetFamily
Other offices
asset
managers managers
(including PE(including PE houses other
houses other 3
315
15
15 15
16
15
5.5x
5.6x
6 3 5.6x
than fund ofthan fund of funds)
funds)
8 Banks 2 11 17 4.8x
7 Family7offices Family offices 3 315 15 16 16 5.5x 5.5x
9 Academic institutions 0 1 22 3.1x
8 Banks 8 Banks 2 211 11 17 17 4.8x 4.8x
10 Private individuals 4 11 28 2.6x
9 9 institutions
Academic Academic institutions 0 01 1 22 22 3.1x 3.1x
11 Capital markets 1 1 37 1.7x
10 Private 10individuals
Private individuals 4 411 11 28 28 2.6x 2.6x
12 Corporate investors 6 7 48 1.1x
11 Capital 11markets
Capital markets 1 1 1 37 37 1.7x 1.7x
13 Government agencies 9 6 58 0.7x
12 Corporate
12 investors
Corporate investors 6 67 7 48 48 1.1x 1.1x
14 All LP types 29 268 10 9.3x
13 Government
13 agencies agencies
Government 9 96 6 58 58 0.7x 0.7x
NOTE: 14 All LP 14
types All LP types 29 268
29 26810 10 9.3x 9.3x
SOURCE:
NOTE: developed by Invest Europe. Excludes
NOTE: ed. EDC data converted at
Unclassi
EUR:USD
Taken fromTaken from1.1367,
the of
European theDatathe rateData
on 30Cooperative,
Cooperative,
European June 2019.
developed by Invest Europe. Excludes SOURCE: SOURCE:
EUR:USD ofEUR:USD
1.1367, the
ofrate on the
1.1367, 30 June 2019.
rate on 30 June 2019.

funds by LP type, 2018
Capital markets 46% 5
LEGEND
04.1 VCs and LPs
Venture
Buyout Corporate investors 36% 64%
The share of capital deployed

The shareby of different LP types
capital deployed byinto European
different LP typesVC andintoBuyout
Europeanfunds VC andvariesBuyout funds varies signi cantly.
significantly. While government
While agencies
government allocate
agencies a greater
allocate a share
greater of
sharetheir
of dollar
their commitments
Private individuals
dollar commitments
The share of capital deployed by different LP types into European VC and Buyout funds varies signi cantly.
into27%into European VCs, pension 73%
European VCs, pension funds

funds
While allocated
allocated
government a 3%a share
agencies 3% share
ofathe
allocate ofcombined
theshare
greater combined commitment
commitment
of their dollar to
to European
commitments intoEuropean Buyout
European Buyout
VCs, and VC funds to the region's
pension
venture
and VC funds to the region’s capital
venture
funds allocated funds.
a 3% capital Sovereign
share of funds.
the combinedwealth
Sovereign funds
commitment toand
wealth insurance
funds
European companies
and insurance
Buyout and also allocated
offices companies
VC funds
Family to the region's
26% at single-digit 74%
venture capitallevels
percentage funds. Sovereign
intolevels wealth funds
European VC. and insurance companies also allocated at single-digit
also allocated at single-digit percentage
percentage levels into European VC. into European VC.
Endowments and foundations 19% 81%
Share
Share ofof total
total commitments
commitments (%) (%) Government agencies 55% 55% 45%
Government agencies
to European
to European Buyout and VC
Buyout and VC
funds by LP type, 2018 Banks 16% 84%
funds by LP type, 2018
Capital markets 46% 54%
LEGEND
Capital markets 46%
LEGEND
Venture
Corporate investors Fund
36%of funds 13% 64% 87%
Buyout
Venture
Buyout Corporate investors 36% 64%
Other asset managers (including PE houses
Private individuals 27% other than 73%
12% 88%
fund of funds)
Family offices Private

26% individuals 27% 74% 73%
Academic institutions 11% 89%

Family offices 26% 74%
Insurance companies 7% 93%

Banks 16% 84%

Fund of funds 13% Pension funds 3% 87% 97%
As a result of these vast differences in capital allocation, the composition of the LP base of European Buyout
and VC funds looks very different.OtherPension funds
asset managers (including make
PE houses up 36%
other than
12%
of allBanks
funds raised
16% since
88%
2014 by Buyout funds,84%
fund of funds)
but only 7% of funds raised by European VCs. Sovereign wealth funds 2% 98%
Academic institutions 11% 89%

Fund of funds 13% 87%
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Funds raised by fund type and LP % of commitments24%
Insurance companies Government agencies
7% 93%
type, 2014-2018 Other asset managers (including PE houses other than 2%
12% 88%
NOTE: fund of funds)
Pension funds 3% 97% 16%
LEGEND
Taken from the European Data Cooperative, Corporate investors
VC funds 2%
Unclassi ed. Total may not sum to 100% due Academic institutions 11% 89%
to rounding.
Buyout funds Sovereign wealth funds 2% 98%
12%
Private individuals
0 10 20 30 40 4%
50 60 70 80 90 100
Insurance companies 7% % of commitments 93%
10%
NOTE: Fund of funds
Taken from the European Data Cooperative, 14%
As a result of these vast differences
developed in capital allocation,
by Invest Europe. Excludes SOURCE:
the composition of the LP base of 3%
Pension funds
European 97%
Astoa result of these vast

Buyout and VC funds looks very differences in capital allocation, the composition of the LP base
7% of European Buyout
of different. Pensioninfunds make upthe 36% of all funds raised since 2014
rounding.
As aVC
and result
funds these
looks vastverydifferences capital
different. allocation,
Pension funds composition
make up 36% of theof LP base
Family
all of
offices
funds European
raisedBuyout
since 2014 by Buyout funds,
6%
by Buyout funds, but only
and VC 7% of funds
funds looks very raised by Pension
different. European
fundsVCs.
make up 36% of all fundsSovereign
raised wealth
sincefunds
2014 by2%Buyout funds, 98%
but
butonly 7%ofof
only 7% funds
funds raised
raised by European
by European VCs. VCs. 7%
fund of funds) 0 10 6% 20 30 40 50 60 70
Funds raised by fund type and LP 24% % of commitments

Funds raised by fund type and LP Government agencies 24%
type, 2014-2018 Government
2% agencies 7%
type,
NOTE:
2014-2018 Pension funds 2%
16%
LEGEND Corporate investors
Taken from the European Data Cooperative, 2% 16%
VC funds
LEGEND SOURCE:
developed by Invest Europe. Excludes Corporate investors 6%
Buyout ed.
Unclassi funds
Total may not sum to 100% due Banks 12% 2%
VC funds Private individuals
to rounding. 4%
4%
Buyout funds 12%
Private individuals
10% 4%
Fund of funds Insurance companies 4%
14%
11%
7% 10%
Family offices
Fund of funds 3%
6%
7%
4%
fund of funds) 7%
6%
Family offices 2%
Capital7%markets 6%
Pension funds 1%
36%
Other asset managers (including PE houses other than 7%
1%
fund
6% of funds)
Banks Sovereign wealth funds 6%
4% 11%
4%
7%
Insurance companies Pension funds 1%
11%
0%
3%
4% Banks 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
4% % of funds raised
2%
Capital markets
1% 4%
Insurance companies
1% 11%
NOTE: SOURCE: 11%

developed by Invest Europe. Endowments
1% and foundations
0% 4%
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
2%
Capital markets % of funds raised
1%
NOTE: 1%
SOURCE:
developed by Invest Europe.
1%
0%
Investors
We asked European VCs to give their perspective on a number of trends related to the underlying dynamics of
the market. The sentiment was clear; competition has intensi ed. There was a strong level of agreement that
competition between local VCs has increased and that T1 US VCs have become more active in Europe, even at
We asked European VCsthe early
to givestages.
their This intensi cation
perspective of competition
on a number of trendsisrelated felt in valuations,
to the underlying the compression of fundraising
timelines and more pre-emptive term sheets being offered to companies.
dynamics of the market. The sentiment
We asked European was VCs toclear;
givecompetition
their perspective has intensified.
on a numberThere of trends was related
a strongto the underlying dynamics of
level of agreement that competition between local VCs has increased and that T1 US VCs
the market. The sentiment was clear; competition has intensi ed. There was a strong level of agreement that have
become more activecompetition
in
We Europe,
Thinking even
asked European
about at
theVCs
between the
to 12
past early
give their
local VCsstages. This
perspective on aintensification
has increased number andofthat
Competition trends
between of competition
related
T1European
US VCstohas
VCs the
haveunderlying is felt
become
intensified dynamics
moreofactive in Europe, even at
the market.doThe
months, yousentiment
agree or was clear; competition has intensi ed. There was a strong level of agreement that
in valuations, the compression
the early
competition of fundraising
stages.
between This timelines
intensi cation and
of more
competition pre-emptiveis felt in term sheets
valuations,
local VCs has increased and that T1 US VCs have become more active in Europe, even at being
the compression of fundraising
disagree with the following Early-stage (Seed to Series B) US VCs are more active in
offered to companies.timelines
the early
statements: and
stages. more
This pre-emptive
intensi cation of term sheets
competition is felt being
in offered
valuations, the to companies.
compression of
Europe fundraising
timelines and more pre-emptive term sheets being offered to companies.
European VCs are demonstrating greater concern about
LEGEND the potential societal and/or environmental impact of
Thinking about
Thinking about the 12
the past past 12 Competition between European
Competition between European VCs has intensified
their portfolio
VCs hascompanies
intensified
Agree
months,
months, dodoyouyou agree
agree or or
Disagree More companies are receiving pre-emptive term sheets
disagree
disagree with the the
with following
following Early-stage (Seed toEarly-stage
Series B) US VCs are more
(Seed active in B) US VCs are more active in
to Series
statements: Europe
statements:
Neither agree nor disagree Europe
European VCs are demonstrating
Europeangreater concern
VCs have aboutmeaningful steps to improve
taken
the potential societal and/or environmental
European VCs arethe impact of
demonstrating greater concern
LEGEND diversity of the
their portfolio companies
founders theyabout
back
LEGEND
Agree the potential societal and/or environmental impact of
their portfolio companies
Disagree More companies are receiving pre-emptive
Valuations forterm sheets
early-stage companies are at healthy
Agree
Neither agree nor disagree levels
Disagree More companies are receiving pre-emptive term sheets
European VCs have taken meaningful steps to improve
the diversity of the founders they back
Neither agree nor disagree 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
European
Valuations for early-stage VCs have
companies are attaken
healthymeaningful steps to improve % of respondents
levels
the diversity of the founders they back
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
NOTE: Valuations for early-stage companies are at healthy % of respondents
levels
Venture Capitalist respondents only. SOURCE: The State Of European Tech Survey
Numbers
NOTE: may not add to 100 due to 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
rounding.
Venture Capitalist respondents only. S O U R C E : The State Of European Tech Survey
% of respondents
Numbers may not add to 100 due to
rounding.
NOTE:
One driver of increased competition is the increase in the number of active investors deploying capital into
One driver of increased competition
Venture
European Capitalist is the
tech. respondents
This investor
increase
only. in the number SOURCE: The ofStateactive investors
Of European deploying
Tech Survey
base continues to expand, with over 2,600 unique institutions participating in at
capital into EuropeanOne
tech. This investor
least one deal in 2019. We base
can continues
expect this number to expand,
to come
driver of increased competition is the increase in the number of active
rounding. close with to over
3,000 2,600
once unique
adjusted for the reporting
investorslag.deploying capital into
institutions participating in
European at least
tech. one deal
This investor in 2019. We can
base continues expect this
to expand, numberwith to come
over 2,600 close
unique institutions participating in at
to 3,000 once adjusted forone
Number
least the reporting
of unique
deal institutionslag. DATAS E T : AT L E AST O NE D E A L P E R YE A R
in 2019. We can expect this number to come close to 3,000 once adjusted for the reporting lag.
European tech. This
that have participated investor base continues to expand, with over 2,600 unique institutions participating in at
in at least
1 and 5 investment deals in
least one deal
Europe per year
in 2019. We can expect this number to come close to 3,000 once adjusted for the reporting lag.
AT LEAST ONE DEAL PER YEAR
Number of unique institutions DATASET: AT LEAST ONE DEAL PER YEAR
that have participated in at least 3,000
DATASET: AT LEAST ONE DEAL PER YEAR2,802
Number of unique institutions
1 and 5 investment deals in 2,656 2,604
that have participated in at least
Europe per year 2,323
1 and 5 investment deals in
# of unique institutions
Europe per year 2,000

1,774
3,000
2,802
2,656
3,000
2,802
1,000 2,323 2,656
institutions
2,323
European tech. This investor base continues to expand,2,000
with over 2,600 unique institutions participating in at
1,774
least one deal in 2019. We can expect this number to come close to 3,000 once adjusted for the reporting lag.
institutions
0 2,000
# of unique
2015 1,7742016 2017 2018 2019
NOTE:
Number of unique institutions DATAS E T : AT L E AST F I VE D E A L S P E R YE A R
# of unique
that have
Number participated
of unique in investment
investors (incl. at least
funds, corporate investors & accelerators,
1 and 5 investment deals in 1,000
but excl. angel investors) that have AT LEAST FIVE DEALS PER YEAR
Europe per
participated year
in at least 1 investment round S O U R C E : Dealroom
per year. 2019 annualised based on data to 1,000
September 2019.
307
300
280
0 269
2015 2016 2017 2018
232 233
0
NOTE: 2015 2016 2017 2018
200
Number of unique investors (incl. investment
NOTE:
but excl. of
Number angel investors)
unique that
investors haveinvestment
(incl.
participated in at investors
least 1 investment round SOURCE: Dealroom
funds, corporate & accelerators,
per year. 2019 annualised based
but excl. angel investors) that have on data to 100
September 2019.
participated in at least 1 investment round SOURCE: Dealroom
per year. 2019 annualised based on data to
September 2019.
0
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
NOTE:
but excl. angel investors) that have
participated in at least 1 investment round S O U R C E : Dealroom
September 2019.
74 In Partnership with &
04.2 Investors
The depth of the pool of investors varies according to the size of the round. While there are
more than 1,500+ unique institutions that have made at least one investment into rounds of
less than $10M, the number reduces to just over 100 unique institutions that have invested
of investors varies in a round
according to theof
size$100M orWhile
of the round. more.
there are more thanThe
1,500+
depth of the pool of investors varies according to the size of the round. While there are more than 1,500+
t have made at least one investment into rounds of less than $10M, the numberunique
reducesinstitutions that have made at least one investment into rounds of less than $10M, the number reduces
institutions that have invested in a round of $100M or more. to just over 100 unique institutions that have invested in a round of $100M or more.
NUMBER OF UNIQUE INSTITUTIONS BY ROUND SIZE AND BY YEAR

ions by DATASET: <$10M Number of unique institutions by DATAS E T : $ 1 0 M - 2 0 M
<$10M round size and by year $10M-$20M
2,000 500
1,813 447
426
1,644 398
400
1,520
1,500
1,191 300
1,140 300
1,000
224
200
500
100
of investors varies according to the size of the round. While there are more thanThe
1,500+
depth of the pool of investors varies according to the size of the round. While there are more than 1,500+
t have made at least one investment into rounds of less than $10M, the numberunique
reduces institutions that have made at least one investment into rounds of less than $10M, the number reduces
0 0
institutions that have invested in2015
a round of $100M2016
or more. 2017 to just over
2018 100 unique institutions
2019 9M that have invested in
2015a round of $100M
2016or more. 2017 2018 2019 9M
NOTE:
ollowing: DATASET: $20M-$50M All Dealroom.co data excludes the following: DATAS E T : $ 5 0 M - $ 1 0 0 M
ions
ebt,
by Number of unique institutions by
note the SOURCE: Dealroom round size and
lending capital, byPlease
grants. year also note the S O U R C E : Dealroom
data to $20M-$50M data excludes Israel. 2019 based on data to $50M-$100M
September 2019.
400
379 151
150
356
119
300 285
234 100 93
200 190 75
50
41
100
of investors varies according to the size of the round. While there are more than 1,500+
t have made at least one0
investment into rounds of less than $10M, the number reduces 0
institutions that have invested in a round of $100M
2015
or more.
2016 2017 2018 2019 9M 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 9M
NOTE:
ions by
ebt, DATASET: $100M+ biotech, secondary transactions, debt,
note the $100M+
SOURCE: Dealroom lending capital, grants. Please also note the S O U R C E : Dealroom
data to data excludes Israel. 2019 based on data to
September 2019.
125
113
102
100
75 71
60
53
50
NOTE:
All Dealroom.co data excludes the following: biotech, secondary transactions,
25 debt, lending capital, grants. Please also note the data excludes Israel. 2019
based on data to September 2019.
0
There has never been stronger interest in Europe from US investors, who are more active in terms of their
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 9M
ollowing:
ebt,
activity in the region, but also are spending an increasing amount of time on the ground to build their European
note the
data to
SOURCE: Dealroom
network and deal ow.
600
Number of unique US institutions
There has never been stronger interest in Europe from US investors, who are more active 525
There hasparticipated
that have never been in stronger
at least interest in Europe from US investors, who are more active in terms of their
in terms of their activity
1 in the
investmentregion,
round but
in alsoper
Europe are spending an increasing
500 amount of time 481
activity
There hasinnever
thebeen
region, but interest
stronger also are spending
in Europe an investors,
from US increasingwhoamount of time
are more active on the
in terms ground to build their European
of their
on the ground to buildactivity
their inEuropean
year network
the region, but and dealflow.
also are spending an increasing amount of time on the ground to build
421 their European
network and deal ow.
network and deal ow. 400
363
# of institutions
600 600
Number
Number ofof unique
unique US institutions
US institutions 300
525 525
that have
that haveparticipated in at least
participated in at least 507
500 481
1 investment round in Europe per 500 481
1year
investment round in Europe per
200 421
year 400 421
363
# of institutions
400
363
# of institutions
300 100
300
200
0
2015 2016 2017 2018
100 200
NOTE:
Number of unique investors (incl. investment 0

funds, corporate investors & accelerators, 2015
100
2016 2017 2018 2019
NOTE:
Number
per year. of unique investors (incl.based
2019 annualised investment
on data to
funds, corporate investors & accelerators, 0
September
but excl. angel2019.
investors) that have
S O U R C E : Dealroom 2015 2016 2017 2018
participated in at least 1 investment round
NOTE:
September 2019.

September 2019.
just 10% in 2015. 21%
Share of rounds raised in Europe with at least one US or
04.2 Investors participating
US AND ASIAN INVESTORS IN EUROPEAN TECH
One in ve rounds raised in Europe in 2019 involved the
21%
participation of at least one US or Asian investor, up from US AND ASIAN INVESTORS IN EUROPEAN TECH
just
One in five rounds raised
One 10%
in
Share vein
in of 2015.raised
Europe
rounds in deals
European 2019 involved
in (%)
Europe the
per in 2019 participation
involved the US AND ASIAN INVESTORS IN EUROPEAN TECH
21%
participation of at least one US or Asian investor, up from
year with at least one US or
of at least one US or Asian investor,
in 2015. up from just 10% in 2015.
21%
just 10%
Asian investor
20 Share of of
Share rounds raised
rounds in in
raised Europe with at least one US or
Europe
participating
Share of rounds raised with
in at least
Europe with atone
leastUS
oneor
USAsian investor
or Asian investor
participating participating 15%
15
13% 13%
% of deals
Share of European deals (%) per
Share of European deals (%) per
11% 11%
21%
10% 10%
year with
year with atat least
least one
one US or US or 9%
20 20
10 19%
Asian investor
Asian investor
15%
15 15%
13% 13%
15
5
% of deals
11% 11% 13% 13%
% of deals
10% 10% 2% 2% 2%
10 9% 1% 11% 11%
10% 10%
10
0 9%
2015 2016 2017 2018
5 4%
NOTE: 2% 2% 2%
1%
0
biotech, secondary transactions, debt, 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
SOURCE: Dealroom 2% 2% 2%
lending capital, grants. Please also note the 1%
NOTE:excludes Israel. 2019 based on data up
data
USbiotech,
toandsecondary
Asian
AllSeptember 2019.
Dealroom.co data investors have been particularly0 important for the rise of large-scale funding rounds of $100M+ in
transactions, debt,
Europe. Ingrants.
lending capital, 2019, Please 90% of all $100M+
also note the
rounds involved the2015participation of at
least one investor
2016 2017
from the US or 2018
Asia.
to September
NOTE: 2019.

US and Asian investorsbiotech,
havesecondary
beentransactions,
particularly debt,
important forSOURCE:
the rise Dealroom
of large-scale funding Share
USrounds
data of
and Asiandeals
excludes of (%)
$100M+
Israel. 2019 >$100M
investors
basedin
on haveup been
Europe.
data In particularly
2019, 90% important
of all for the rise of large-scale funding rounds of $100M+ in
investorsnon-European investors
to Septembernon-European
involving 2019. 90 88%
Europe.
$100M+ rounds involved the
US and In 2019,
participation
Asian investors90% haveof
of all
at
been $100M+
least onerounds
particularly involved
investor
important forfrom theofparticipation
the rise of at
large-scale funding least
rounds of one investor
$100M+ in from the US or
investors
the US or Asia. Asia.
Europe. In 2019, 90% of all $100M+ rounds involved the participation of at least one investor from the US or
Asia.
80
Share
Share ofof deals
deals (%) (%) >$100M
>$100M 90%
involving non-European 90
% of deals >$100M involving non-European investors
involving non-European 90 88% 88%

deals >$100M involving
investors
investors 73%
% ofnon-European
70%
80 70
80
73%
63%
% of deals >$100M involving
70%
70 73%
60
2015 2016 70%
2017 2018
63%
70
NOTE:
60
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
All Dealroom.co data excludes the following: 63%
biotech,
data excludes
biotech, secondary Israel. 2019 based
transactions, debt, on data up 60
to September
lending 2019.Please also note the
capital, grants. S O U R C E : Dealroom
2015 2016 2017 2018
to September 2019.
NOTE:

The growth in US andThe Asian
growthinvestor
biotech, secondary
USactivity
intransactions, debt,in Europe is reflected
and Asian investor activity in Europe
SOURCE:
US AND ASIAN INVESTORS
Dealroom is re ected in the total capital commitments from
in the total capital commitments
investors
data excludesbased from investors
inbased
those up based
regions. In in those
2019, the total capital invested into Europe from US-based investors is
90%
Israel. 2019 on data
to September 2019. of $100M+ rounds raised in 2019 involved
regions. In 2019, the total capitalininvested
approaching
The growth $10B,
US and into Europe
up Asian
nearly from
3x since
investor US-based
2015.
activity in Europe is re ected in the totalone
at least capital
US or commitments
Asian investor from
investors is approaching $10B,based
investors up nearly 3x since
in those 2015.
regions. In 2019, the total capital invested into Europe from US-based investors is
approaching $10B, up nearly 3x since 2015.
Venture capital invested ($B)
10.0 $9.8B
into Europe
# &"#!
Venture capital invested ($B)
LEGEND 10.0 $9.8B
into Europe
invested ($B)
2015 7.5

$&%
2016 #
LEGEND
$5.8B
($B)
2017
2015 7.5
capital
&#!
invested
2018 5.0
2016 $4.4B
Venture
# $5.8B $4.0B

2019
2017 &#
Venture capital
$3.4B
&#
2018 5.0
&# $2.5B $4.4B
2.5 $4.0B
2019 &# $1.7B $1.7B
# $3.4B
&# &# $0.8B
$2.5B $0.5B
2.5 &# $0.4B $0.3B
&#! $1.7B &#!
$1.7B &#!
0.0 &# &# &#
North America Asia R
# $0.8B
! " ! $0.5B
" ! " $0.4B
NOTE: $0.3B

0.0

All Dealroom.co data excludes the following: North America Asia R
lending SOURCE: Dealroom
All Dealroom.co
on data excludes
data to September 2019. the following:

04.2 Investors
I’d say the European funding gap has moved a lot more to later stages
than in the past. Today, there are a lot of high-quality investors available
from the seed stages until maybe Series B (referring to up to €30-50m
rounds). However, from Series C onwards (now talking about €100m+
rounds), there are a lot fewer options available in Europe than elsewhere.
For instance, in our case over 2/3 of the investors we spoke with for Miki Kuusi
our Series C came from outside Europe, while we’d mostly focused on Wolt
speaking with European investors up until our Series B. Co-Founder & CEO
The volume of investment activity by corporate investors has also expanded considerably in recent years. In
2019, almost 700 unique corporate investors participated in at least one investment round involving a European
tech company.
The volume of investment activity by corporate investors has also expanded considerably in recent
years. In 2019, almost 700 unique corporate investors participated in at least one investment round
The volume
Number of investment
of unique corporate activity by corporate investors has also expanded considerably in recent years. In
involving a European2019,
tech company.
investors per year
almost 700and number
unique of
corporate investors participated in at least one investment round involving a European
deals involving at least one
tech company.
The volume of investment activity by corporate investors
corporate investor, 2015-2019
has also expanded considerably in recent years. In
750
2019, almost 700 unique corporate investors participated in at least one investment round involving a European
tech company.
# of corporate deals
LEGEND
Number of unique corporate
# of unique corporate investors
investors per year
Number of unique and number of
corporate 500
# of corporate
deals involving
investors rounds
per year at least
and numberone
of
deals involving at least one 750
corporate investor, 2015-2019 750 600
corporate investor, 2015-2019

LEGEND
LEGEND 250

# of unique corporate investors 500
500
500
# of corporate rounds
# of corporate rounds
0
250 2015 2016 2017 400 2018
250
NOTE:
Unique corporate investor count is based on 0 300

number of corporate (i.e. non investment 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
fund) investors that have participated in at SOURCE: Dealroom
NOTE:
least 1 round per year. 2019 annualised based 0
on datacorporate
Unique to September 2019.is based on
investor count 2015 2016 2017 2018
number of corporate (i.e. non investment
fund) investors that have participated in at S O U R C E : Dealroom
NOTE:
least 1 round per year. 2019 annualised based
Unique corporate investor count is based on
number of corporate (i.e. non investment
SOURCE: Dealroom
The rise of corporate investor participation has been even more marked than the rise of US and Asian
fund) investors that have participated in at
least 1 round per year. 2019 annualised based
investors. 22% of rounds closed in Europe in 2019 involved at least one corporate investor, up from just 9% in
2015.
investors. 22% of rounds closed in Europe in 2019 involved at least one corporate investor, up from
just 9% in 2015. The rise
Share ofof corporate
European dealsinvestor
(%) per participation has been even more marked than the rise of US and Asian
23
investors.
year with at22%
leastof rounds
one closed in Europe in 2019 involved at least one corporate investor, up from just 9% in
corporate
2015.
investor
20
investors. 22% of rounds closed in Europe in 2019 involved at least one corporate investor, up from just 9% in
2015.
% of European deals % of European deals
Share of European deals (%) per 18

23
year with
Share at leastdeals
of European one(%)
corporate
per 23
22%
15%
investor
year with at least one corporate 15
investor 20
20 13%
13
% of European deals
18 18 11%
15%
15%
15 10 9%
15
13%
13%
13
8 11%
13 2015 2016 2017 2018
10 11%
9%
NOTE:
10 9%
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
lending
data excludes Israel. 2019 the
based on data up SOURCE:
8 Dealroom
All Dealroom.co data excludes following: 2015 2016 2017 2018
tobiotech,
September 2019.
secondary Includesdebt,
transactions, corporate VC
funds ascapital,
lending well as corporate
grants. investors.
Please also note the
NOTE:
data excludes Israel. 2019 based on data up S O U R C E : Dealroom
to September 2019. Includes corporate VC
Allfunds
Dealroom.co data excludes
as well as corporate investors. the following:
data excludes Israel. 2019 based on data up SOURCE: Dealroom
to September 2019. Includes corporate VC
funds as well as corporate investors.

04.2 Investors
On the other hand, the most active Corporate VCs span a wide range
of industries. With 4 of the top 10, Germany is home to some of the
e other hand, the most active Corporate VCs span a wide range of industries. With 4 of the top 10,
most
On theactive Corporate
other hand, VCs,active
the most each one havingVCs
Corporate at least
spanone unicorn
a wide rangeinof industries. With 4 of the top 10,
any is home to
Germany some
portfolio oftothe
is- Graphcore,
home most
some active
ofBolt
Fair, the most Corporate
active
and N26. VCs,
Corporate VCs,each onehaving
each one having at least
at least one unicorn
one unicorn in-portfolio -
in portfolio
core, Fair,
OnBolt andFair,
Graphcore,
the other N26.
Bolt
hand, theand N26.
most active Corporate VCs span a wide range of industries. With 4 of the top 10,
Germany is home to some of the most active Corporate VCs, each one having at least
Country
one unicorn in portfolio
# of Deals Last 12 Months
-
% of Portfolio Size
Graphcore, Fair, Bolt and
Top 10 most active corporate N26. 1 Next47 (Siemens) Germany
Country
16
# of Deals Last 12 Months
12
% of Portfolio Size
0 most activeventure
corporate
capital investors in 1 Next47 (Siemens) Germany 16 12
2 Unilever Ventures United Kingdom
Country 15
# of Deals Last 12 Months 38
% of Portfolio Size
ure capital investors in by number of
European tech
Top 10inmost
deals active
the last corporate
12 months 2 Unilever
1 Ventures
Next47 (Siemens) United
Germany Kingdom
16 15 12 38
pean tech byventure
number of investors in
capital
3 Santander Innoventures United Kingdom 11 41
s in the last 12European

monthstech by number of 3
2
4 Unilever Ventures
M Ventures (Merck KGaA)
Santander Innoventures
United
GermanyKingdom
United Kingdom
15
10
11
38
14
41
deals in the last 12 months
53 Santander
Sabadell Innoventures
Venture Capital United Kingdom
Spain 911 41
31
4 M Ventures (Merck KGaA) Germany 10 14
64 M VenturesVentures
Swisscom (Merck KGaA) Germany
Switzerland 910 14
13
5 Sabadell
75 Venture
Sabadell
Robert BoschCapital
Venture Capital
Venture Capital Spain
Spain
Germany 99 9 31
18 31
6 86 Swisscomventures
Swisscom Ventures
Ventures
InMotion (Jaguard Land Rover) Switzerland
Switzerland
United Kingdom 89 9 13
44 13
97 Robert
AXA BoschPartners
Venture Venture Capital Germany
France 79 18
14
7 Robert Bosch Venture Capital Germany 9 18
8
10 InMotion
Allianz X ventures (Jaguard Land Rover) United Kingdom
Germany 68 44
33
8 InMotion
9 ventures
AXA (Jaguard Land Rover)
Venture Partners United Kingdom
France 7 8 14 44
NOTE:
All Dealroom.co data excludes the following: 9 10 Venture
AXA Allianz Partners
X Germany
France 6 7 33 14
NOTE:
data excludes Israel. 2019 based on data as 10 Allianz X Germany 6 33
All Dealroom.co
of September data excludes the following:
2019.
data excludes Israel. 2019 based on data as
of September
lroom.co data excludes 2019.
the following:
h, secondary transactions, debt,
g capital, grants. Please also note the SOURCE: Dealroom
cludes Israel. 2019 based on data as
ember 2019.
The depth of the corporate investor base is also apparent from a

The depth
vertical of the corporate
perspective. Young investor
companiesbase can
is also
tapapparent from a vertical
into a specialised pool perspective. Young companies can
tap into a specialised
of investors pooltheir
to navigate of investors to navigate
scaling journey. It’s their scaling journey.
also remarkable to It's also remarkable to see some of our
Theofdepth
The depth the
homegrown ofEuropean
the corporate
corporate investor investor
base
scale-ups is
such base
also
as is also
apparent
Just apparent
Eat from
and a from a vertical
vertical
Delivery Hero perspective.
perspective. Young Young
companiescompanies
in thecan can
seeinto
some of our homegrown European scale-upstheir such as Just Eatbecomealso active investors ecosystem.
tap intotap a specialised
a specialised pool of pool of investors
investors to navigate
to navigate their scalingscaling
journey.journey.
It's alsoIt's remarkable
remarkable to see to see of
some some
our of our
and DeliveryEuropean
homegrown Hero become active investors
scale-ups in the ecosystem.
homegrown European scale-ups such assuch
Justas Just
Eat andEat and
Delivery
Fintech Delivery Hero become
Hero become active active
Health investors
investors in the in the ecosystem.
ecosystem.
Transportation
Enterprise
Software
Food
Top 10 most active corporate
investors for select vertical Salesforce
Enterprise
1 ING Ventures
Fintech ZKB Health InMotion ventures
Transportation Enterprise Crédit Agricole
Food
Fintech Health Transportation Ventures Food
ranked by number
Topactive
10 most activeof deals, 2015-
corporate Software Software
Top 10 most corporate
2019 Salesforce
investors investors
for selectfor select vertical 2 Collector Ventures Crédit Agricole Rakuten SalesforceSerena R/GA Ventures
vertical 1 1
ING VenturesING Ventures ZKB ZKB InMotion ventures
InMotion ventures Crédit Agricole
Crédit Agricole
Ventures Ventures
ranked byranked
number byofnumber of deals, 2015-
deals, 2015- 3
Orange Digital Axel Springer Plug and Play Daimler Technology & Swisscom
Caixa Capital
2019 2019 2 2
Collector Collector Ventures
Ventures
Ventures Crédit Agricole
Accelerator
Crédit Agricole Rakuten
Rakuten Venture Serena
Serena Ventures R/GA Ventures
R/GA Ventures
Orange Digital Axel Springer Plug and Play Daimler Technology & Swisscom ProSiebenSat.1
Orange
3 Digital
4 Axel Springer
Credit Mutuel Arkea Plug and
Parkwalk Play
Advisors Daimler Technology
Deutsche &Bahn SwisscomCaixa Capital Caixa Capital
3 Ventures Accelerator Venture Ventures Caixa Capital
Accelerator
Ventures Accelerator Venture Ventures
5 Goldman Sachs M Ventures Crédit Agricole Sapphire Venture s ProSiebenSat.1
Mail.ru Group
4 Credit Mutuel Arkea Parkwalk Advisors Deutsche Bahn Caixa Capital ProSiebenSat.1
4 Credit Mutuel Arkea Parkwalk Advisors Deutsche Bahn Caixa Capital Accelerator
Accelerator
6 Schibsted Growth Hax BOOST Programs R/GA Ventures Just Eat
5 Goldman Sachs M Vent ures Crédit Agricole Sapphire Ventures Mail.ru Group
5 Goldman Sachs M Vent ures Crédit Agricole Sapphire Ventures Mail.ru Group
7 Allianz X Boehringer Ingelheim Venture Fund Macif Parkwalk Advisors ZKB
Santander
8 Oxford Technology Management Shell Pi Labs Metro Group
7 Allianz X
Innoventures Boehringer Ingelheim Venture Fund Macif Parkwalk Advisors ZKB
7 Allianz X Boehringer Ingelheim Venture Fund Macif Parkwalk Advisors ZKB
9 Santander
BNP Paribas BNP Paribas Delivery Hero GV Collector Ventures
8
Santander Oxford Technology Management Shell Pi Labs Metro Group
8 Innoventures Oxford Technology Management Shell Pi Labs Metro Group
Innoventures
10 Uniqa Sabadell Venture Capital RATP M12 Unilever Ventures
9 BNP Paribas BNP Paribas Delivery Hero GV Collector Ventures
9 BNP Paribas BNP Paribas Delivery Hero GV Collector Ventures
SOURCE: Dealroom
NOTE:

SOURCE: Dealroom
NOTE: S O U R C E : Dealroom
NOTE:

Angels
European angel investing landscape
Pre-seed stage investments are particularly difficult to monitor given most

angel investments are not tracked until much later in the life of the startup.
The European Business Angels Network organisation (‘EBAN’) estimates that
the ‘visible’ market only represents 10% of the overall angel investments.
As such there is an inherent bias in our datasets towards ‘super-angels’ and/
or startups that have already managed to progress through multiple stages
of investments. The reportingCAPITAL
lag is alsoINVESTED ($B) to impact the
much more likely
investedperformance
across all for 2018 and 2019.
$8.6B
estors, based on
Angel investors
EBAN estimates that $8.6B (€7.5B) was invested across all
UK, Germany and
European countries EBAN
in 2018estimates that $8.6B based
by angel investors, (€7.5B)on
was
CAPITAL INVESTED
theinvested across all
($B)
CAPITAL INVESTED ($B)
invested by angel investors in Europe in 2019.

$8.6B
$8.6B
European
extrapolation of the ‘visible’ countries
market. in 2019
Angel by angel
investors investors, based on
with invested by angel investors in
the deepest pockets reside in the UK, Germany and Spain. Angel investors
the extrapolation of the 'visible' market. Europe in 2019.
with the deepest pockets reside in the UK, Germany and
Spain.
CAPITAL INVESTED ($B)
EBAN estimates that $8.6B (€7.5B) was invested across all
$8.6B
'Visible' capital invested ($M) by
European countries in 2019 by angel investors, based on
angels by country
the extrapolation of the 'visible' market. Angel investors
with the deepest pockets reside in the UK, Germany and
LEGEND
Spain.
up to 120
80 to 100
60 to 80
'Visible' capital invested ($M) by
40 to 60
angels by country
20 to 40
10 to 20
LEGEND
up
up to
to 10
120
80 to 100
60 to 80
40 to 60
20 to 40
10 to 20
up to 10
NOTE:
EUR to USD conversion taken at 1 EUR to
1.145 USD from December 31, 2018. SOURCE:
Displaying 'visible market' capital invested
($M) in the EU-28 countries.
NOTE:
EUR to USD conversion taken at 1 EUR to
1.145 USD from December 31, 2018. SOURCE:
Displaying 'visible market' capital invested
($M) in the EU-28 countries.
SO URC E:

A signi cant number of founders surveyed mentioned
04.3 Angels receiving angel investments to start their company from
these countries.
A significant numberAofsigni
founders surveyed
cant number of founders surveyed mentioned
Share investments
mentioned receivingreceiving
angel of respondents (%) who
to start UK & Ireland
angel investments
raised initial nancing from to start their company from
their company from these
A signicountries.
these cant number of founders surveyed mentioned
angelcountries.
investors by region Nordics
receiving angel investments to start their company from
these countries.
Southern Europe
Share of respondents (%) who UK & Ireland
raised
Share ofinitial nancing
respondents from
(%) who UK & Ireland
CEE
30%
26%
raised investors
angel initial nancing
by from
region Nordics
angel investors by region Nordics 29%
DACH 25%
Southern Europe Southern Europe 28%
CEE
France & Benelux 23%
26%
CEE 26%
DACH Rest of Europe 25% 20%
DACH 25%
France & Benelux 23%
0 3 5 8 10 13 15 18 20 23 25
France & Benelux % of respondents 23%
Rest of Europe 20%
0 3 5 8 10 13 15 18 20 23 25 28 30 33
Rest of Europe % of respondents 20%
SOURCE: The State

0 Of European
3 Tech 5Survey 8 10 13 15 18 20 23 25
NOTE:
% of respondents
Founder
NOTE:
respondents only. S O U R C E : The State Of European Tech Survey
Founder respondents only.
Though we can see only a small part of the 'visible' market, EBAN estimates there are well over 300,00 angel
investors
NOTE: in Europe. Still, the number of active
SOURCE: angels
The State Of(those
European who participate in at least one investment every
Tech Survey
year)
Though we can see only ais signipart
small
Founder cantly
respondents lower
of the
only. - though
‘visible’ rising
market, quickly.
EBAN
estimates there are well over 300,00 angel investors in Europe. Still,
Though we can see only a small part of the 'visible' market, EBAN estimates there are well over 300,00 angel
the number of activeinvestors
angels
Number(those
ofin who
unique angel
Europe. participate in at least
Still, the number one angels (those who participate in at least one investment every
of active 1,
investment every year) is significantly

investors lower
participating - though
in at least rising quickly.
in at least one investment
year) is we
Though signi cantly
can see only alower - though
small part
one investment and # of angel
risingmarket,
of the 'visible' quickly.
EBAN estimates there are well over 300,00 angel
1,500
investors in Europe. Still, the number of active angels (those who participate in at least one investment every
investment 1
year) is signi cantly lower - though rising quickly.
Number of unique angel 1,
LEGEND
investors participating in at least
one investment
970
Number of unique angel 923 1,648
# of investments 1,000
one investment
investors andin# of
participating angel
at least
# of angels participating in at least one investment
1,500
participating
investment
# of
one angels participating
investment in at least one
and # of angel 1,500
1
investment
investment 726 733
1,314
in at least
LEGEND
# of investments
LEGEND
500 970 970
# of angels
923 923
## of investments
of investments 1,000 1,000
# of angels participating in at least one
# of angels participating
#investment
of angels participating in at least one 726 733
investment 726 733
500
0
500 2015 2016 2
NOTE: 0
2015 2016 2017
biotech, SOURCE: Dealroom
NOTE: secondary transactions, debt, 0
lending capital, grants. Please also note the 2015 2016 2
data excludes
biotech, Israel.
secondary transactions, debt, S O U R C E : Dealroom
NOTE:

Angel investing in Europe Angel investing in Europe has grown significantly from
just a handful of investor networks on the continent in the
has grown significantly late 90s to a market that today sees more than 450 active
from just a handful of communities of angels scattered across the map.
investor networks on the This strong growth is also reflected in the size of the angel
continent in the late 90s market in terms of investments made annually in early
to a market that today stage startups. Nearly €7.5B are estimated to be invested
Jacopo Losso
each year by European angels, with approximately forty
sees more than 450 thousand startups receiving pre-seed, seed and series A EBAN
active communities of funding from this category of private investors. To put this Director of
number into perspective, in 2009 the angel investor market Secretariat
angels scattered across
in Europe was estimated to be worth approximately €2.6B.
the map. EBAN has been monitoring the angel investment market
in Europe since 2004 when we first launched our annual
‘Statistics Compendium’ publication.

Share of angel investments (%)
21%
by founders, 2015-2018 vs 2019
04.3 Angels 20
17%
Founders are becoming more are

Founders likely to makemore
becoming investments
likely to back
makein the ecosystem
investments backin
incomparison with
the ecosystem in comparison with the period
Average % of deals
15
the period 2015-2018,2015-2018,

leading toleading
the increased sophistication
to the increased of the investor
sophistication pool. pool.
of the investor
Founders are becoming more likely to make investments back in the ecosystem in comparison with the period
2015-2018, leading to the increased sophistication of the
10 investor pool.
Share of angel investments (%)

21%
byShare
founders,
of angel 2015-2018 vs 2019
investments (%)
21%
by founders, 2015-2018 vs 2019 20
20 5
17%
17%
Average % of deals
Average % of deals
15 15
0
2015-2018 2019
NOTE: 10
10
lending capital, grants. Please also note the 5 SOURCE: Dealroom
data excludes Israel. 2019 as of September
2019. 5
0
2015-2018 2019
NOTE:
biotech, secondary transactions, debt, 2015-2018 2019
data excludes Israel. 2019 as of September
NOTE:
2019.
Angel investors form

All Dealroom.co data excludes the following: Angel investors form a critical part of any successful
ecosystem. Looking
SOURCE: back a dozen or so years ago, there
Dealroom
alending
critical part of any
capital, grants. Please also note the
data excludes Israel. 2019 as of September were very few angel investors in Europe, and even fewer
successful
2019.
ecosystem. founders turned angels. For TransferWise, it was a huge
coup to get the likes of Max Levchin (founder of PayPal)
and David Yu (then the CEO of Betfair) to invest in our seed
round. Besides the credibility, it gives startup teams lots
of experience to tap into for problem solving as you grow.
Taavet Hinrikus
Seed funds like Seedcamp, who often act together with the
angels, also have a vital role to play in fulfilling this need. TransferWise
Co-Founder &
Chairman
The top 15 most active

The top angel
15 most investors
active are all founders
angel investors (or (or
are all founders
The top in
15 the
mostcase
active
in angel
of the investors
case
Sophia are
of Sophia
Bendz, all founders
Bendz,
operator) (or in
operator)
except the3.case
except
for for 3.of Sophia Bendz, operator) except for 3.
Investor Deal Count Former Founder? Company
Investor Deal Count Former Founder? Company
Top 15 angel investors in Europe 1 Xavier Niel 54 Yes Iliad
Top 15 angel investors in Europe
by deal count, 2015-2019 1 Xavier Niel 54 Yes Iliad
by deal count, 2015-2019 2 Charlie Songhurst 35 No n/a
2 Charlie Songhurst 35 No n/a
3 Theo Osborne 24 No n/a
3 Theo Osborne 24 No n/a
4 Pierre Kosciusko-Morizet 23 Yes PriceMinister
4 Pierre
5 Kosciusko-Morizet
Taavet Hinrikus 23 22 Yes Yes PriceMinister
TransferWise
5 Taavet
6 Hinrikus
Chris Adelsbach 22 21 Yes No TransferWise
n/a
6 Chris7 Adelsbach
Carlos Blanco 21 19 No Yes Akamon Entertainment
n/a
8 Sophia Bendz 19 No (operator) Spotify
7 Carlos Blanco 19 Yes Akamon Entertainment
9 Alex Chesterman 18 Yes Zoopla
8 Sophia Bendz 19 No (operator) Spotify
10 Thibaud Elziere 18 Yes Fotolia
9 Alex Chesterman 18 Yes Zoopla
11 Andreas Mihalovits 16 Yes dreamfab
10 Thibaud Elziere 18 Yes Fotolia
12 Eduardo Ronzano 16 Yes KelDoc
11 Andreas
13 Mihalovits
H ampus Jakobsson 16 15 Yes Yes dreamfab
brisk.io
12 Eduardo
14 Ronzano
Michael Benabou 16 15 Yes Yes KelDoc
Vente privée
13 15 Jakobsson
H ampus David Helgason 15 15 Yes Yes unity
brisk.io
14 Michael Benabou 15 Yes Vente privée
15 David Helgason
SOURCE: Dealroom
15 Yes unity
FORMER FOUNDERS
40% of angel investors surveyed by EBAN have also been a

founder in the past.

are 43.
04.3 Angels
Average age of business angels France
by region
The age pro le of angels varies widely. In France,
Austria andthe
Germany
The age profile of angels
The varies
average widely.
angel
age pro Invaries
le ofinvestor
angels France,
is 62, the
while
widely. average
in CEE
In France, angel investor
countries
the they is 62,
average angel investor is 62, while in CEE countries they
while in CEE countries they
are 43.
are 43.
are 43. Switzerland
Benelux 53
CEE countries
Average
Average age
ageofof alsoangels
business have
business the largest proportion
angels France of womenFrance 62
by region
angel investors.
by region Northern Europe + UK
Austria and Germany 55
52
Austria and Germany

Switzerland Southern Europe 55 50
Share of angels (%) by country Switzerland

Switzerland
Benelux 27% 53 73%
and by gender Central & Eastern Europe 43
Northern Europe + UK Benelux 52 53

0 10 20 30 40 50
LEGEND
Bulgaria
Southern Europe 24% 50 Average
76% age
% of women Northern Europe + UK 52
NOTE: Central & Eastern Europe
% of men 43
Based on a study performed by EBAN and Southern Europe 50

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
funded by the European commission, Macedonia 24% 76%
Average age
'Understanding the nature and impact of the
business
NOTE: angels in funding research and Central & Eastern Europe 43
innovation', November 2017. The dataset SOURCE:
Based on a study performed by EBAN and
includes
funded by592
the angel respondents
commission, across
European Spain 15% 0 10 20 30 85% 40 50
Europe.
business angels in funding research and Average age
includes 592 angel respondents across
NOTE:
Europe.
Slovenia 13% 87%
CEE countries also have
CEE the
Based on alargest
countries
funded
proportion
study performed
also
by the European
by EBAN and of women angel investors.
have the largest proportion of women
commission,
CEE countries alsoand
have theoflargest proportion of women
angel investors.
'Understanding
angelangels
business
the nature
investors.
impact
in funding research and
the

Cyprus 88%
12%
Europe.
Share of angels (%) by country
Share of angels (%) by country Switzerland 27% 73%
and by gender Switzerland 27% 73%
and by gender Finland 11% 89%
LEGEND
Bulgaria 24% 76%
LEGEND
% of women
Bulgaria 24% 76%
% of%women
of men
Ukraine 10% 90%
Macedonia 24% 76%
% of men
Macedonia 24% 76%

Spain 15%
Slovakia 10% 85% 90%
Slovenia Spain
13% 15% 87% 85%
Croatia 8% 92%
Cyprus 12% 88%

Slovenia 13% 87%
Latvia 4% 96%
Finland 11% 89%
Cyprus 12% 88%

Ukraine Ireland
10% 4% 90% 96%
Finland 0 11% 10 20 30 40 50 89% 60 70 80 90

Slovakia 10% 90%
% of business angels
NOTE:
Croatia 8% 92%
Ukraine 10% 90%
funded by the European commission,
'Understanding the nature and impact of the Latvia 4% 96%
business angels in funding research and
Slovakia 10% 90%
Europe. Ireland 4% 96%
0 Croatia
10 8%
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 92% 90 100 110
NOTE:
funded by the European commission, Latvia 4% 96%
Europe.
Ireland 4% 96%
We are also noticing an We are seeing consolidation of angel

investment activity in 20
many countries in40
increase in diversity within the 0 10 30
Western Europe and strong expansion
50
60 70 80 90
angel
NOTE:
investor population, not into regions such as Central and Eastern
Europe and South Eastern Europe. We’re
just
Basedin on aterms of gender
study performed by EBAN andwith more
also noticing an increase in diversity within
female
'Understanding the nature and participating
investors
funded by the European commission,
impact of the in the angel investor population, not just in
angel networks, but also
innovation', November 2017. The dataset in terms terms of gender with more female investors
SOURCE: Jacopo Losso
participating in angel networks, but also in
ofincludes
age592and
Europe. background profile of
angel respondents across
terms of age and background profile of the EBAN
the individuals beginning their individuals beginning their investor careers. Director of
What has never changed in these years, Secretariat
investor careers.
though, is the fundamental role played by
the angels in getting ideas to the market and
scaling up businesses in their early days.

04.3 Angels
Atomico Angel Investor Programme

The first Atomico angels cohort has invested into 42 companies to
date, mostly in climate tech, and 45% of investments have been into
female founded companies.
Roxanne Varza Rohan Silva Gregory Gazagne Suvi Haimi

Station F, France Second Home, UK Criteo, France Sulapac, Finland
Tuva Palm Doreen Huber Emily Brooke Johan Brand

NordNet, Sweden Lemoncat, Germany Beryl, UK We Are Human, Norway
Josefin Landgard Clare Johnston Stefano Bernardi Ritu Jain

Kry, Sweden The Up Group, UK Token Economy, Italy LifeX, Denmark
We started Atomico’s inaugural angel programme last year with 12

angels from across the European ecosystem. They received no guidance
about sectors. Currently, 34% of the deals have been in startups with an
environmental impact,and 34% of the deals are with female founders.
This just goes to show that a diverse set of people becoming angels –
whether that is through capital earned at a successful tech company Sophia Bendz
or through angel programmes – is key to increasing the diversity gap in Atomico
funding and supporting solutions to big societal problems. Partner

Repeat founders with signi cant experience in scaling a company are much more likely to use angel
investments for initial nancing of their company.
04.3 Angels
How did you nance the initial 40
setup and earliest phase of your

most recent company?
Repeat founders withRepeat
significant
foundersexperience
with signiin scaling a company
cant experience are much
in scaling a company are much more likely to use angel
Repeat founders with signi cant experience in scaling a30company are much more likely to use angel
more likely to use angel investments
investments for for initial
initial financing
nancing of of
their
investments for initial nancing of their company.
their company.
company. 27%
% of respondents
25%
How did
How didyou
younance the initial
nance the initial
40 20
40
37%
setup and earliest phase of your
setup and company?
most recent earliest phase of your
most recent company? 30
27%
10
30
% of respondents
25%
27%
% of respondents
25%
20
0
20
First-time founder Repeat founder with limited experience in scaling Repeat founder with s
10
company
0 10
First-time founder Repeat founder with limited experience in scaling Repeat founder with significant experience in scaling
company company
Founders only. Respondents could select

multiple options.
NOTE:
0
S O U R C E : The State Of European Tech Survey First-time founder Repeat founder with limited experience in scaling Repeat founder with s
'Super
Founders angel' investors
only. Respondents could select and venture capital investors have similar investment selection criteria.
company Venture capital
multiple options.
investors are more focussed on exit potential, while 'super angels' are more interested in valuation and deal
terms.
Founders only. Respondents could select
‘Super angel’ investors and venture capital investors have similar investment
Investment
multiple options.selection criteria by
Managment team
'Super
angels angel'
and VCs investors and venture capitalTechnology/product's
investors have similar investment selection criteria. Venture capital
55%
selection criteria. Venture capital
investors investors
are more are more
focussed on exitfocussed
potential, onwhile
exit potential,
value proposition
'super angels' are more interested in valuation45% and deal
56%
while ‘super angels’ are more

'Super
terms.
LEGEND
interested
angel' investors in
and valuation
venture and
capital deal
investors terms.
have similar investment selection
Scalability of the business criteria. Venture capital
50%
investors are more focussed on exit potential, while 'super angels' are more interested in valuation and deal 32%
Market size (actual or potential)
terms.
% of angels 37%
% of VCs Valuation and deal terms 22%
Managment team 12%
Investment selection criteria by Managment team
85%
Investment selection criteria by 18% 84%
angels and VCs
angels and VCs Technology/product's value proposition
Exit potential
Technology/product's value proposition 55% 34%
55%
56%
56%
Referral by other investors 13%
45% 45%
Scalability of the business
Scalability of the business 4%
LEGEND
LEGEND
50% 50%
32% 12%
% of angels Market size (actual or potential) Past performance 32%
% of angels Market size (actual or potential) 5% 37%
22% 37%
% of VCs Valuation and deal terms 10%
Strategic fit in investment portfolio
12% 22%
% of VCs Valuation and deal terms18% 10%
Exit potential 12%
ESG considerations 5% 34%
6% 18%
Referral by other investors Exit potential
13%
4% 34%
12% 0 10 13% 20 30 40 50 60 70
Past performance
Referral by other investors
5%
4% % of respondents
Strategic fit in investment portfolio 10%
10% 12%
Past performance
NOTE: ESG considerations 5% 5%
6%
Strategic fit in investment portfolio 10%
Angel data are based on the EIF BA Survey, a 0 10 20 30 10%
40 50 60 70 80 90
survey of 60 angel investors or 65% of the 5% % of respondents
ESG considerations
‘European Angels Fund’ programme 6%
NOTE: SOURCE:
population at the time the survey was
Angel data are 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
conducted. VCbased
dataonisthe EIF BAon
based Survey, a
the EIF VC NUMBER OF INVESTMENTS
survey of 60 angel investors or 65% of the % of respondents
Survey 2019.
Angel investors spend a signi cant
‘European Angels Fund’ programme
S O U Ramount
CE: of time
3
population at the time the survey was
supporting
NOTE: founders every month. They spend most of
conducted. VC data is based on the EIF VC
Survey 2019.
their
Angeltime
data aregiving
based on the general advice,
EIF BA Survey,
survey of 60 angel investors or 65% of the
a followed closely by
operational
‘European Angelscontributions.
Fund’ programme
population at the time the survey was SOURCE: is the median
NUMBER number of investments made by angel inve
OF INVESTMENTS
Angel investors spend a signi cant amount of time
conducted. VC data is based on the EIF VC
Survey 2019. past 12 months.
3
supporting founders every month.
Angel investors spend a significant amount of time supporting They spend most of NUMBER OF INVESTMENTS
NUMBER OF INVESTMENTS
their
Angeltime giving
investors general
spend a signi advice, followed
cant amount of time closely by
founders every month. They spend most ofmonth.
theirThey
time giving general
33
supporting
operational founders every
contributions. spend most of
Angels' median time spent per
advice, followed closely bytime
their operational contributions.
giving general
month on their portfolio
advice, followed closely by
10
10h is theismedian
the median number
number of investments
of investments mademade
by by angel inve
operational contributions.
is the median angel investors
past
number over
12 months.
of investments thebypast
made angel12 months.
investors over the
past 12 months.
8h
hours spent per monthhours spent per month
8
Angels' median
Angels' median time
time spentspent
per per 10h
month ontheir
month on their portfolio
portfolio 10
10h
10
5h 5h
5
8h
8h
hours spent per month
8
8
3 5h 5h
5
4h
5h 5h
5
3
0
Advice Board activities Support with introductions Operational contributions
3
0
Advice Board activities Support with introductions Operational contributions Financial intermediation
NOTE:
Based on EBAN survey respondents SOURCE:
NOTE:
including 90 different angels across Europe 0
SOURCE:
in Based
2019.on EBAN survey respondents Advice Board activities Support with introductions Operational contributions
including 90 different angels across Europe
in 2019.
NOTE:
Based on EBAN survey respondents SOURCE:
including 90 different angels across Europe
in 2019.
04.3 Angels
Still, on average angel investors are likely to say they participate in board activities and leverage their network
with introductions more than on operational contributions.
Still, on average angel investors are likely to say they participate in board
activities and leverageHow
their
arenetwork with involved
angels typically introductions more than on
Advice
operational contributions.
Still,
withon averagethey
companies angel
investinvestors
in? are likely to say they participate in board activities and leverage their network
with
Still, introductions more than
on average angel investors on operational
are likely contributions.
to say they participate in board activities and leverage their network
with introductions more than on operational contributions. Board activities 78%
How are angels typically involved Advice

How are angels typically involved
with companies
with companies theythey
investinvest
in? in? Advice
Support with introductions 92%
73%
Board activities 78%

Board activities 78%
Operational contributions 59%

Financial intermediation 59%
Operational contributions 59%
Operational contributions 0 10 20 30 40 50 6059% 70 80

Financial intermediation 59% % of respondents / median time spent (hours/month)
Regarding speci c 'hot topic' sectors, angel investors are most excited about arti cial intelligence, e-
commerce and digital health, but a numberFinancial
of0angel 10
investors
intermediation
20
are
30
also 40
actively
50
investing
60 70
% of respondents / median time spent (hours/month)
in 80sustainability
90
59% and
100
cleantech.
NOTE: SOURCE:
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Based
NOTE:
on EBAN survey respondents
including 90 angels across Europe in 2019. SOURCE: % of respondents / median time spent (hours/month)
Based on EBAN survey respondents
Share
includingof VC and
90 angels acrossangel
Europe in investors
2019.
Artificial intelligence/machine learning
(%) with portfolio companies in
selected
NOTE: sectors
SOURCE:
Regarding specific ‘hotLEGEND
topic’
Based sectors,
on EBAN angel investors are most excited about
survey respondents
including 90 angels across Europe in 2019.
E-commerce
55%
artificial intelligence,Regarding
e-commerce
% of angels speci and digital
c 'hot health,
topic' but angel
sectors, a number of angel
investors are most excited about arti cial intelligence, e- 52%
investors are also actively % ofinvesting
commerce VCs in sustainability
and digital health, butand cleantech.
a number of angel investors are also actively investing in sustainability and
Digital health
Regarding speci c 'hot topic' sectors, angel investors are most excited about arti cial intelligence, e- 58%
cleantech.
commerce and digital health, but a number of angel investors are also actively investing in sustainability and
47%
cleantech. Fintech
56%
Share of VC and angel investors
Share of VC and angel investors 68%
Artificial intelligence/machine learning 38%
(%)
(%)with portfolio
with portfolio companies
companies in in Artificial intelligence/machine learning
Deep tech 76%
selected sectors
selected sectors 56%
68%
E-commerce
LEGEND E-commerce 55% 30%
LEGEND Energy efficiency/renewable energy 55%
% of angels
52% 36%
%%of
of angels
VCs Digital health
58% 52%
% of VCs Digital health 23%
Cybersecurity 47% 58%
Fintech
56% 35%
47%
Fintech 38% 18%
Deep tech
Social economy 56%
56%
23%
30% 38%
Energy efficiency/renewable energy Deep tech 17%
36%
Agriculture/bio-economy 56%
23% 31%
Cybersecurity 30%
35%
Energy efficiency/renewable energy 17%
Blockchain technology 36%
18%
Social economy 23%
23%
23%
Cybersecurity 7%
17%
Dual use (civi/defense) technologies
Agriculture/bio-economy 35%
31% 14%
18%
17%
Blockchain technology Social economy 5%
Blue economy/sustainable use of maritime resources 23% 23%
9%
7%
Dual use (civi/defense) technologies 17%
Agriculture/bio-economy
14%
0%
Space 31%
5%
Blue economy/sustainable use of maritime resources
10%
9% 17%
Blockchain technology 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
0% 23%
Space % of respondents
10%
NOTE: 7%
Dual use (civi/defense)
0 10 technologies
20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Angel data are based on the EIF BA Survey, a 14%

% of respondents
survey
NOTE:
of 60 angel investors or 65% of the
‘European Angels Fund’ programme 5%
Angel data are based on the EIF BA Survey, a
population at the time the survey was SOURCE:
Blue economy/sustainable use of maritime resources
conducted. Source
‘European Angels Fund’for VC data: Botsari, A.,
programme 9%
Crisanti, A.,atand
population Lang,
the time the F. (2019).
survey was SOURCE:
conducted. Source for VC data: Botsari, A.,
Crisanti, A., and Lang, F. (2019). 0%
Space
10%
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
% of respondents
NOTE:
Angel data are based on the EIF BA Survey, a

‘European Angels Fund’ programme
population at the time the survey was SOURCE:
conducted. Source for VC data: Botsari, A.,
Crisanti, A., and Lang, F. (2019).

04.3 Angels
Angels tell us the lack of favourable tax systems is a barrier to investing.

Over 30% of respondents picked this element as the most important
consideration out of Angels
17 options
tell available.
us the lackThe EIS/SEIS scheme
of favourable introduced
tax systems is a barrier to investing. Over 30% of respondents picked this
in the United Kingdom has been
element an incredibly
as the effective
most important tool to attract
consideration angel
out of 17 options available. The EIS/SEIS scheme introduced in
investments into thethe United Kingdom has been an incredibly effective tool to attract angel investments into the country.
country.
Angels tell us the lack of favourable tax systems is a Favourable barriertaxto investing. Over 30% of respondents picked this
systems
Top 10 most
element underdeveloped
as the most important consideration out of 17 options available. The EIS/SEIS scheme introduced in
elements
Angels forthe
tell us angel
lackinvesting
of favourable tax systems is a barrier toVC
investing. Over rounds
funds for follow-on 30% of respondents picked this
the United Kingdom has been an incredibly effective tool to attract angel investments into the country.
element as the most important consideration out of 17 options available. The EIS/SEIS scheme introduced in
Vibrant start-up hubs
the United Kingdom has been an incredibly effective tool to attract angel investments into the country.
LEGEND
Capital market integration across borders
Most important Favourable tax systems
Top 10 most underdeveloped
Favourable tax systems
Top 10 most
Second
elements underdeveloped
most
forimportant
angel investing Regulatory framework
VC funds for follow-on rounds
elements for angel investing VC funds for follow-on rounds
Third most important General economic conditions
Vibrant start-up hubsVibrant start-up hubs
LEGEND
LEGEND
Capital market integration Involvement
across borders of corporate investors
Most important Capital market integration across borders
Most important
Second most important Regulatory framework
Highly experienced VC funds
Second most important Regulatory framework
Third most important General economic conditions
Third most important Cultural attitude towards entrepreneurship
General economic conditions
Involvement of corporate investors
R&D environment
Involvement
Highly experienced VC funds of corporate investors
Cultural attitude towards entrepreneurship 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 4

Highly experienced VC funds
R&D environment % of respondents who ranked these different considerations in t
Cultural attitude towards entrepreneurship
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
NOTE: R&D environment
% of respondents who ranked these different considerations in top 3
Based
NOTE:
on the EIF BA Survey, a survey of 60
angel investors or 65% of the ‘European SOURCE: 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 4
Based on
Angels the EIF
Fund’ BA Survey, a survey
programme of 60 at the
population % of respondents who ranked these different considerations in t
angel investors or 65% of the ‘European SOURCE:
time the
Angels survey
Fund’ was conducted.
programme population at the
time the survey was conducted.
NOTE:
Based on the EIF BA Survey, a survey of 60

angel investors or 65% of the ‘European SOURCE:
Angels Fund’ programme population at the
time the survey was conducted.

Diversity & Inclusion
Does European tech still lack diversity and inclusion?

Despite increased awareness a lack of diversity, the problem remains
entrenched. There is only one woman CTO among a sample of VC-
backed tech companies. Nearly a quarter of people in the ecosystem
say they’ve experienced discrimination on factors from ethnicity to
age. Some initiatives - such as more organisations serving talent
from underrepresented backgrounds - give hope, but change will
require a concerted effort from everyone in the ecosystem.

State of D&I in European Tech
Our survey polled over 1,200 European tech founders and asked them to self-identify based on a number of
characteristics, including gender, ethnicity, education and their nancial status prior to founding their
Our survey polled overcompany.
1,200 European
We alsotech askedfounders and asked
these founders tothem
shareto self- they had raised external funding or whether they had
whether
identify based on a number of characteristics,
bootstrapped including
their companies. Whilegender, ethnicity,
this data set has limitations, it provides an interesting insight into who
education and their financial
Europe'sstatus
founderspriorare
to and
founding
who'stheir
raisedcompany.
funding.We Basedalsoon asked
this data, 21% of all founders who responded are
Ourwhether
these founders to share
women,survey polled
theythey
though over
had 1,200up
raised
make European
external
only 15% tech
funding founders
or whether
of founder andthey
respondents askedwho them to self-identify
have raised external based on a number of
capital.
characteristics, including gender, ethnicity,
had bootstrapped their companies. While this data set has limitations, it provides education and their nancial status prior to founding their
company.
Our survey Weover
polled also1,200
asked these
European founders
tech founders to share
and asked whether
them to they had
self-identify raised
based on a external
number of funding or whether they had
an interesting insight into who Europe’s
Share of founder
founders are and who’s raised funding.
respondents
bootstrapped
characteristics, their
including companies.
gender, ethnicity,While thisand
education data setnancial
their has limitations,
status prior toitfounding
providestheiran interesting insight into who
Based on this data, 21% of
(%)
company.all
who founders
have raised
Wefounders who responded
external
also asked are
these founders are women,
to raised
share whether though
Women
they they
had raised
Europe's and who's funding. Based onexternal funding
this data, 21%or whether they had who responded are
of all founders
make up only 15% of founder
fundingrespondents
bootstrapped
women,
bytheir
self-identi
though they who
ed
companies.
make have
gender
While
up
thisraised
data setexternal
only 15% of foundercapital.
has limitations, it provides an interesting insight into who
respondents who have raised external capital.
Europe's founders are and who's raised funding. Based on this data, 21% of all founders who responded are Men
women, though they make up only 15% of founder respondents who have raised external capital.
LEGEND
All founders
Share of founder respondents Women
ShareAlready
of founder respondents Non-Binary
(%) who raised
haveexternal
raisedcapital
(%) who have raised external
external Women
funding
funding by self-identi
Bootstrapped to date
by self-identi ed gender
ed gender
Men Men
Other
LEGEND
LEGEND
All founders
All founders Non-Binary
Already raised external capital
Non-Binary
Prefer not to say
Already raised
Bootstrapped to date external capital
Bootstrapped to date Other

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0
Other % of respondents
Prefer not to say
NOTE:
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0
Share of founders who reported having Prefer not to say
% of respondents
already raised external capital (of any
amount) versus reporting having
NOTE:
bootstrapped
Share their
of founders who companies.
reported having Excludes 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0
founders
already raised who responded
external 'Other'. Founder
capital (of any SOURCE: The State Of European Tech Survey
% of respondents
amount) versus reporting
respondents only. having
Numbers may not add to
bootstrapped their companies. Excludes
100
NOTE:
founders
due to rounding.
who responded 'Other'. Founder SO U R C E : The State Of European Tech Survey
respondents only. Numbers may not add to
Share
100 due to of founders who reported having
rounding.
If amount)
we look versus reporting having
bootstrapped at
theirthe composition
companies. Excludes of the founder respondents based on self-reported ethnicity, we found that 84%
ofrespondents
all founders
founders identi
who responded ed as
'Other'. Founder
only. Numbers may not add to
White/Caucasian. Only 0.9% of all founder respondents self-identi ed as
Black/African/Caribbean,
100 due to rounding. and those respondents made up only 0.5% of all founders who have raised external
If we look at the composition
capital.of the founder respondents based on self-reported
If we
ethnicity, we found that 84% look atfounders
of all the composition identified ofas
the founder respondents
White/Caucasian. Only 0.9% based on self-reported ethnicity, we found that 84%
of all self-identified
of all founder respondents founders identi as ed as White/Caucasian. Only
Black/African/Caribbean, and 0.9%
those of all founder respondents self-identi ed as
Share of founder respondents Asian
respondents made upIfBlack/African/Caribbean,
only 0.5% of all founders
and
who those
have respondents
raised
we look at the composition of the founder respondents based
external made
capital. up only 0.5% of all founders who have raised external
on self-reported ethnicity, we found that 84%
capital.
funding by self-identi ed Black/African/Caribbean
of all founders identi ed as White/Caucasian. Only 0.9% of all founder respondents self-identi ed as
ethnicity
Black/African/Caribbean, and those respondents made up only Caucasian/White
0.5% of all founders who have raised external
capital.
Share
LEGEND of founder respondents Asian
Hispanic/Latinx
All founders Asian Black/African/Caribbean
Share of founder
funding respondents ed
by self-identi Middle Eastern/North African
(%) who haveraised
Already raised external
external capital
ethnicity
funding by self-identi ed Black/African/Caribbean
Caucasian/White
Bootstrapped to date Mixed
ethnicity
Caucasian/White
LEGEND Hispanic/Latinx
LEGEND Hispanic/Latinx Other
All founders
All founders
Middle Eastern/North African
Already
Already raisedraised
externalexternal
capital capital Prefer not to say
Bootstrapped to date to date
Bootstrapped Mixed
Mixed
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0
Other
Prefer not to say
NOTE:
0.0 Prefer
10.0 not to say
20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0
Share of founders who reported having
already raised external capital (of any % of respondents
amount) versus reporting having 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0
NOTE:
bootstrapped their companies. Excludes % of respondents
founders who responded 'Other'. Founder SOURCE: The State Of European Tech Survey
respondents
NOTE:
amount) only. having
versus reporting Numbers may not add to
100 due totheir
bootstrapped rounding.
companies. Excludes
Sharewho
founders of founders who reported
responded 'Other'. Founder having SO U R C E : The State Of European Tech Survey
respondents only. Numbers
already raised externalmaycapital
not add to
(of any

If
If we
we look
look atat the
the highest
highest educational
educational attainment
attainment of of the
the founder
founder respondents
respondents to to the
the survey,
survey, 82.3%
82.3% ofof all
all founders
founders
05.1 reported
reported
State of D&I in European Techhaving
a university
having education (bachelor's degree or higher), compared
a university education (bachelor's degree or higher), compared to just 35% of the EU-28 to just 35% of the EU-28
population
population aged aged 25-54
25-54 whowho have
have attained
attained tertiary
tertiary education
education or or higher,
higher, according
according to to Eurostat.
Eurostat. Examining
Examining thethe
share
share of of founders
founders who who have
have raised
raised external
external capital
capital or or are
are bootstrapped,
bootstrapped, there there are
are observed
observed differences
differences
If we look at the highest educational
between
between founders attainment
who
who have of
a the founder
a university respondents
education or
or not. to the survey, 82.3%
If we lookfounders
at the highest have university
educational education
attainment of the not.
founder respondents to the survey, 82.3% of all founders
of all founders reported having a university education (bachelor’s degree or higher), compared to just
reported having a university education (bachelor's degree or higher), compared to just 35% of the EU-28
35% of the EU-28 population
population aged 25-54
aged 25-54who have
who have attained
attained tertiary
tertiary education ororhigher, according to
IfShare
Share of
of founder
we look at the
founder respondents
highest educational
respondents attainment of the foundereducation higher,
respondents to the survey,according to Eurostat. Examining the
82.3% of all founders
Eurostat. Examiningshare
the
(%) share
who
reported
(%) who
of
have
of having founders
raised
founders who
a university
have raised
who
external
have have
raised
education
external
raised
external
(bachelor's external
capital
degree capital
or are
or higher), or are bootstrapped,
bootstrapped,
compared there
to just 35% of there
are
the EU-28 observed differences
are observed differences
between between
funding
population
funding by
byfoundersfounders
education
aged 25-54
education who who
who have
have ahave
attained a university
tertiary
university education
educationeducation
or higher,
or or not.to Eurostat. Examining the
according
not.
University educated
background
share University educated
of founders who have raised external capital or are bootstrapped, there are observed differences
background
between founders who have a university education or not.
LEGEND
Share of founder respondents
LEGEND
(%)Allwho
Share founders
have raised
of founder external
respondents
All founders 82.3%
funding
Already
Alreadybyby education
raised
raised
external capital
external capital 17.7%
funding education University educated 17.7%
background
background
University educated 85.9%
No university education 14.1%
LEGEND
No university education 14.1% 79.7%
LEGEND
All founders
All founders 20.3%
Already raised external capital 17.7% 20.3%
Already raised
Bootstrapped external capital
to date 17.7%
Bootstrapped to date No university education 0.0
14.1% 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0
% of respondents
No university education 14.1% % of respondents
20.3%
NOTE:
NOTE:
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 20.3%
50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0
Share of founders who reported having % of respondents
amount)
NOTE: versus reporting having
amount) versus reporting having 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0
bootstrapped
Share of founderstheir companies.
who reported havingExcludes SOURCE: The State Of European Tech Survey
founders whoexternal
already raised responded 'Other'.
capital (of any Founder SOURCE: The State Of European Tech Survey % of respondents
founders who responded 'Other'. Founder
respondents
amount) versusonly. Numbers
reporting having may not add to
respondents
bootstrapped only.
their Numbers
companies. may not add to
Excludes
100
NOTE:due to rounding. S O U R C E : The State Of European Tech Survey
100 due to
founders rounding.
who responded 'Other'. Founder
Share oftofounders
100 due rounding. who reported having
We’re beginning to see the industry pay attention to other intersections beyond
gender, such as race, class, ability and more. This intersectional approach
supports and celebrates individuals who have multiple identities, such as black
women. Over the past couple of months, there have been a number of initiatives
supporting these underrepresented groups, such as EITFood Change Makers
Programme; a two-day hackathon for women and people of colour in the
agricultural sector and Included VC; a 12-month venture capital fellowship group Deborah Okenla
for marginalised communities, such as veterans and refugees. YSYS
Founder & CEO
The survey asked founders to share details of their nancial situation immediately prior to starting their
company to provide an insight into the nancial background of European tech founders. According to the
responses shared, 80% of all founders stated they lived comfortably or at levels that left disposable income
once basic
The survey asked founders expenses
to share detailswere met.financial
of their This compares to 39%
situation of the EU-28
immediately priorpopulation
to startingthat live easily, fairly easily or
very
their company to provide easily, according
an insight
The survey into
asked to Eurostat.
the financial
founders Again,
background
to share looking
details of of at any
European
their variance
nancialtech between
founders.
situation the shareprior
immediately of founders based
to starting on
their
whether
company they have
to provide raised external funding or not, there is also an observable difference between founders
According to the responses shared, 80%an ofinsight into the
all founders nancial
stated theybackground of European
lived comfortably tech that
or at levels founders. According to the
based on their
responses self-reported
shared, 80% of allprior
foundersnancial situation.
stated they lived comfortably or at levels that left disposable income
left disposable income once basic expenses were met. This compares to 39% of the EU-28 population
once
that live easily, fairly easily basic
or very
The survey expenses
askedeasily,
founders were
accordingmet.
to share This
to
details compares
Eurostat.
of their to
Again,
nancial 39% of
looking
situation theatEU-28
anyprior
immediately population
variance that live easily, fairly easily or
to starting their
company to provide an insight into the nancial background ofat
European tech founders. According to the of founders based on
between the share ofvery easily,
founders
Share according
based
of founder on to Eurostat.
whether
respondents they Again,
have looking
raised any variance
external funding between
or not,
Lived comfortably
the is
there
responses shared, 80% of all founders stated they lived comfortably or at levels that left disposable income
share
also
an observable difference whether theyraised
(%) who have
once between
have raisedbased
external
founders
basic expenses were met.
externalon funding
their
This compares
or not, thereprior
to self-reported
is also
39% of the EU-28 population
an
financial observable
that livesituation.
difference between founders
easily, fairly easily or
based on their self-reported
funding by prior nancial status
very easily, according priorlooking
to Eurostat. Again, nancial
at anysituation.
variance
Met basic between
expenses theover
with some left share of founders based on
for extras
before starting
whether they have company
raised external funding or not, there is also an observable difference between founders
based on their self-reported prior nancial situation.
Just met basic expenses
LEGEND Lived comfortably
(%)Allwho have
founders raised
external
Lived comfortably
funding
(%) by
who have
Already prior
raised
raised nancial
capital status
external
external Struggled to meet basic expenses
Met basic expenses with some left over for extras
before
funding starting company
by prior nancial
status
Met basic expenses with some left over for extras
before starting company
Didn't have enough to meet basic expenses
LEGEND Just met basic expenses
Just met basic expenses
LEGEND
All founders
All founders
Already raised external capital Struggled to meet basic expenses Rather not say
Already raised external capital Struggled to meet basic expenses
Bootstrapped to date 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0
Didn't have enough to meet basic expenses
Didn't have enough to meet basic expenses % of respondents
Rather not say
NOTE:
Share of founders who reported having 0.0 Rather
10.0 not say 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0
already raised external capital (of any % of respondents
amount)
NOTE:
versus reporting having 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0
Share of founders
founders who reported'Other'.
who responded having Founder SOURCE: The State Of European Tech Survey % of respondents
respondents
amount) versusonly. Numbers
reporting having may not add to
NOTE:
founders who responded 'Other'. Founder S O U R C E : The State Of European Tech Survey
Share of founders
respondents who may
only. Numbers reported
not addhaving
to
already raised
100 due to external capital (of any
rounding.
respondents only. Numbers may not add to 89 In Partnership with &
05.1 State of D&I in European Tech
D&I and investment data: the limitations

If you have access to, or suggestions for, data sets which would
help us tell this story, please email research@atomico.com.
Funding for all women teams is actually going down. There CAPITALTEAM
CAPITAL R AISED BY FOUNDING RAISED BY FOUNDING TEAM GENDER
GENDER
is no
Funding for allmaterial
women teams improvement
is actually ingoing
the share
down.ofThere
capital invested
in$92 in every $100

CAPITAL R AISED BY FOUNDING TEAM GENDER
$92$92 every $100

is no material
Funding improvement
in Europeanfor alltech
women in the
companies share
teams of capital
isgoing invested
to diverse
actually going founding
down. There
in every $100
in European
is tech
teams. companies
In fact,
no material going to diverse
the share ofincapital
improvement founding
invested
the share in companies
of capital invested
teams. Ininfact,
founded theby
European share
techofcompanies
women capital
decreasedinvested
going in companies
to
in 2019diverse
versusfounding
2018. This invested in Europe went to founding teams that were all men
founded teams.
by women In decreased
fact, the sharein 2019
of versus
capital
means that in 2019, $92 in every $100 invested 2018.
invested This
in companies
in Europe invested in Europe went to founding teams that were all men
means that in 2019, $92 in every $100 invested in Europe invested in Europe went to founding teams that were all men
founded by women decreased
went to founding teams that were all men. in 2019 versus 2018. This
went to founding
means that teams that$92
in 2019, were inall men.
every $100 invested in Europe
went to founding teams that were all men.
Share of capital raised and deals DATAS E T : CA P I TA L R A I S E D
(%) by founding team gender CAPITAL RAISED
Share of capital raised and deals DATASET: CAPITAL R AISED
composition
(%) by founding team gender
composition
L E G END 100.0
Men 90.4% 91.7% 91.6%
LEGE ND 89.0%100.0 89.1%
Mixed 91.7% 91.6%
Men 89.0% 89.1% 90.4%
Women
Mixed 75.0
% of capital raised / deals
Women
75.0
Funding for all women teams is actually going down. There
$92 in every $100

is no material improvement in the share 50.0 of capital invested
Funding in
forEuropean
all womentech teams is actually
companies going
going to down. There
diverse founding
$92 in every $100

is no material
teams. improvement in theof
In fact, the share share of capital
capital invested invested
50.0
in companies
in European tech by
companies going to diverse founding invested in Europe went to founding teams that were all men
founded women decreased in 201925.0versus 2018. This
teams. Inmeans
fact, the
thatshare of capital
in 2019, $92 in invested
every $100in invested
companies in Europe invested in Europe went to founding teams that were all men
founded went
by women decreased
to founding teams in that
2019were
versus
all2018.
men.This9.5%
25.0
8.4% 7.0% 6.8% 8.0%
means that in 2019, $92 in every $100 invested in Europe 1.5%
9.5%
2.5% 2.6% 1.4% 0.4%
0.0 8.4% 7.0% 6.8% 8.0%
went to founding teams that were all men. 2015
1.5%
2016 2.5% 2017 2.6% 2018 1.4%
2019
0.4%
Share of capital raised and deals DATASET:
0.0 CAPITAL R AISED
NOTE: 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
(%) by founding team gender
Share composition
of capital
NOTE: raised and deals
DATAS E T : D E A L S
(%) bycapital,
lending founding team
Pleasegender S ODEALS
U R C E : Dealroom
Allgrants.
Dealroom.co also note
data the the following:
excludes
data excludes biotech,
composition Israel.ND
LEGE 2019 annualised
secondary based
transactions, debt, 100.0Dealroom
SOURCE:
on data to September 2019. grants. Please also note the
lending capital,
Men 90.4% 91.7% 91.6%
data excludes Israel. 2019 annualised based 89.0% 89.1%
L E G END on data to September 2019.
Mixed
Men 85.4% 86.7% 86.2% 85.5% 86.9%
Women
75.0
Mixed
Women 75.0
50.0
50.0
25.0
25.0 9.5% 8.4% 7.0% 6.8% 8.0%

1.5% 2.5% 2.6% 1.4% 0.4%
10.8%
0.0 9.9% 9.9% 10.6% 11.0%
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
3.9% 3.3% 4.0% 3.9%
2.1%
NOTE: 0.0
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
NOTE: biotech, secondary transactions, debt,
data excludes
Israel. 2019 annualised based
biotech, secondary
on datatransactions,
to Septemberdebt,
2019.

The gender diversity of founding teams varies according to the size of the round. There is a greater level of
diversity at round sizes of less than $10M, though it is notable that there has not been any material change in
The gender diversityThe ofthefounding
trends overteams
gender varies
recent years.
diversity
It's according tovaries
also notable that
of founding teams the
largersize of are
rounds thetypically
round. There
raised is a greater
by founding teams that are
all men, and so the more these large rounds are raised, theaccording to theimpact
greater the dilutive size ofonthe round.
the overall There
share of is a greater level of
level of diversity at round sizes
diversity of less
at round
capital raised than
by moresizes
gender$10M,
ofdiverse though
less than it is notable that there has not been any
teams.$10M, though it is notable that there has not been any material change in
material change in the
thetrends
trendsover overrecent
recentyears.
years.It’s
It's also notable
notable thatthatlarger
largerrounds
roundsare
aretypically
typicallyraised by founding teams that are
raised by founding teams that
all men,
Share ofandare
deals soall
(%) the
by men,
more
round and
size, so the
these more
large
DATAS T : < $these
Erounds 10M large
are rounds
raised, are raised,
the greater the greater
the dilutive impact on the overall share of
year and founding team gender
capital
the dilutive impact on the raised
overall
composition
by
share more
of gender
capital diverse
raised by teams.
more gender diverse teams.
LEGEND
<$10M
Share
Men of deals (%) by round size, DATASET:
86% <$10M 86% 85% 84% 85%
yearWomen
and founding team gender 75
Mixed
composition
% of deals
LEGEND
The gender diversity of founding teams varies50 according to the size of the round. There is a greater level of
86%
diversity
Men at round sizes of less than $10M, though it is notable86%
that there has not been any material change in 85% 84%
theWomen
trends over recent years. It's also notable that larger rounds are typically raised by founding teams that are
all Mixed
men, and so the more these large rounds 25 are raised, 75
the greater the dilutive impact on the overall share of
capital raised by more gender diverse teams.
12% 13%
10% 10% 10%
4% 4% 4% 5% 3%
% of deals
Share of deals (%) by round size, DATAS0E T : $ 1 0 M - $ 2 0 M
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
year and founding team gender 50
composition
NOTE:

biotech,
$10M-$20M
LEGENDsecondary transactions, debt, S O U R C E : Dealroom
Men 94%
92%
on data to September 2019. 25 90%
Women 84%
82%
Mixed
75 10% 10% 10% 12%
4% 4% 4% 5%
% of deals
The gender diversity of founding teams varies according0 to the size2015 of the round. There is a2016
greater level of 2017 2018
50
the
NOTE:trends over recent years. It's also notable that larger rounds are typically raised by founding teams that are
all men, and so
All Dealroom.co the
data morethe
excludes these large rounds are raised, the greater the dilutive impact on the overall share of
following: 25
capital raised bytransactions,
biotech, secondary more gender debt,diverse teams.
15% SOURCE: Dealroom 13%
8%
data excludes Israel. 2019 annualised based 4% 4%
7% 6%
2% 2%
on data to September 2019. DATAS E0T : $ 2 0 M - $ 5 0 M
0%
Share of deals (%) by round size,
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
composition
NOTE:
All Dealroom.co data excludes the following: $20M-$50M

LEGEND
lending capital, grants. Please also note the S O U R100
C E : Dealroom
Men 92% 91% 91%
89%
Women 82%
Mixed
75
% of deals
The gender diversity of founding teams varies according to the size of the round. There is a greater level of
The gender diversity of founding teams 50
varies according to the size of the round. There is a greater level of
diversity
the trendsatover
round sizes
recent ofIt'sless
years. alsothan $10M,
notable though
that larger rounds it is
arenotable that there
typically raised has teams
by founding not been any material change in
that are
thealltrends
men, andover
so therecent years.
more these largeIt's also25are
rounds notable that
raised, the larger
greater therounds are typically
dilutive impact raised
on the overall shareby
of founding teams that are
allcapital
men,raised
and so by more genderthese
the more diverselarge
teams.rounds are raised, the greater the dilutive
11%
15% impact on 9% the overall share of
9%
capital raised by more gender diverse teams. 0%
5% 4% 3%
0% 0%
Share of deals (%) by round size, DATAS0E T : $ 5 0 M - $ 1 0 0 M
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
composition
NOTE:
Share of deals (%) by round size, DATASET: <$10M
$50M-$100M
year and
LEGEND
lending founding
capital, grants. Pleaseteam
also notegender
the S O U R C E : Dealroom
100
composition
dataMen
on data to September 2019. 89% 90%
94%
90%
Women
Mixed 75%
LEGEND 75
86%
86%size of the round. There
TheMengender diversity of founding teams varies according to the is a greater level of 85% 84%
% of deals
diversity
Women at round sizes of less than $10M, though it is notable that there has not been any material change in
50
theMixed
trends over recent years. It's also notable that larger
75rounds are typically raised by founding teams that are
all men, and so the more these large rounds are raised, the greater the dilutive impact on the overall share of
capital raised by more gender diverse teams. 25%
25
% of deals
11% 10% 10%

DATAS E T : $ 1 0 0 M +
50
Share of deals (%) by round size, 6%
0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
year and founding team gender 0
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
composition
NOTE:
LEGEND
All Dealroom.co data excludes the following: $100M+ 25
biotech,
Men secondary transactions, debt, 100% 100%
lending capital, grants. Please also note the S O U R100
C E : Dealroom 95%
92% 93%
Women
10% 10% 10% 12%
Mixed
4% 4% 4% 5%
75
0
2015 2016 2017 2018
% of deals
NOTE: 50

lending capital, grants. Please also note the 25 SOURCE: Dealroom
on data to September 2019. 8% 7%
5%
0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
0
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
NOTE:
on data to September 2019. 91 In Partnership with &
The share of rounds raised by more gender diverse founding teams varies
by country across Europe. Looking at the total distribution of deals raised
by founding teams since 2015, it is noteworthy that countries from Southern
The shareTheof rounds raised byraised
morebygender diversediverse
founding teamsteams
variesvaries
by country across Europe. Looking at
Europe,
sharesuch as Portugal or
of rounds Italy,
morehave seen greater
gender diversity
founding in the number by country across Europe. Looking at
the total distribution
The
the share of of deals
rounds
total distribution raised
raised by
by
of deals founding
more gender teams since
diverse
raised by founding 2015,
founding it is
teams noteworthy
varies by that
countrycountries
across from
Europe. Looking at
of rounds raised by teams composed of womenteams since 2015, itfounders
or mixed-gender is noteworthy that countries from
the
Southern Europe,total
Southern distribution
such as
Europe, of deals
Portugal
such as or raised
Italy, by
have
Portugal such founding
seen
or Italy, teams
greater since 2015,
diversity it
in is
thenoteworthy
number ofthat countries
rounds raisedfrom
by teams
compared with Nordic countries, as have seen
Finland orgreater
Denmark. diversity in the number of rounds raised by teams
composedSouthern
of women
composed Europe,
oforwomensuch
oras Portugal
mixed-gender or Italy,
founders
mixed-gender have
compared
founders seen greater
with
compared diversity
Nordic
with in
countries,
Nordic the number asofFinland
suchsuch
countries, rounds
as raised
or
Finland by teams
Denmark.
or Denmark.
composed of women or mixed-gender founders compared with Nordic countries, such as Finland or Denmark.
Share of deals (%)of

Share bydeals
founding
(%) by founding Czech Republic
Czech Republic
team genderShare
team of dealscomposition
gender
composition (%)
andby founding
and Czech Republic
team gender
country, composition and
2015-2019
country, 2015-2019 Italy
country, 2015-2019 Italy
Italy
LEGE ND
LEGEND
LEGE ND Portugal
Men Portugal
Men Men
Portugal
Mixed
Mixed Mixed Spain
Women Spain
Women Spain
Women
United Kingdom
United Kingdom
United Kingdom
Germany
Germany Germany
Sweden
Sweden
Sweden
Russia
Russia
Russia
Switzerland
Switzerland
Switzerland
Ireland
Ireland
Ireland
Finland
Finland
Finland
France
France
France
Belgium
Belgium
Belgium Denmark
Denmark
DenmarkNetherlands
Netherlands
Netherlands Poland
Poland
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Poland 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
% of deals 70 80 90 100 110
% of deals
NOTE:
NOTE: 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
% of deals
biotech,
All secondary
Dealroom.co datatransactions,
excludes thedebt,
following:
lending capital,
biotech, secondarygrants. Please also
transactions, note the
debt, SOURCE: Dealroom
NOTE: data excludes
lending capital,Israel. 2019
grants. based
Please on note
also data the
to SOURCE: Dealroom
September
data excludes2019.
September 2019.the following:
September 2019.
What kind of progress do I think the European tech

community has made towards increasing diversity
and inclusion in the past 12 months? The slow kind.
Steve O'Hear
TechCrunch
Journalist

team gender composition and
country
LEGEND 100
Men 86% 86%
85% 85%
Women
It's particularly notable that, when looking at the evolution of the share of75 deals by the gender
Mixed
composition of founding teams over time in different European countries, there's been minimal
movement in recent years in almost all countries.
% of deals
It's particularly notable that, when looking at the evolution of the share of deals 50 by the gender composition of
founding teams over time in different European countries,
It's particularly notable there's
that, when been
looking at minimal
the evolution of themovement
share of deals byin recent
the years inof
gender composition
founding teams over time in different European countries, there's been minimal movement in recent years in
almost all countries. almost all countries.
UNITED KINGDOM
25
Share of deals (%) by founding DATAS E T : U N I T E D K I N G DO M
Share of deals (%) by founding DATASET: UNITED KINGDOM
team gender composition and 10% 9% 10%
team gender composition and country
5% 5% 5% 6%
country LEGEND 100
0
Men 86%
2015 86%
2016 89% 2017 20
85% 85%
Women 100
LEGE ND NOTE: Mixed 75
Men 89%
All Dealroom.co data excludes85%the following: 86% 86% 85%
Women biotech, secondary transactions, debt,
% of deals
SOURCE: Dealroom
Mixed data excludes Israel. 75
September 2019.
25
% of deals
10% 9% 10% 10% 9%

5% 6%
50 5% 5%
2%
0
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
NOTE:
that, when looking at the evolution of the share of deals by the gender composition
It'sAllparticularly
of data excludes
Dealroom.co notable that, when looking at the evolution of the share of deals by the gender composition of
the following:
me in different European countries, there's been minimal movement in recentfounding
years
lending inteams
25
capital, overalso
grants. Please time in different European
note the countries, there's been minimal movement in recent years in
almost all
data excludes countries.
September 2019.
BELGIUM DENMARK
10% 9% 10% 10% 9%
ing DATASET: BELGIUM Share of deals (%) by founding DATAS E T : D E N M A R K 6%
5% 5% 5%
and team gender composition and 2%
country 0
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
LEGEND
100
NOTE: 93% Men 100
94%
97%
88% 93%
86% 87% 89% 89%
Women 85%
Mixed
biotech,
lending capital, grants. Please also note the SOURCE: Dealroom 75

% of deals
% of deals
September 2019.
50 50
25 25
14% 15%
11%
7% 9% 7%
5% 5% 4% 6% 4%
2% 3% 2% 2% 3%
0% 0% 0% 0%
0 0
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
NOTE:
lowing: All Dealroom.co data excludes the following:
bt, biotech, secondary transactions, debt,
ote the SOURCE: Dealroom lending capital, grants. Please also note the S O U R C E : Dealroom
ata to It'sdataparticularly
ofIsrael. 2019
excludes notable that,
based on data to when looking at the evolution of the share of deals by the gender composition of
years inteams over time in different European countries, there's been minimal movement in recent years in
September 2019.
almost all countries.

FINLAND FRANCE
ing DATASET: FINL AND Share of deals (%) by founding DATAS E T : F R A N C E
and team gender composition and
country
100 LEGEND 100
89% 90%
Men 89% 90%
87% 87% 86% 88% 87% 86%
Women
75 Mixed 75
% of deals
% of deals
50 50
25 25
14% 13%
10% 9% 10%
7% 8% 9% 8%
4% 5% 5% 5%
3% 3% 2% 3% 2% 2%
0%
0 0
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
NOTE:
hat, when looking at the evolution of the share of deals by the gender composition
lowing: It's particularly
of data excludes
All Dealroom.co notable that, when looking at the evolution of the share of deals by the gender composition of
the following:
me
ote in
the different European countries, there's been minimal movement in recent
SOURCE: Dealroom founding
years
lending inteams
capital, overalsotime
grants. Please in different European
note the countries, there's been minimal movement in recent years in
ata to
September 2019.
ing GERMANY
DATASET: GERMANY Share of deals (%) by founding IRELAND
DATAS E T : I R E L A ND
nd team gender composition and
country
100 100
LEGEND
89% Men 87% 88% 90% 88%
87%
83% 85%
Women 83%
75 Mixed 75%
75
% of deals
% of deals
50 50
25 25
14% 14% 15%

13% 13% 12%
10% 10% 9% 10%
6% 8%
3% 4% 2%
2% 1% 1% 0% 0%
0 0
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
NOTE:
owing: All Dealroom.co data excludes the following:
t, biotech, secondary transactions, debt,
ata to data excludes Israel. 2019 based on data to
September 2019.
It's particularly
of notable that, when looking at the evolution of the share of deals by the gender composition of
SHARE
me in different European OF DEALS
countries, (%) BY
there's FOUNDING
been TEAM GENDER
minimal movement COMPOSITION
in recent
founding
ing DATASET: ITALY Share of deals (%) by founding DATAS E T : NE T H E R L A ND S

nd ITALY team gender composition and NETHERLANDS
country
LEGEND
100
87% Men 93% 94% 95% 93%
81% 81% 82%
88%
Women
75 Mixed 72%
75
% of deals
% of deals
50
50
25
25
16% 15% 16%
13% 13% 13%
9%
6% 7% 5% 6%
4% 3% 5% 3%
0% 0% 1% 0% 1%
0 0
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
It's particularly
NOTE:
t, almost all countries.
September 2019.
ing DATASET: P OL AND Share of deals (%) by founding DATAS E T : P O RT UGA L
POLAND country
PORTUGAL
LEGEND
100% Men 100% 100%
100 97% 100
92%
Women
86% 85%
Mixed 83%
78%
75 75 74%
% of deals
% of deals
50 50
26%
25 25
17%
14%
11% 11%
8% 8% 8%
3%
0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
0 0
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
NOTE:
It's particularly
hat, when looking at the evolution of the share of deals by the gender composition of notable that, when looking at the evolution of the share of deals by the gender composition of
September 2019.
e in different European countries, there's been minimal movement in recentfounding

RUSSIA SPAIN
ng DATASET: RUSSIA Share of deals (%) by founding DATAS E T : S PA I N

country
LEGEND 100
100 97% Men 90%

87% 86%
83% 84%
Women
85% 86%
83%
Mixed 75
77%
75
% of deals
% of deals
50
50
25
25
16% 14% 12%
11% 10% 10% 11% 11%
10%
7% 7% 5% 4% 5%
4% 3% 3%
0% 0% 0%
0 0
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
NOTE:

te the SOURCE: Dealroom lending capital, grants. Please also note the S O U R C E : Dealroom
It's particularly
September 2019.

years in
teams over time in different European countries, there's been minimal movement in recent years in
SWEDEN SWITZERLAND
ding DATASET: SWEDEN Share of deals (%) by founding DATAS E T : SW I T Z E R L A ND

and team gender composition and
country
100
LEGEND 100
86% 87% Men 87% 89% 88% 90%

86%
82% 85%
Women 82%
75 Mixed 75
% of deals
% of deals
50 50
25 25
17%
14% 15%
10% 11% 10% 11% 10%
9%
5% 7%
4% 3% 4% 3%
2% 1% 1%
0% 0%
0 0
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
NOTE:
data to data excludes Israel. 2019 based on data to
September 2019.

Looking across industries, there are significant differences in the distribution of rounds
to founding teams of different gender
Looking across compositions.
industries, there are signiIndustries such
cant differences as distribution
in the health and food show
of rounds to founding teams of
Looking
differentacross industries,Industries
gender compositions. there are signi
such cantand
as health differences in thelevel
food show a higher distribution of rounds to founding teams of
of founding team
a higher level of founding team
different diversity.
diversity. gender compositions. Industries such as health and food show a higher level of founding team
diversity.
Share of deals (%) by founder DATAS E T : M O ST G E ND E R D I VE R S E
team gender and industry, 2015-
2019
MOST GENDER DIVERSE
Share of deals (%) by founder DATASET: LEAST GENDER DIVERSE
team gender and industry, 2015- 100
Looking
LEGEND across industries, there are signi 16% cant
17% differences
18% 18% in the distribution of22%rounds to founding teams of
2019Men 20% 21% 22% 23%
different gender
Women + mixed gender
compositions. Industries such as health and food show a higher level of founding
30%
team42%
36%
75
diversity.
LEGEND
100
7% 7% 9% 9% 10% 11% 12% 12% 13% 14%
% of deals
Men
50
Women + mixed gender 75
DATASET: LEAST82%GENDER
82% DIVERSE84% 83%
Share of deals (%) by founder 80% 79% 78% 78% 77%
70%
64%
team gender and industry, 2015- 25
58%
% of deals
2019
50
Looking across industries, there are signi cant differences in93%
the distribution of91%
rounds to91%founding90%
teams of
93% 89%
100 88% 88% 87% 86%
different gender compositions. Industries such
LEGEND
0
as health and 7%
food show7%a higher9% level of founding
9% team
10% 11% 12% 12% 13% 14%
diversity.
ts
th
od
ce
ds
en
tic
in
io
in
tin
io
or
al
Ki
er
Fo
m
liv
at
sh
tm
bo
He
Da
Sp
m
Men
Ga
uc
Fa
e
ui
Ro
om
m
Ed
cr
25
Ho
Ec
re
bs
Jo
Share of deals (%) by founder DATAS E T : L E AST G E ND E R D I VE R S E
team gender and industry, 2015-
NOTE:
LEAST GENDER DIVERSE
% of deals
2019
50
gy
te
el
aS
ia
ga
93% 9% 93%
rit
ar
tio
ec
91% 91% 90%
av
ed
ta
89%
er
7% 7%
Sa
14% 88% 88% 87%
Le
LEGEND 9% 86%
w
cu
data excludes Israel. 10% 11%
nt
12% 12%
ta
Tr
13%
es
M
En
14%
ft
16%
Se
Fi
or
so
al
sp
Men
Re
e
an
ris
Tr
rp
te
25
En
% of deals
NOTE: 50
93% 93% 91% 91% 90% 89% 88% 88% 87% 86% 86% 84%
gy
te
el
aS
ia
ga
rit
ar
tio
ec
25
av
ed
ta
er
Sa
Le
w
cu
nt
ta
Tr
es
M
En
ft
Se
Fi
or
so
al
sp
Re
e
an
ris
Tr
rp
te
0
En
gy
te
el
aS
ia
ic
ce
ga
rit
ar
tio
ec
av
ed
us
ta
er
la
Sa
Le
w
cu
nt
ta
Tr
es
tp
M
En
ft
Se
Fi
or
ke
so
al
sp
Re
ar
NOTE:
e
an
ris
M
Tr
rp
te
En
NOTE:
There are other reasons to be optimistic that greater diversity can be achieved across all industry verticals. In
quantum
There are other reasons to becomputing, for example,
optimistic that a rapidly growing
greater diversity deep tech
can be achieved sub-sector,
across we found that 23% of European
all industry
quantum companies had a mixed or woman-led founding team, more than double
verticals. In quantum computing, for example, a rapidly growing deep tech sub-sector, we found that the European average of 13%.
23% of European quantum companies had a mixed or woman-led founding team, more than double
the European average of 13%.
There
Share are other
of deals (%)reasons to be optimistic that greater diversity can be achieved across all industry verticals. In
in quantum
quantum
companies computing, for example, a rapidly growing
by founding team Europe deep tech sub-sector, we found 77%
that 23% of European
There arecomposition,
gender
quantum other reasons2015-2019
companies tohad
be optimistic
a mixedthat greater diversity
or woman-led can be achieved
founding team,across
moreallthan
industry verticals.
double theInEuropean average of 13%.
quantum computing, for example, a rapidly growing deep tech sub-sector, we found that 23% of European
quantum
LEGEND companies had a mixed or woman-led founding team, more than double the European average of 13%.
Share of deals
Men-only teams (%) in quantum
Share ofgender
companies
Mixed dealsby
(%) inwomen-only
quantumteam
founding
and teams North America 83%
Europe 77%
companies by founding team
gender composition, 2015-2019
gender composition, 2015-2019
Europe 77% 23%
LEGEND
LEGEND
Men-only teams
Men-only teams
Mixed gender and women-only teams North America Global 83% 81% 17%
Mixed gender and women-only teams North America 83%
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 8
Global 81% 19%
% of deals
NOTE: Global 81%

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Based on a sample of 85 companies globally % of deals
of which 35 are in North America and 44 in
NOTE: All Dealroom.co data excludes the
Europe.
0
SOURCE: Dealroom 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 8
following: biotech,
Based on a sample of 85secondary transactions,
companies globally
debt, lending
of which 35 are incapital, grants.
North America and2019
44 in YTD is as % of deals
Europe. All Dealroom.co data excludes the
offollowing:
October 2019.
biotech, secondary transactions, S O U R C E : Dealroom
NOTE:
debt, lending capital, grants. 2019 YTD is as
of October 2019.
Based on a sample of 85 companies globally
of which 35 are in North America and 44 in
Europe. All Dealroom.co data excludes the
following: biotech, secondary transactions, SOURCE: Dealroom
debt, lending capital, grants. 2019 YTD is as
of October 2019.

and engineers in Lithuania, Bulgaria, Latvia and Denmark.
Lithuania 43% 57%

05.1 ShareTech
State of D&I in European of women scientists and
engineers (%) in Europe by Bulgaria 48% 52%
country Latvia 48% 52%
The fact that QuantumLEGEND

is more inclusive should not be a surpriseDenmark given the 49% 51%
large proportion of womenMen scientists and engineers in Europe. Women

Portugal actually 50% 50%
account for more thanThe fact

half ofthat Quantum is of
the population more inclusive
scientists should
and not bein
engineers a surprise given the large proportion of women
Women Ireland 51% 49%
scientists and engineers in Europe. Women actually account for more than half of the population of scientists
Lithuania, Bulgaria, Latvia
The factand
thatDenmark.
Quantum is more inclusive should not be a surprise
Poland given the large proportion of
51%women 49%
and engineers
scientists in Lithuania,
and engineers in Europe.Bulgaria, Latvia
Women actually and Denmark.
account for more than half of the population of scientists
Romania 51% 49%
and engineers in Lithuania, Bulgaria, Latvia and Denmark.
Spain 52% 48%
Lithuania 43% 57%
Share of women scientists and Lithuania 43% 57%
Share of women scientists and Sweden 52% 48%
engineers (%) in Europe by
engineers (%) in Europe by Bulgaria
Bulgaria
48%
48% 52%
52%
country
country Austria
Latvia 48%
54%
52%
46%
Latvia 48% 52%
Denmark Croatia 49%

55% 51%
45%
LEGEND Denmark 49% 51%
LEGEND
Men Portugal Belgium 50% 56% 50% 44%
Men Portugal 50% 50%
Women Ireland 51% 49%
Slovenia 57% 43
Women Poland
Ireland 51%
51% 49%
49%
EU-28 59% 4
Romania Poland 51% 51% 49% 49%
Spain Estonia 52% 59% 48% 4
Romania 51% 49%
Sweden 52% 48%
United Kingdom 59% 4
Spain 52% 48%
Austria 54% 46%
France 60%
Croatia Sweden 55% 52% 45% 48%
Belgium Czech republic 56% 61% 44%
Austria 54% 46%
Slovenia Greece 57% 61% 43%
Croatia 55% 45%
EU-28 59% 41%
Slovakia 61%
Estonia Belgium 59%
56% 41%
44%
Netherlands 62%
United Kingdom Slovenia 59% 57% 41% 43
France Malta 60% 63% 40%
EU-28 59% 4
Czech republic 61% 39%
Italy 66%
Estonia 59% 4
Greece 61% 39%
Germany 67%
Slovakia United Kingdom 61% 59% 39% 4
Netherlands Luxembourg 62% 69% 38%
France 60%
Malta Hungary 63% 70% 37%
Czech republic 61%
Italy 66% 34%
Finland 71%
Germany Greece 67% 61% 33%
Luxembourg
0 10 69% 20 30 40 50 31% 60 70
Slovakia 61%
% of women scientists and engineers
Hungary 70% 30%
Netherlands 62%
Finland 71% 29%
Malta 63%
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
NOTE: Italy
66%
SOURCE: Eurostat
Data is sourced from Eurostat and gathered
Germany 67%
by CERN.
NOTE: S O U R C E : Eurostat
Luxembourg 69%
Data is sourced from Eurostat and gathered
by CERN.
Hungary 70%
The quality and diversity of talent in deep tech elds are also evident when looking at the gender composition
Finland 71%
of the student population of Europe's leading technical universities, which rank amongst the highest-rated
The quality and diversity of talent in deep tech fields are also evident when
globally for engineering and technical quali cations. These institutions have female 40participation
0 10 20 30 50
levels
60
in 70
looking at the genderterms
composition
of share of
of the student
students population
that of Europe's
are typically
far higher than European tech industry benchmarks.
leading technical universities, which rank amongst the highest-rated globally
The quality and diversity
The quality and of talentofintalent
diversity deepintech elds are
deep tech elds also
are alsoevident
evidentwhen
whenlooking
looking at thegender
at the gender composition
composition
for engineering and technical qualifications. These institutions have female University Country Female Share (%)
of the studentof population
the
NOTE:
Share student
of female of Europe's
population
students (%) of
and leadingleading
Europe's technical
technicaluniversities,
universities, which rank
which rank amongst
amongst the
the highest-rated
highest-rated
participation levels in terms of share of students that are typically
88 TUfar
SOURCE:
higher
Eurostat
Dresden Germany 42
globallytech
than European for engineering
globally
Data isof
rank
industry
select
sourced and
for engineering
European
from
by CERN. benchmarks.
technical
Eurostat and gathered quali cations.
and technical
25
These
quali cations. Theseinstitutions have
institutions
Technical University of Munich
havefemale participation
female participation
Germany 34
levels
levels in in
universities
terms among global top
terms of share ofof share of students
students that arethat
100 in engineering and
are typically
typically far higher
far higher thanthan European
European techindustry
tech industry benchmarks.
benchmarks.
60 Technical University of Berlin Germany 34
technology University Country Female Share (%)
62 KTH Royal Institute of Technology
University Sweden
Country 33 Female Share (%)
Share of female students (%) and 88 TU Dresden Germany 42
Share of female students
rank of select(%) and
European 88 TU8Dresden
ETH Zurich Germany
Switzerland 3242
rank of select universities
European among global top 25 Technical University of Munich Germany 34
30 RWTH Aachen University Germany 32
25 Technical University of Munich Germany 34
universities among global top and
100 in engineering 60 Technical University of Berlin Germany 34
technology
100 in engineering and 71 Chalmers University of Technology Sweden 32
60 Technical
62 University
KTH of Berlin
Royal Institute of Technology Germany
Sweden 3334
technology 69 Technical University of Denmark Denmark 30
62 KTH
8 Royal Institute
ETH Zurich of Technology Sweden
Switzerland 3233
21 Delft University of Technology Netherlands 29
8 30 Zurich
ETH RWTH Aachen University Germany
Switzerland 3232
19 École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne Switzerland 28
71 Chalmers University of Technology Sweden 32
30 RWTH
74 Aachen University
Karlsruhe Institute of Technology Germany
Germany 2832
69 Technical University of Denmark Denmark 30
NOTE: 71 Chalmers University of Technology Sweden 32
21 Delft University of Technology Netherlands 29
Rank refers to position in global list of top 69 Technical University of Denmark Denmark 30
100 institutions for engineering and 19 École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne Switzerland 28
technology quali cations. Includes 1,008
21 SOURCE:
Delft Times of
Higher Education World University Ranking Netherlands
universities across the world. Share of 74 University
Karlsruhe Technology
Institute of Technology Germany 2829
females refers to share of female students
attending the university. 19 École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne Switzerland 28
NOTE:
Rank refers to position in global list of top 74 Karlsruhe Institute of Technology Germany 28
100 institutions for engineering and
universities across the world. Share of SOURCE: Times Higher Education World University Ranking
NOTE:
attending
Rank refers to position the university.
in global list of top
100 institutions for engineering and
universities across the world. Share of S O U R C E : Times Higher Education World University Ranking
attending the university.
We revisited prior analysis exploring the gender GENDER COMPOSITION

GENDER COMPOSITION IN EXECUTIVE-LEVEL
IN EXECUTIVE-LEVEL POSITIONS
We revisited prior
composition analysis
of the exploring
leadership teamsthe ofgender
European tech POSITIONS
1 in112
composition
companies that of the leadership
raised a Seriesteams
A orofSeries
European techin the
B round
in 12
GENDER COMPOSITION
GENDER COMPOSITION IN EXECUTIVE-LEVEL
IN EXECUTIVE-LEVEL POSITIONSPOSITIONS
companies
past
We
We revisited 12
revisited
prior that
months raised
prior
analysisand a Series
found
analysis
exploring that A men
or
exploring
the Series
gender B round
continue
the gender in the for
to account For every woman executive,
1 in 12
past 12ofmonths ofand
the found thatof men continue intoCx0
account for
1 in 12
composition
the overwhelming leadership
majority teams of European
executives tech
positions. there are 12 men executives.
composition the leadership teams of European tech For every woman executive, there are 12 men executives.
the overwhelming
companies
For that
companies example, that
raisedthere majority
raised
a Series a
wasAonly of
Series executives
A or
one CTO
or Series Series in BCx0 positions.
round
thatinisthe
B round in
a woman out the
past 12For
past example,
months
of more12 months
and
than there
and
found
119 was
found
that
CTOs only
men theone
in that CTOcontinue
men
continue
sample that
to is a to
account
set. womanfor out
account
Executive of
for
roles
more
the than 119
overwhelming CTOs in the
majority sample
of set.
executives Executive
in Cx0 roles
positions.in For everyFor everyexecutive,
woman woman executive,
there arethere areexecutives.
12 men 12 men executives.
the overwhelming
in Finance,majority
Marketing of executives
and Operationsin Cx0arepositions.
most likely to be
Finance,
For example,
For example, Marketing
there there
was only and
was Operations
oneonly
CTOonethatCTOare most
is athat
woman likely
is a woman to be
out of out of
filled
lled119bybywomen.
women.
more
more than than
CTOs119inCTOs in the sample
the sample set. Executive
set. Executive roles inroles in
Finance,
Finance, Marketing Marketing and Operations
and Operations are most are most
likely tolikely
be to be
lled
lled by women. by women.
Gender composition by C-level Chief Technology Officer 1% 99%
title Chief Product Officer 3% 97%

ChiefOfficer
Technology1% Officer 1% 99%
Gender composition
Gender composition by C-levelby C-level Chief Technology
Chief Executive Officer 5%
99%
95%
LEGEND
title title
Women Chief ProductChief Product
Officer 3%Officer 3% 97% 97%
Chief Scientific Officer 7% 93%
Men Chief Executive5%
Officer 5% 95%
L E G E ND LEGE ND Chief Executive Officer
Chief Revenue Officer 9%
95%
91%
Women Women Chief Scientific Officer 7% 93%
Chief Scientific Officer 7% 93%
Chief Financial Officer 16% 84%
Men Men
Chief RevenueChief Revenue Officer
Officer 9% 9% 91% 91%
CxO Other 17% 83%
Chief
Chief Financial Financial Officer16%
Officer 16% 84% 84%
Chief Marketing Officer 18% 82%
CxO Other CxO Other17% 17% 83% 83%

Chief Operating Officer 21% 79%
Chief
Chief Marketing Marketing Officer 18%
Officer 18% 82% 82%
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Chief Operating Officer 21% % of Executives 79%
Chief Operating Officer 21% 79%
NOTE: 010 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

0 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Based on a sample of executives in CxO % of Executives
% of Executives
positions at 251 European VC-backed tech
NOTE:
companies that raised a Series A or B round SOURCE:
NOTE:
between 1 October 2018 and 30 September
Based
Based on a 2019
sample on a
ofmore
with sample
thanof
executives inexecutives
$10M funding.in CxO
CxO
positions at positions at 251
251 European Europeantech
VC-backed VC-backed tech
companies
companies that raised athat raised
Series A oraBSeries
roundA or B round S O U R C E : SOURCE:
between
between 1 October 1 October
2018 and 30 2018 and 30 September
September
2019than
2019 with more with$10M
morefunding.
than $10M funding.
We have now produced this analysis across WOMAN C-LEVEL EXECUTIVE

three cohorts of companies since 2017, and there has
been no positive change in either the gender composition
of founders and CEO's, or at the full executive leadership
teams. In fact, the numbers declined slightly in 2019.
1 woman CTO out of 119 CTOs
working at VC-backed European
tech companies that raised a
1
Women
We made
have now up just 8%
produced thisofanalysis
all leaders in CxO
across threepositions
cohorts in
of companies since 2017, and there has beenSeriesno
A or B in the past year with
thehave
We 'class
positive of 2019'
now
change cohort,
produced this
in either versus
theanalysis
gender 9% in thethree
across previous
composition twoof companies
cohorts
of founders and CEO's,since 2017,
or at the and
full there has
executive more than
been no $10M of funding.
leadership
cohorts
positive
We haveteams. analysed.
Inchange
now produced in either
fact, the
thisnumbersthedeclined
analysis genderthree
across composition
slightly of
of founders
in 2019.
cohorts and
Women made
companies CEO's, or8%
up 2017,
since just at the
and full
ofthere
all executive
leaders
has leadership
in CxO
been no positions in
teams.
positivethe Ininof
'class
change fact, thethe
2019'
either numbers
cohort, declined
versus
gender 9% inslightly
composition theof in 2019.two
previous
founders Women made
cohorts
and CEO's, or up justfull
analysed.
at the 8%executive
of all leaders in CxO positions in
leadership
teams. Inthe 'class
fact, theofnumbers
2019' cohort, versus
declined 9% ininthe
slightly previous
2019. Womentwo cohorts
made analysed.
up just 8% of all leaders in CxO positions in
the 'class Share
of 2019' cohort, versus 9% in the previous two
of women (%) by
10 cohorts analysed.
10 9% 9%
executive-level
Share of womenpositions
(%) by of
9% 9%
selected European
executive-level Seriesof
positions A and 10 8%
position
Share of women (%) by

B venture-backed
selected Europeancompanies
Series A and 8 9% 9% 8%
executive-level positions of
position
B venture-backed companies 8
selected European Series A and
by executive-level
8%
% of women by executive-level position
LEGE ND 6% 6% 6%
B venture-backed companies
by executive-level
8
LEGE ND
2017 6% 6% 6%
5% 5% 5%
5
L E G END 2017
2018 6% 6% 6%
5% 5% 5%
5
2017 2018
2019
of women
5% 5% 5%
5
2019
women
2018
3
2019 2%
% of %
3
2%
1% 1%
3
2% 1% 1%
0
% of CEOs 1% %
1%of CTOs % of founders % of all CxO leaders
0
% of CEOs % of CTOs % of founders % of all CxO leaders
NOTE:
0
NOTE: on a sample of founders and
Based % of CEOs % of CTOs % of founders % of all CxO leaders
executives in CxO positions at 382 European
NOTE: Based on a sample
VC-backed of founders
tech companies thatand
raised a SOURCE:
executives
Series A or in CxO positions
B round betweenat1 October
382 European
2018
Based on a sample of founders
VC-backed tech and
companies that raised a SOURCE:
and 30 September 2019.
executives inSeries
CxO positions at 382
A or B round European
between 1 October 2018
VC-backed tech
andcompanies
30 Septemberthat2019.
raised a SOURCE:
Series A or B round between 1 October 2018
and 30 September 2019.

Though there is a near absence of women in technical leadership positions

within European venture-backed tech companies, there is not an absence
Though there is a near absence of women in technical leadership positions within European venture-backed
of developer
tech companies, talent
there with
is not significant
an absence experience
of developer in either
talent gender.
with signi cant experience in either gender.
Though there is a near absence of women in technical leadership positions within European venture-backed
tech companies, there is not an absence of developer talent with signi cant experience in either gender.
DATASET: MEN
Experience and gender
breakdown of professional
developers in Europeand gender MEN
Experience DATASET: NON-BINARY
developers in Europe
< 5 years 22%
< 5 years 28%

5 to 9 years 30%
5 to 9 years 30%
10 to 14 years 18%
10 to 14 years 21%
15 to 19 years 13%
15 to 19 years 11%
Though there is a near absence of women in20+technical
years
leadership positions within European
16%
venture-backed
0 3 5 8 10 13 15 18 20 23 25 28 30 33
20+ years 10%
% of respondents
Experience and gender DATASET: NON-BINARY

0 3 5 8 10 13 15 18 20 23 25 28 30 33
NON-BINARY
Based on Stack Over ow's 2019 survey. SOURCE:
Experience relates to years since learning to
code. NOTE:

< 5 years 28%
code.
5 to 9 years 30%
10 to 14 years 21%
Though there is a near absence of women

15 to 19 years
in technical leadership positions
11%
within European venture-backed
Though there is a near absence of women in20+technical
years leadership positions 10%
within European venture-backed
tech companies, there is not
Experience and gender an absence of developer
DATASET:talent with
NON-BINARY signi cant experience in either gender.
0 3 5 8 10 13 15 18 20 23 25 28 30 33
breakdown of professional % of respondents
Experience and gender DATASET: WOMEN
breakdown
NOTE: of professional
developers in Europe WOMEN
Based on Stack Over ow's 2019 survey. SOURCE: < 5 years 28%
code.
< 5 years 5 to 9 years 40% 30%
5 to 9 years10 to 14 years 32%

21%
10 to 14 years 13%
15 to 19 years 11%
15 to 19 years 8%
20+ years 10%
0 3 5 8 10 13 15 18 20 23 25 28 30 33
20+ years 7%
% of respondents
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

NOTE: code.
code.

Looking on a country-by-country basis at the experience level of the European developer base, a number of
countries stand out with a material share of women developers with more than 15 years of experience.
Looking on a country-by-country basis

Top 5 countries at the
by share of experience level of the European developer base, a number 29%
Finland
of countries stand out with
womena material
developersshare of women
with over 15 developers with more than 15 years of experience.
years of on
Looking experience
a country-by-country basis at the experience level of the European developer base, 22%a number of
countries
Looking stand out with a material share of women
United Kingdom
developers with more than 15 years
LEGEND on a country-by-country basis at the experience level of the European developer base, a number of
of experience.
countries stand out with a material share of women developers with more than 15 years of experience.
Women 17%
Germany
TopMen
5 countries by share of 29%
Finland 29% 30%
Top 5 countries by share of
women developers
women developers withwith over 15
over 15
Finland
36%
13%
years ofexperience
years of experience France 22% 22%
United Kingdom
United Kingdom 23%
LEGEND 38%
LEGEND
Women 17% 9%
Women
Men Germany Sweden 17%
30%
Germany
Men
13% 30%
France 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
23%
13% % of respondents
France 9%
Sweden 23%
39%
0 5 10 15 9%
20 25 30 35 40
Sweden
SOURCE: % of respondents
NOTE:
Based on Stack Over ow's 2019 survey.
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Though
NOTE: there is a difference of opinion SOURCE:
over how meaningful these steps that have been taken have been, VC
% of respondents
respondents shared that they have made changes to the way they source new investment opportunities over
Based on Stack Over ow's 2019 survey.
the last 12 months. The most frequently cited changes by respondents were diversifying their networks of
partner
Though there is a difference
NOTE: funds
of opinionand angel over investors,
how meaningful whileSOURCE:
the least
these frequently
steps that have cited beenchangestakenwerehaverunning open o ce hours and
been, VC respondents responding
shared
Based on Stackthatpositively
Over they
ow's 2019 have to cold
survey.made inbound
changes opportunities.
to the way they source new investment
Though there is a difference of opinion over how meaningful these steps that have been taken have been, VC
opportunities over the last 12 months.
respondents shared The thatmost theyfrequently
have madecited changes
changes to the byway respondents
they source were
new investment opportunities over
diversifying their networks
the
In the of
lastlast
Though partner
12 12
there months.
is a funds
difference
months, have The you ofand angel
opinion over investors,
how while
meaningful thesethe
steps least
most frequently cited changes by respondents were
Diversify that frequently
have
network of been
partner cited
taken
funds diversifying
have been, VC their networks of
respondents shared that theyyouhave made changes to the way they source new investment opportunities over
changes were running open
made
partner
the
any
last 12
office
changes
funds
months.
hours
and to how
angel and responding
investors, positively
while the least
The most frequently cited changes by respondents
to cold
frequentlyinbound
were
cited opportunities.
diversifying
changes were running
their networks of
open o ce hours and
source new investment Diversify network of angel investors
responding
partner funds positively
and angel investors, to coldwhile
inbound opportunities.
the least frequently cited changes were running open o ce hours and
opportunities?
responding positively to cold inbound opportunities.Attend events with stronger participation from diverse
founders
LEGEND
In the last 12 months, have you Diversify network of partner funds
In Increased
the last 12focus
months, have you Diversify network of partner funds events for diverse founders
Organise
made
made anyanychanges
changes toyou
to how how you
source
source new
Decreased
new investment
focus
investment Diversify network of angelDiversify
investors network of angel investors
opportunities? Focus on sectors with greater founder diversity
opportunities?
Stayed the same Attend events with stronger participation from diverse
Attend events with stronger
founders participation from diverse
LEGEND founders
Run open office hours
LEGEND
Increased focus Organise events for diverse founders
Increased focus
Decreased focus Organise events for diverse founders
Respond
Focus on sectors with greater founder to cold inbound opportunities
diversity
Stayed the same
Decreased focus
Focus on sectors
Run open with greater founder diversity
office hours
Stayed the same 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
% of respondents
Respond to cold inbound opportunities
Run open office hours
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
% of respondents
Respond to cold inbound opportunities
Venture capitalists only. Numbers may not 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
add to 100 due to rounding.
NOTE: S O U R C E : The State Of European Tech Survey % of respondents
Venture capitalists only. Numbers may not

If investors are more 92% of all funding went to all-men teams this year,
which is not much better than last year. It’s obvious that
representative of capital is not being allocated in a way that reflects our
society's diversity, we will society or encourages a broader set of people to become
reach a more diverse set entrepreneurs. Diversity of all kinds is lacking in our
ecosystem. I am passionate about changing the status
of entrepreneurs. They, in quo, and increasing diversity at VC funds is one important
turn, can create a whole piece to encourage more diverse founders. If investors Sophia Bendz
are more representative of society's diversity, we will
range of companies and reach a more diverse set of entrepreneurs, we will reach
Atomico Partner
services that we have not more diverse entrepreneurs. They, in turn, can create a
previously thought of. whole range of companies and services that we have not
previously thought of.

05.1 Given these
State of D&I in European static numbers, it's important to examine the steps that investors have taken to try to improve the
Tech
diversity of the founders they invest in. Venture capitalist respondents to the survey were divided over whether
the European VC industry has taken meaningful steps to improve the diversity of the founders they back. In
Given these static numbers,
fact, for it's
thisimportant
particular to examine
question, the steps
there was a that
greaterinvestors
level of divergence of opinion between the VC
have taken to try to improve the diversity of the founders
respondents than for all other questions where VCs they invest in.were
Ventureasked to share their sentiment on major industry
capitalist respondents to the survey were divided over whether the European
issues.
VC industry has taken Given these static
meaningful steps numbers,
to improve it's important
the diversity to examine the steps that investors have taken to try to improve the
of the founders
they back. In fact, fordiversity
this of
particularthe founders
question, they
there invest
was in.
a Venture
greater capitalist
level of respondents to the survey were divided over whether
Given these static numbers, it's important to examine the steps that investors have taken to try to improve the
theThinking about VC
European the industry
past 12 hasin. taken meaningful steps totoimprove the diversity of whether
the founders they back. In
divergence of opinion between
diversity
months, the
of the
do you VC
founders
agree respondents
they invest than
Venture for all other
capitalist
40 questions
respondents
orhas taken meaningful steps to improve the diversity
the survey were divided over
fact,
where VCs were askedfact,
the for this
European
to share particular
VC industry
their sentiment question,
on majorthere was
industrya greater
issues. level of divergence
37% of
of the founders opinion
they between the VC
back. In
disagree with
for this the following:
particular question, therequestions
was a greater level ofVCs
divergence of opinion between the VC sentiment on major industry
respondents
European VCs than
have for all other where were asked to share their
respondents than for taken
all other questions where VCs were asked to share their sentiment on major industry
issues.
meaningful steps to improve the
issues. 30
diversity of the founders they
% of respondents
24%
back
Thinking about the past 12
months, do you agree or
40 39%
20
40 37%
months, do you
disagree with agree or
the following: 37%
disagree with
European VCs thetaken
have following:
meaningful VCs
European stepshave
to improve
takenthe 30
% of respondents
meaningful
back steps to improve the 10
30 24%
% of respondents
20
24%
back
0
20
10 Agree Disagree Neither
0 10 Agree Disagree Neither agree nor disagree

NOTE:
0
Venture capitalists only. Numbers may not Agree Disagree Neither
NOTE:
I think we have made huge steps in understanding and

admitting the problem. Now, action will be key. In the
words of Alan Turing, 'we can only see a short distance
ahead, but we can see plenty there that needs to be done'.
Suranga Chandratillake
Balderton Capital
General Partner
We found important differences in the changes to sourcing activities reported by VC respondents who were
We found important men and women
differences that
in the suggests
changes the focusactivities
to sourcing on improving diversity is itself not equally shared. For example, 63% of
reported
by VC respondents who were men and women that suggests the focus on their focus on attending events with stronger
VC respondents who are women said they had increased
participation from diverse founders, compared to just 36% of respondents who are men.
improving diversity is itself not equally shared. For example, 63% of VC
respondents who areWe women
foundsaid they had
important increased
differences in their focus
the changes100 on attending
to sourcing activities reported by VC respondents who were
events with strongermen
participation from
In the last 12 months,
and important
women that diverse
have you founders, compared to just 36%
suggests the focus on improving diversity
We found differences
made any changes to how you in the changes to sourcing activities reported byisVCitself not equally
respondents shared. For example, 63% of
who were
of respondents who VCare
men men.
respondents
and women thatwho are women
suggests the focus said they had
on improving increased
diversity their
is itself not focus
equally on attending
shared. For example,events
63% of with stronger
source new investment
VC respondentsfrom
participation who are women said
diverse they hadcompared
founders, increased75their
tofocus
just on
36%attending events with stronger
of respondents who are men.
opportunities?
participation from diverse founders, compared to just 36% of respondents who are men.
100
% of respondents
LEGEND 100
InInthe last1212
the last months,
months,
Increased focus
have have
you you
made any
made anychanges
changesto how
to you
how you 50
Decreased focus
opportunities? 75
Stayed the same 75
opportunities?
% of respondents
LEGEND
Increased focus 25
% of respondents
LEGEND 50
Decreased focus
Increased focus
Stayed the same 50
Decreased focus
25
Stayed the same 0
Women Men
25
0
Women Men

NOTE:
add to 100 due to rounding. 0
Venture capitalists only. Numbers may not Women Men
NOTE:
We also found large differences between men and women when it came
We also found large differences between men and women when it came to sourcing activities such as running
to sourcing activities such as running open office hours or focusing on
open
We o found
also ce hours ordifferences
large focusing onbetween
sectors with
men greater founder diversity.
and women
We alsosectors
found withdifferences
large greater founder diversity.
between men and women when itwhen
cameittocame to sourcing
sourcing activities
activities such assuch as running
running
open o ce hours or focusing on sectors with greater founder
open o ce hours or focusing on sectors with greater founder diversity. diversity.
70%
In the last 12 months, have you Diversify network of partner funds
64%
made any changes to how you 70%
In the last 12 months, have you Diversify network of partner funds 70%63%
In the last 12 months,
source have you
new investment Attend events with
Diversify stronger
network participation
of partner funds from diverse 64%
made any changes to how you founders 36% 64%
made any changes to how you
opportunities? Attend events with stronger participation from diverse 63%
source new investment Attend events with stronger participation from diverse 63%56%
source new investment Diversify network
founders
of angel investors 36%
opportunities? founders 36% 53%
opportunities?
LEGE ND 56%
Diversify network of angel investors 56% 51%
Diversify network of angel
Organise investors
events for diverse founders 53%
Increased focus (women)
LEGE ND 40% 53%
L E G E ND 51%
Increased
Increased focus
focus (men)
(women) Organise events for diverse founders 51% 45%
Increased focus (women) Organise events
Focus on for with
sectors diverse founders
greater founder diversity 40%
Increased focus (men) 28%40%
Increased focus (men) 45%
Focus on sectors with greater founder diversity 45%38%
Focus on sectors with greater founderRun
diversity
open office hours 28%
28%
21%
38%
Run open office hours 23% 38%
Run open
Respond office
to cold hoursopportunities
inbound 21%
21% 16%
23%
Respond to cold inbound opportunities 23%
Respond to cold inbound opportunities 0 10 20
16% 30 40 50 60 70 80
16%
% of respondents
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
% of respondents
% of respondents
NOTE:
Venture SOURCE: The State Of European Tech Survey
NOTE: capitalists only. Respondents that
NOTE: answered 'Increased focus' only. Numbers
may not capitalists
Venture add to 100 due
only.toRespondents
rounding. that SOURCE: The State Of European Tech Survey
Venture capitalists only. Respondents that S O U R C E : The State Of European Tech Survey
answered 'Increased focus' only. Numbers
answered 'Increased focus' only. Numbers
may not add to 100 due to rounding.
It's important context to show the level of female representation within the VC
industry. Diversity VC's data shows that VC funds in the UK have improved the
It's important context to show the level of female representation within the VC industry. Diversity VC's data
representation
shows of women
that VC funds in the UKat junior levels, but
have improved there
the has not been
representation of any material
women at junior levels, but there has not
change
It's in
importantthe share
context of
towomen
show venture
the level professionals
of female at more
representation
been any material change in the share of women venture professionals at senior
withinlevels,
the VCwith
more industry. Diversity
senior levels, withVC's
no data
It's important
shows
movementcontext
no movement
that at toatshow
VCthe the level
theinpartner
funds
partner of female
UK level.
thelevel. have representation
improved within the
the representation ofVC industry.
women Diversity
at junior VC's
levels, butdata
there has not
shows that VCany
been funds in thechange
material UK haveinimproved
the sharethe
of representation
women ventureof women at junior
professionals levels,
at more but there
senior levels,has not
with no
been anymovement
material change in the share
at the partner level.of women venture professionals at more senior levels, with no
movementShare
at the partner
of women level. by
investors 40
37%
seniority, 2017 vs 2019
Share of women investors by 40
37%
Share of women
LEGE NDinvestors
seniority, 2017 vsby
2019 40
30 29% 37%
seniority, 2017 vs 2019
2017
woman investors
26%
LEGE ND 25%
2019 30 29%
L E G E ND 2017
% ofinvestors
30 29% 26%
2017 20 25%
% of woman investors
2019 26%
25%
2019
% of woman
20 13% 13%
20
10
13% 13%
13% 13%
10
10
0
Junior (analyst, associate or equivalent) Middle (principals or equivalent) Senior (partner or equivalent)
0
NOTE: 0
Diversity VC analysis 2019. Based on a SOURCE:
sample
NOTE: of 987 and 1,436 venture
professionals in 2017 and 2019 respectively.
NOTE: SOURCE:
Diversity VC analysis 2019. Based on a
sample2019.
Diversity VC analysis of 987Based
and 1,436
on a venture SOURCE:
sample of 987professionals in 2017 and 2019 respectively.
and 1,436 venture
professionals in 2017 and 2019 respectively.

Tech startups and scale ups are taking action to

improve diversity and inclusion but there is still
work to be done in terms of adopting D&I policies
Tech startups and scale ups are taking action to improve diversity and inclusion but there is still work to be
and implementing training programmes.
done in terms of adopting D&I policies and implementing training programmes.
Tech startups and scale ups are taking action to improve diversity and inclusion but there is still work to be
done in terms of adopting D&I policies and implementing training programmes.
In the last 12 months, has your DATAS E T : FO U ND E R S & T E C H STA RT U P / S CA L E U P E MP LOYE E S
company taken any of the
following actions to improve FOUNDERS & TECH/SCALEUP EMPLOYEES
Indiversity
the lastand12 months, has your
inclusion? DATASET: FOUNDERS & TECH STARTUP/SCALEUP EMPLOYEES
Tech startups
company takenand scale
any of the ups are taking action to improve diversity and inclusion but there is still work to be
Introduced more flexible working arrangements (e.g.
LEGEND
following
done in terms actions
of to improve D&I policies and implementing
adopting training programmes.
remote working, flexible hours
Already actioned
diversity and inclusion? Introduced more generous maternity leave policies
Yes
No
Introduced more generous paternity leave policies
LEGEND Introduced
DATASET: more flexible
FOUNDERS workingSTARTUP/SCALEUP
& TECH arrangements (e.g. EMPLOYEES
In the last 12 months, has your remote working, flexible hours
company taken any of the
Already actioned Introduced anti-harassment code of conduct
following
Yes actions to improve Introduced more generous maternity leave policies
Introduced specific diversity and inclusion hiring policies
diversity
No and inclusion? Offered relevant training for employees (e.g.
Introduced
unconscious more generous paternity leave policies
bias training)
Tech startups and scale ups are taking actionIntroduced
to improve diversity and inclusion but there is still work to be
specific diversity and inclusion talent
done in terms of adopting D&I policies and implementing
LEGEND Introduced
training moreprogrammes
development flexible working arrangements (e.g.
programmes.
Introduced anti-harassment code of conduct
remote working, flexible hours
Already actioned Appointed a diversity & inclusion representative
Introduced
Introduced more
specific generous
diversity andmaternity
inclusion leave
hiringpolicies
policies
InYes
the last 12 months, has your DATAS E T : VE N T U R E CA P I TA L I STS 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
company
No taken any of the Offered relevant training for employees (e.g.
% of respondents
following actions to improve Introduced more generous paternity leave policies

unconscious bias training)
NOTE:
diversity and inclusion?
VENTURE CAPITALISTS
Introduced specific diversity and inclusion talent
Venture capitalists, founders and Introduced anti-harassment code of conduct
startup/scaleup employees only. Numbers S O U R C E : The State Of European Tech Survey development programmes
LEGEND Introduced more flexible working arrangements (e.g.
do not add to 100 as respondents could remote working, flexible hours
choose multiple
Already responses.
actioned Introduced specific diversity and
Appointed a diversity & inclusion hiring policies
representative
Yes Introduced more generous maternity leave policies
No Offered relevant training for employees (e.g. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Introduced more generous paternity leave policiesunconscious bias training)
% of respondents
Introduced
Introduced anti-harassment specific
code diversity and inclusion talent
of conduct
development programmes
NOTE: Introduced specific diversity and inclusion hiring policies
Appointed a diversity & inclusion representative
Venture capitalists, founders and Offered relevant training for employees (e.g.
startup/scaleup employees only. Numbers SOURCE:unconscious
The Statebias Oftraining)
do not add to 100 as respondents could Introduced specific diversity and inclusion talent
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
choose multiple responses. development programmes % of respondents
Appointed a diversity & inclusion representative
NOTE: 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
% of respondents
Venture capitalists, founders and
startup/scaleup employees only. Numbers SOURCE: The State Of European Tech Survey
doNOTE:
not add to 100 as respondents could
choose
Venturemultiple responses.
capitalists, founders and
startup/scaleup employees only. Numbers S O U R C E : The State Of European Tech Survey
do not add to 100 as respondents could
choose multiple responses.
It's our responsibility to build an open and inclusive tech

ecosystem in Europe. We have taken the first step and
started a conversation around the topic. Now we need a
firm commitment, actions and measures to move forward,
as there is clearly value to be captured through diversity. Ekaterina Gianelli
Inventure Partner
I wish more LPs would start demanding venture capitalists
to be the change they want to see in the industry.

Last year, our survey found that 46% of women working in the European tech industry had experienced some
form of 05.1discrimination atD&Isome
State of point
in European in the past. This year, we found that 38% of respondents who are women
Tech
had experienced some form of discrimination in just the past 12 months. In fact, almost half (49%) of all
founders who are women and more than 40% of founders from minority ethnic groups report having
experiencedLast year,
someour formsurvey found that 46%
of discrimination of women
during the last working
12 months. in the European tech industry had
Last year, our some
experienced surveyform foundofthat 46% of women
discrimination at some workingpoint inin the European
the tech
past. This industry
year, hadthat
we found experienced
38% of some
form of discrimination
respondents who are women had at some point in the past. This year, we found that 38% of respondents
experienced some form of discrimination in just the past 12 months. who are women
had12experienced
In the last months, have you some form of discrimination in just the past 12 months. In fact, almost half (49%) of all
DATAS E T : G E ND E R , FO U ND ER S O N LY
In fact,
experienced anyalmost
form half (49%) of all founders who are women and more than 40% of founders from minority
founders whoofare women and more than 40% of founders from minority ethnic groups report having
ethnicwhile
discrimination groups report
working in having experienced some form of discrimination during the last 12 months.
experienced
the European some form of discrimination during the last 12 months.
tech industry?
L E G E ND GENDER FOUNDERS ONLY

In the last 12 months, have you DATASET: GENDER, FOUNDERS ONLY
Yes
experienced any form of 100
No discrimination while working in
the European tech industry?
Last year, our survey found that 46% of women 75 working in the51% European tech industry had experienced some
% of respondents
60%
form of discrimination
LEGE ND
at some point in the past. This year, we found that 38% of respondents who are women
had experienced
Yes
some form of discrimination in just100the past 12 months. In fact, almost half
85%(49%) of all
No
founders who are women and more than 40%50of founders from minority ethnic groups report having
experienced some form of discrimination during the last 12 months.
75 51%
% of respondents
60%
25 49%
40%
In the last 12 months, have you DATAS E T : E T H N I C I T Y, FO U ND E R S O N LY
85%
experienced any form of 50 15%
discrimination while working in 0
the European tech industry? Women Men Prefer not to say
25 49%
L E G E ND ETHNICITY FOUNDERS ONLY 40%
NOTE:
Yes S O U R100
C E : The State Of European Tech Survey
15%
Numbers
No may not add to 100 due to
rounding. 0
Women Men Prefer not to say
Last year, our survey found that 46% of women 75 working in the European tech industry had experienced some
56% 54% 55%
% of respondents
57% 58%
form of discrimination at some point in the past. This year, we found that 38% of respondents 64% who are women
had experienced
NOTE: some form of discrimination inSOURCE:
just the
The past
State Of12 months.
European In fact,
Tech Survey
81%
almost half (49%) of all
founders who are women and more than 40% of founders from minority ethnic groups report having
50
rounding.
25 46%
44% 43% 42% 45%
36%
In the last 12 months, have you DATAS E T : G E ND E R , A L L R E S P O ND E N TS
19%
experienced any form of
discrimination while working in 0
Asian Black/African/Caribbean Caucasian/White Hispanic/Latinx Middle Eastern/North Mixed Other
Last year,
the European our survey found that 46% of women working in the European tech industry had experienced
tech industry? African some
form of discrimination at some point in the past. This year, we found that 38% of respondents who are women
had experienced some form of discrimination
L E G E ND GENDER ALL RESPONDERS in just the past 12 months. In fact, almost half (49%) of all
Yes
NOTE: founders who are women and more S O Uthan
R100 40%
C E : The ofEuropean
State Of founders from minority ethnic groups report having
Tech Survey
No
Numbersexperienced some
may not add to 100 due to form of discrimination during the last 12 months.
rounding.
75
Last year,Inour survey found that 46% of women DATASET:workingGENDER,
in the European tech industry had experienced some
% of respondents
the last 12 months, have you 62%FOUNDERS ONLY 64%

form of discrimination at some
experienced any form of point in the past. This year, we found that 38% of respondents who are women
85%
had experienced some
discrimination form
while of discrimination
working in 50
in just the past 12 months. In fact, almost half (49%) of all
foundersthewho are women
European and more than 40% of founders from minority ethnic groups report having
tech industry?
LEGE ND
25
Yes 100 38% 36%
In the last 12
Nomonths, have you DATAS E T : E T H N I C I T Y, A L L R E S P O ND E N TS
15%
experienced any form of
0
discrimination while working in Women Men Prefer not to say
75 51%
the European tech industry?
% of respondents
60%
L E G E ND ETHNICITY ALL RESPONDERS 85%

NOTE: 50Of European Tech Survey
S O U R C E : The State
Yes 100
No
rounding.
75 25 49%
55%
% of respondents
60% 40%
67% 67% 63% 67% 67%
81%
15%
50 0
Women Men Prefer not to say
25
45%
40% 37%
NOTE: 33%
33% 33% 33%
19%
rounding. 0
Asian Black/African/CaribbeanCaucasian/White Hispanic/Latinx Middle Mixed Other Prefer not to say
Eastern/North
African

Numbers may not add to 100www.stateofeuropeantech.com
due to 103 In Partnership with &
rounding.
Discrimination in the European tech industry takes many forms. Women

Discrimination
respondents most in thecommonly
European tech
reportindustry
havingtakes many forms.
experienced Women respondents most commonly report
gender-based
having experienced
discrimination, gender-based
while discrimination,
men most commonly report while men most
age-based commonly report age-based discrimination.
discrimination.
Discrimination
The inaccurately
the European tech the
industry takes many forms.basedWomenon respondents most commonly (forreport
Thesurvey
survey
Discrimination can't
can't
in the European techquantify
accurately quantify
industry level
the
takes of of
level
many discrimination
discrimination
forms. based
Women respondentsall
onforms ofcommonly
allmost discrimination
report
having experienced
example, disability gender-based
or sexual discrimination,
orientation), but the while
data men most
points to commonly
these being report
very age-based
prevalent here discrimination.
too.
forms of discrimination
having experienced gender-based (for example, disability
discrimination, or sexual
while men most orientation), but the
commonly report age-based discrimination.
The survey can't accurately quantify the level of discrimination based on all forms of discrimination (for
The survey
datacan't accurately
points to these quantify
being the prevalent
very level of discrimination
here too. based on all forms of discrimination (for
example, disability or sexual orientation), but the data points to these being very prevalent here too.
example,What
disability
kind ofor sexual orientation),
discrimination have but the data points to these being very prevalent here too.
Gender
you experienced? Age

Gender
What kind of discrimination have Gender
Nationality
What kind of experienced?
you
LEGE discrimination
ND have
Age
you experienced?
Women
Age Language
Nationality
LEGE
MenND Nationality Ethnicity
L E G E ND Language
Women Language Education
Women
Men Ethnicity
Men Ethnicity
Socio-economic status
Education
Education
Sexual orientation
Socio-economic status
Socio-economic status Disability
Sexual orientation
Sexual orientation Religion
Disability
Disability 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Religion % of respondents
Religion
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
NOTE: 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
% of respondents
% of respondents
Respondents who reported having
experienced some form of discrimination SOURCE: The State Of European Tech Survey
NOTE:
NOTE: only. Numbers may not add to 100 as
respondents
Respondentscould select multiple
who reported having choices.
Respondents who reported
experienced having
some form of discrimination SOURCE: The State Of European Tech Survey
experiencedonly.
some form of discrimination S O U R C E : The State Of European Tech Survey
Numbers may not add to 100 as
only. Numbers may not add
respondents to 100
could as multiple choices.
select
respondents could select multiple choices.
Respondents who self-identified as belonging to different minority ethnic

groups also reported different experiences of discrimination while working in
the European tech industry. For example, 80% of respondents that said they
had experienced a form of discrimination in the past 12 months while working in
the European tech industry and that self-identified as Black/African/Caribbean
Respondents who self-identi ed as belonging to different minority ethnic groups also reported different
denti ed as belonging to different minority ethnic groups also reported different
reported
nation while working theytech
in the European had experienced
industry. discrimination
For example, 80% experiences ofon
of respondents the basis
discrimination ofworking
while theirinethnicity.
the European tech industry. For example, 80% of respondents
that said they had experienced a form of discrimination in the past 12 months while working in the European
rienced a form of discrimination in the past 12 months while working in the European
tech industry and that self-identi ed as Black/African/Caribbean reported they had experienced discrimination
self-identi ed as Black/African/Caribbean reported they had experienced discrimination
hnicity. on the basis of their ethnicity.
ASIAN - KIND OF DISCRIMINATION EXPERIENCED BLACK / AFRICAN / CARIBBEAN - KIND OF DISCRIMINATION EXPERIENCED
n have DATASET: ASIAN What kind of discrimination have DATAS E T : B L AC K /A F R I CA N /CA R I B B E A N
you experienced?
Gender 23% LEGEND Gender 30%

Black/African/Caribbean
Age 29% Age 40%
Nationality 35% Nationality 10%
Ethnicity 65% Ethnicity 80%
Language 38% Language 0%
Education 8% Education 0%
Socio-economic status 8% Socio-economic status 10%
Sexual orientation 2% Sexual orientation 0%
Religion 4% Religion 0%
Disability 2% Disability 10%
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
% of respondents % of respondents
Respondents
NOTE: who self-identi ed as belonging to different minority ethnic groups also reported different
experiences
nation while working in the European tech industry. For example, 80% of respondents
Respondents whoofreported
discrimination
having while working in the European tech industry. For example, 80% of respondents
SOURCE: The State Of European Tech Survey S O U R C E : The State Of European Tech Survey
rienced
ation
that said
a form of discrimination in the past 12 months while working in the European they had experienced a form of discrimination in the past 12 months while working in the European
experienced some form of discrimination
only. Numbers may not add to 100 as
tech industry
elf-identi ed as Black/African/Caribbean reported they had experienced discrimination
hoices. respondents couldand
selectthat
multipleself-identi
choices. ed as Black/African/Caribbean reported they had experienced discrimination
nicity. on the basis of their ethnicity.
CAUCASIAN / WHITE -KIND OF DISCRIMINATION EXPERIENCED HISPANIC / LATINX - KIND OF DISCRIMINATION EXPERIENCED
n have DATASET: CAUCASIAN/WHITE What kind of discrimination have DATAS E T : H I S PA N I C / L AT I N X
you experienced?
Gender LEGEND 61% Gender 50%

Hispanic/Latinx
Age 44% Age 36%
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
NOTE:
ation SOURCE: The State Of European Tech Survey experienced some form of discrimination S O U R C E : The State Of European Tech Survey
hoices. respondents could select multiple choices.

Respondents who self-identi ed as belonging to different minority ethnic groups also reported different
experiences of discrimination while working in the European tech industry. For example, 80% of respondents
nation while working in the European tech industry. For example, 80% of respondents
05.1 State of D&I in European Tech that said they had experienced a form of discrimination in the past 12 months while working in the European
tech industry and that self-identi ed as Black/African/Caribbean reported they had experienced discrimination
hnicity. on the basis of their ethnicity.
MIDDLE EASTERN / NORTH AFRICAN - KIND OF DISCRIMINATION EXPERIENCED MIXED- KIND OF DISCRIMINATION EXPERIENCED
n have DATASET: MIDDLE EASTERN/NORTH AFRICAN What kind of discrimination have DATAS E T : M I XE D
you experienced?
Gender 20% LEGEND Gender 41%

Mixed
Age 7% Age 34%
identi ed as belonging to different minority ethnic groups also reported different
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
ination while working in the European tech industry. For example, 80% of respondents
NOTE:
hnicity.
ation SOURCE: The State Of European Tech Survey
experienced some form of discrimination S O U R C E : The State Of European Tech Survey
hoices. respondents could select multiple choices.
n have
OTHEROTHER
DATASET: - KIND OF DISCRIMINATION EXPERIENCED
Gender 46%
Age 38%
Nationality 31%
Ethnicity 38%
Language 31%
Education 0%
Socio-economic status 0%
NOTE:
Sexual orientation 8%
Respondents who reported having experienced some form of discrimination
Religion 0%
only. Numbers may not add to 100 as respondents could select multiple
Disability 0% choices.
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
% of respondents
nation SOURCE: The State Of European Tech Survey

s
hoices.
Photo by: Riikka Vaahtera

Industry Sentiment on D&I
The survey included a large number of questions exploring industry sentiment on a range of different
issues related to progress on building a more diverse and inclusive European tech industry in the
The
pastsurvey included
12 months. a large
There number
is strong of questions
agreement exploring
in the Europeanindustry sentiment
tech and on a range
VC community of different
about the issues
related to progress
importance on building
of creating a morea diverse
more diverse and inclusive
and inclusive European
industry. Whiletech
manyindustry in theinformed
feel better past 12 months.
and
There is strong agreement in the European tech and VC community about the importance of creating a more
more empowered to take actions towards this goal and have changed their behaviours accordingly,
diverse and inclusive industry. While many feel better informed and more empowered to take actions towards
it's also clear that for many the industry is a long way from creating equal opportunity for people of all
this goal and have changed their behaviours accordingly, it's also clear that for many the industry is a long way
demographics,
from backgrounds
creating equal opportunity and
forexperiences.
people of all demographics, backgrounds and experiences.
Do you agree or disagree with DATASET: THE FOCUS ON CREATING A MORE DIVERSE AND INCLUSIVE EUROPEAN TECH ECOSYSTEM IS IMPORTANT
NOTE:
the following statements? Venture capitalists, founders and
startup/scale-up employees only.
Numbers may not100add to 100 due to
LEGE ND rounding.
Agree
rge number of questions exploring industry sentiment on a range of different Theissues
survey included a large number of questions exploring industry sentiment on a range of different issues
Disagree
uilding a more diverse and inclusive European tech industry in the past 12 months.
related to progress on building a more diverse and inclusive European tech industry in the past 12 months.
Neither agree nor disagree 75
ent in the European tech and VC community about the importance of creating
Therea more
is strong agreement in the European tech and VC community about the importance of creating a more
dustry. While many feel better informed and more empowered to take actions diverse
towards
and inclusive industry. While many feel better informed and more empowered to take actions towards
ged their behaviours accordingly, it's also clear that for many the industry isthis
a long
goalway
and have changed their behaviours accordingly, it's also clear that for many the industry is a long way
% of respondents
ortunity for people of all demographics, backgrounds and experiences. from creating equal opportunity for people of all demographics, backgrounds and experiences.
THE FOCUS ON CREATING A MORE DIVERSE AND INCLUSIVE EUROPEAN

50 TECH THE EUROPEAN TECH ECOSYSTEM PROVIDES EQUAL OPPORTUNITY FOR PEOPLE
ECOSYSTEM IS IMPORTANT OF ALL DEMOGRAPHICS, BACKGROUNDS AND EXPERIENCES
th DATASET: T HE FOCUS ON CREATING A MORE DIVERSE AND INCLUSIVE EUROPEAN Do
TECH
youECOSYSTEM IS IMPORTA
agree or disagree NT
with DATAS E T : T H E E U R O P E A N T E C H E C O SYST E M P R OV I D E S E Q UA L O P P O RT U N I T Y FO R P E O P L E O F A L L D E M O G R A PH I C S,
BAC KG R O U ND S A ND E XP E R I E N C E S
the following statements?
100 100
LEGEND
Agree
25
Disagree
75 Neither agree nor disagree 75
% of respondents
% of respondents
50 0 50
Founder or employee at a tech startup/scale-up Venture Capitalist
25 25
NOTE:
uilding a more diverse and inclusive European tech industry in the past 12 months. related to progress on building a more diverse and inclusive European tech industry in the past 12 months.
ent in the European Venture
tech andcapitalists,
VC community founders about
and the importance of creating SOURCE:
Therea more
is strong The State Of European
agreement Tech Survey
in the European tech and VC community about the importance of creating a more
dustry. While many feel better informed
startup/scale-up
0
and atmore
employees
Founder or employee only.
a tech empowered
Numbers to take actions
startup/scale-up diverse
towards
and inclusive
Venture Capitalist industry. While many feel better informed
0
and atmore
Founder or employee empowered to take actions towards
a tech startup/scale-up Venture Capitalist
ged their behaviours accordingly, it's also clear that for many the industry isthis goalway
a long and have changed their behaviours accordingly, it's also clear that for many the industry is a long way
ortunity for people of all demographics, backgrounds and experiences. from NOTE:
creating equal opportunity for people of all demographics, backgrounds and experiences.
THE EUROPEAN TECH ECOSYSTEM HAS MADE MEANINGFUL PROGRESS IN
SOURCE: The State Of European Tech Survey Venture capitalists, founders and I FEEL BETTER INFORMED ON THE TOPIC OF DIVERSITY AND INCLUSION COMPARED
mbers startup/scale-up employees only. Numbers
th IMPROVING ITS LEVEL OF DIVERSITY AND INCLUSION
DATASET: T HE EUROPEAN TECH ECOSYSTEM H AS MADE MEANINGFUL PROGRESS IN
INCLUSION
mayIMPROVING
Do you agree
not add ITS
to 100or LE
toVEL
duedisagreeOF with
DI VE R S I T Y A ND
rounding. TO 12 MONTHS AGO
DATAS E T : I F E E L B E T T E R I NFO R ME D O N T H E TO P I C O F D I VE R S I T Y A ND I N C L U S I O N C O MPA R E D TO 1 2 M O N T H S AG O
100 100
LEGEND
Agree
Disagree
% of respondents
% of respondents
50 50
25 25

uilding a more diverse and inclusive European tech industry in the past 12 months.
ent in the European tech
0
and VC community about the importance of creating Therea more
is strong agreement in the European tech0
and VC community about the importance of creating a more
dustry. While many feel better informed and more empowered to take actions
Founder or employee at a tech startup/scale-up
diverse
towards
and inclusive industry. While many feel better informed
Venture Capitalist
and more empowered to take actions towards
Founder or employee at a tech startup/scale-up Venture Capitalist
ged their behaviours accordingly, it's also clear that for many the industry isthis
a long
goalway
and have changed their behaviours accordingly, it's also clear that for many the industry is a long way
ortunity for people of all demographics, backgrounds and experiences. from NOTE:creating equal opportunity for people of all demographics, backgrounds and experiences.
mbers I FEEL MORE EMPOWERED TO TAKE POSITIVE STEPS TO IMPROVE DIVERSITY AND
Venture capitalists, founders and
startup/scale-up employees only. Numbers I HAVE CHANGED MY BEHAVIOUR AS A RESULT OF INCREASED FOCUS ON DIVERSITY
th INCLUSION WITHIN MY COMPANY COMPARED TO 12 MONTHS AGO may notAND
DATASET: I FEEL MORE EMPOWERED TO TAKE POSITIVE STEPS TO IMPROVE DIVERSITY add to
Do you agree
INCLUSION WITHIN
or disagree M Y C O MPA N Y
with AND INCLUSION
DATAS E T : I H AVE C H A N G E D M Y B E H AV I O U R AS A R E S U LT O F I N C R E AS E D FO C U S O N D I VE R S I T Y A ND I N C L U S I O N
COMPARED TO 12 MONTHS AGO
100 100
LEGEND
Agree
Disagree
% of respondents
% of respondents
50 50
25 25
0 0
Founder or employee at a tech startup/scale-up Venture Capitalist Founder or employee at a tech startup/scale-up Venture Capitalist
NOTE:
SOURCE: The State Of European Tech Survey Venture capitalists, founders and S O U R C E : The State Of European Tech Survey
mbers startup/scale-up employees only. Numbers
05.1 Industry Sentiment on D&I
It's interesting to look at how sentiment varies for different groups of respondents. Exploring the
data based on the gender of respondents shows that women are more likely than men to believe
It's interesting to look at how sentiment varies for different groups of respondents. Exploring the data based on
diversity and inclusion is important, more likely to feelvariesbetterdifferent
informed onofthe topic, more likely to feel on
theIt'sgender
interesting
of to look at how sentiment
respondents shows that forwomen are groups
more respondents.
likely Exploring
than men the data based
to believe diversity and inclusion is
empowered to make positive the genderchange, and more
of respondents shows likely to have
that women changed
are more their
likely than menbehaviour as a result
to believe diversity and inclusion is
important,
important, morelikely
more likely
to to better
feel feel better informed
informed on the onmore
topic, the likely
topic,
to more
feel likely totofeel
empowered makeempowered
positive to make positive
of the increased focus on D&I.
change, and more likely to have changed their behaviour as a result of the increased focus on D&I.
Do you agree or disagree with THE FOCUS

DATAS E T : T H EON
FO CCREATING
U S O N C R E AT IA
N GMORE
A M O R EDIVERSE
D I VE R S E AAND
ND I N CINCLUSIVE
L U S I VE E U R O PEUROPEAN
E A N T E C H E C OTECH
SYST E MECOSYSTEM
I S I MP O RTA N T IS
Dothe
you agreestatements?
or disagree with DATASET: I FEEL MORE EMPOWERED TO TAKE STEPS TO IMPROVE DIVERSITY AND INCLUSION IN MY COMP
following IMPORTANT MONTHS AGO
the following statements? 100
LEGEND
Agree 100
LEGEND
Disagree
Agree
Disagree
% of respondents
50
% of respondents
25 50
It's interesting to look at how sentiment varies for different groups of respondents. Exploring the data based on
the gender of respondents shows that women are more likely than men to believe diversity and inclusion is
important, more likely to feel better informed on the topic, more likely to feel empowered to make positive
0
change, and more likely to have changed their behaviour 25 as a result of the increased focus on D&I.
Women Men
Do you agree or disagree with DATAS E T : I F E E L B E T T E R I NFO R ME D O N T H E TO P I C O F D I VE R S I T Y A ND I N C L U S I O N C O MPA R E D TO 1 2 M O N T H S AG O

NOTE: I SFEEL
O U R C EBETTER INFORMED
: The State Of European TechON THE TOPIC OF DIVERSITY AND INCLUSION COMPARED TO 12 MONTHS AGO
Survey
rounding. 100 0
LEGEND Women Men
Agree
Disagree
NOTE:
% of respondents

rounding. 50
25
It's interesting to look at how sentiment varies 0for different groups of respondents. Exploring the data based on
the gender of respondents shows that women are more likely than men Womento believe diversity and inclusion is Men
NOTE:
I SFEEL
O U R C EMORE EMPOWERED
: The State TO TAKE STEPS TO IMPROVE DIVERSITY AND INCLUSION IN MY
Of European Tech Survey
COMPANY COMPARED TO 12 MONTHS AGO
It'sDointeresting
rounding.
to look
you agree or disagree with at how sentiment varies for different groups of respondents. Exploring the data based on
DATAS E T : I F E E L M O R E E MP OWE R E D TO TA K E ST E P S TO I MP R OVE D I VE R S I T Y A ND I N C L U S I O N I N M Y C O MPA N Y C O MPA R E D TO 1 2
M O N T H S AG O
thethegender
following statements?
of respondents shows that women are more likely than men to believe diversity and inclusion is
100
LEGEND
Agree
Disagree
Do you agree or disagree with DATASET: I FEEL MORE EMPOWERED TO TAKE STEPS TO IMPROVE DIVERSITY AND INCLUSION IN MY COMP
% of respondents
MONTHS AGO
the following statements? 50
100
LEGEND
Agree 25
Disagree
It's interesting to look at how sentiment varies0 for different groups Women of respondents. Exploring the data based on Men
the gender of respondents shows that women are more likely than men to believe diversity and inclusion is
% of respondents
change,
NOTE: and more likely to have changedStheir behaviour50as a result of the increased focus on D&I.
I HAVE CHANGED MY BEHAVIOUR AS A RESULT OF INCREASED FOCUS ON DIVERSITY AND
O U R C E : The State Of European Tech Survey
rounding. INCLUSION
Do you agree or disagree with DATAS E T : I H AVE C H A N G E D M Y B E H AV I O U R AS A R E S U LT O F I N C R E AS E D FO C U S O N D I VE R S I T Y A ND I N C L U S I O N
25
100
LEGEND
Agree
Disagree
0
Women Men
% of respondents
50

25
rounding.
0
Women Men

rounding.
The survey
It's also included
clear a large
that the numberof
experience ofworking
questions exploring
in the industry
European techsentiment on a range
industry varies of different
greatly based onissues
background. For example, respondents from minority ethnic groups are much less likely to believe
There is strong agreement in the European tech and VC community about the importance of creating a more
that the industry has made meaningful progress towards being more diverse and inclusive and much
diverse and inclusive industry. While many feel better informed and more empowered to take actions towards
less likely to believe that it provides equal opportunity for all.
this goal and have changed their behaviours accordingly, it's also clear that for many the industry is a long way
from creating equal opportunity for people of all demographics, backgrounds and experiences.
Do you agree or disagree with NOTE: DATASET: THE FOCUS ON CREATING A MORE DIVERSE AND INCLUSIVE EUROPEAN TECH ECOSYSTEM IS IMPORTANT
the following statements? Numbers may not add to 100 due to
rounding.
100
LEGE ND
Agree
Disagree
% of respondents
50
xperience of working in the European tech industry varies greatly based onIt's
background.
also clear that the experience of working in the European tech industry varies greatly based on background.
nts from minority ethnic groups are much less likely to believe that the industry
For example,
has respondents from minority ethnic groups are much less likely to believe that the industry has
ess towards being more diverse and inclusive and much less likely to believe made
thatmeaningful
it progress towards being more diverse and inclusive and much less likely to believe that it
nity for all. THE EUROPEAN TECH ECOSYSTEM PROVIDES EQUAL OPPORTUNITY
provides FOR PEOPLE
equal opportunity for all. THE EUROPEAN TECH ECOSYSTEM HAS MADE MEANINGFUL PROGRESS IN
25
OF ALL DEMOGRAPHICS, BACKGROUNDS AND EXPERIENCES IMPROVING ITS LEVEL OF DIVERSITY AND INCLUSION
ith DATASET: THE EUROPEAN TECH ECOSYSTEM PROVIDES EQUAL OPPORTUNITY FORDo
PEOPLE OF ALL
you agree DEMOGR APH
or disagree I C S,
with DATAS E T : T H E E U R O P E A N T E C H E C O SYST E M H AS M A D E ME A N I N G F U L P R O G R E S S I N I MP R OV I N G I TS L E VE L O F D I VE R S I T Y A ND
BACKGROUNDS AND EXPERIENCES INCLUSION
LEGEND
Asian 0 Asian
Agree Founder or employee at a tech startup/scale-up Venture Capitalist
Black/African/Caribbean Disagree Black/African/Caribbean
Neither agree nor disagree
Caucasian/White Caucasian/White
NOTE:
Hispanic/Latinx
Venture capitalists, founders and SOURCE: The State Of European Tech Survey Hispanic/Latinx
startup/scale-up employees only. Numbers

Middle Eastern/North African Middle Eastern/North African
Mixed Mixed
Other Other
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
xperience of working in the European tech industry varies greatly based onIt's background.
also clear that the experience of working in the European tech industry varies greatly based on background.
nts from minoritySOURCE:
ethnicThe
groups are much
State Of European less likely to believe that the industry
Tech Survey For example,
has
NOTE: respondents from minoritySethnic groups
O U R C E : The are much
State Of European less likely to believe that the industry has
Tech Survey
thatmeaningful
Numbersitmay not add to 100progress
rounding.
due to towards being more diverse and inclusive and much less likely to believe that it
nity for all. provides equal opportunity for all.
THE FOCUS ON CREATING A MORE DIVERSE AND INCLUSIVE EUROPEAN TECH I FEEL BETTER INFORMED ON THE TOPIC OF DIVERSITY AND INCLUSION COMPARED
ECOSYSTEM IS IMPORTANT TO 12 MONTHS AGO
ith DATASET: THE FOCUS ON CREATING A MORE DIVERSE AND INCLUSIVE EUROPEANDo
TECH
youECOSYSTEM IS IMPORTA
agree or disagree NT
with DATAS E T : I F E E L B E T T E R I NFO R ME D O N T H E TO P I C O F D I VE R S I T Y A ND I N C L U S I O N C O MPA R E D TO 1 2 M O N T H S AG O
LEGEND
Asian Asian
Agree

Hispanic/Latinx Hispanic/Latinx
Mixed Mixed
Other Other
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
SOURCE: The State Of European Tech Survey NOTE: S O U R C E : The State Of European Tech Survey
xperience of working in the European tech industry varies greatly based onIt's
background.
also may
Numbers clear that
not add the
to 100 experience of working in the European tech industry varies greatly based on background.
due to
nts from minority ethnic groups are much less likely to believe that the industry
For example,
has
rounding.
respondents from minority ethnic groups are much less likely to believe that the industry has
thatmeaningful
it progress towards being more diverse and inclusive and much less likely to believe that it
nity for all. I FEEL MORE EMPOWERED TO TAKE POSITIVE STEPS TO IMPROVE
provides DIVERSITYfor
equal opportunity AND
all. I HAVE CHANGED MY BEHAVIOUR AS A RESULT OF INCREASED FOCUS ON DIVERSITY
INCLUSION WITHIN MY COMPANY COMPARED TO 12 MONTHS AGO AND INCLUSION
ith DATASET: I FEEL MORE EMPOWERED TO TAK E POSITIVE STEPS TO IMPROVE DIVERSITY
Do youAND INCLUSION
agree WITHIN
or disagree M Y C O MPA N Y
with DATAS E T : I H AVE C H A N G E D M Y B E H AV I O U R AS A R E S U LT O F I N C R E AS E D FO C U S O N D I VE R S I T Y A ND I N C L U S I O N
COMPARED TO 12 MONTHS AGO
LEGEND
Asian Asian
Agree

Hispanic/Latinx Hispanic/Latinx
Mixed Mixed
Other Other
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
SOURCE: The State Of European Tech Survey NOTE: S O U R C E : The State Of European Tech Survey
rounding.

Four in ten women and men believe there has been an increase in the past 12 months, but more than
half felt things hadn't changed, including 56% of respondents who are founders of work in a tech
startup or scale-up. This sentiment is reflected at similar levels across respondents from all ethnic
Four in ten women and men believe there has been an increase in the past 12 months, but more than half felt
groups too. Respondents from the
thingsinhadn't
UK were most likely to share the view that thereahas been an
Four ten changed,
women including
and men 56% of respondents
believe there haswho been
are founders of work inin
an increase tech
the startup
past 12ormonths,
scale-up. but more than half felt
increase in inclusiveness, while
This sentiment respondents from
is re ected at similar France
levels acrossand the Benelux
respondents from allwere least
ethnic groups likely to say
too. Respondents from
things hadn't changed, including
the view 56% of respondents who inare founders while
of work in a tech startup or scale-up.
there has been an increase.
the UK were most likely to share that there has been an increase inclusiveness, respondents
This
from sentiment
France and the isBenelux
re ectedwereat similar
least likely tolevels
say thereacross respondents
has been an increase. from all ethnic groups too. Respondents from
the UK were most likely to share the view that there has been an increase in inclusiveness, while respondents
from France
Thinking and
only about the the
last 12Benelux wereDATASleast
E T : G E NDlikely
ER to say there has been an increase.
months, have you experienced
any change in the inclusiveness
of the tech industry in Europe? GENDER
Thinking only about the last 12 DATASET: GENDER
months,
LEGEND have you experienced
Women
Increase
of Decrease
the tech industry in Europe?
No change Men
LEGEND
Non-binary Women
FourIncrease
in ten women and men believe there has been an increase in the past 12 months, but more than half felt
things hadn't changed, including 56% of respondents who are founders of work in a tech startup or scale-up.
Decrease
ThisNo
sentiment
change is re ected at similar levels across Other respondents from all ethnic groups too. Respondents from
Men
from France and the Benelux were least likely toto say
Prefer not say there has been an increase.
Non-binary
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Thinking only about the last 12 DATAS E T : E T H N I C I T Y
% of respondents
Other
of the tech industry in Europe? ETHNICITY
Numbers
LEGENDmay not add to 100 due to
rounding. Asian
Increase Prefer not to say
Decrease Black/African/Caribbean
No change
Caucasian/White 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
% of respondents
Hispanic/Latinx
Four in ten women and men believe there Middle hasEastern/North

been anAfrican
increase in the past 12 months, but more than half felt
things
NOTE:
hadn't changed, including 56% of respondents who Mixed
are founders of work in a tech startup or scale-up.
SOURCE: The State
This sentiment is re ected at similar levels across respondents Of all
from European
ethnicTech Surveytoo. Respondents from
groups
Numbers
the UK weremay not
mostadd likely
to 100 due to
to share the view that there has been an increase in inclusiveness, while respondents
Other
rounding.
from France and the Benelux were least likely to Prefer say notthere
to say
has been an increase.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Thinking only about the last 12 DATAS E T : R E G I O N % of respondents
Four in ten women and men believe there has been an increase in the past 12 months, but more than half felt
things hadn't changed, including 56% of respondents who are founders of work in a tech startup or scale-up.
of the tech industry in Europe?
NOTE: S OREGION
This sentiment is re ected at similar
levels across respondents from all ethnic groups too. Respondents from
U R C E : The State Of European Tech Survey
the UK were most likely to share the view

LEGEND
rounding.
CEE that there has been an increase in inclusiveness, while respondents
Increase
from France and the Benelux were least
Decrease DACH
likely to say there has been an increase.
No change
France & Benelux

Nordics
months,
Four in tenhave
women youand
experienced
men believe there has been an increase in the past 12 months, but more than half felt
any change
things in the inclusiveness
hadn't changed, including 56% of respondents
Rest of Europe who are founders of work in a tech startup or scale-up.
of the
This tech industry
sentiment in Europe?
is re ected at similar levels across respondents from all ethnic groups too. Respondents from
Southern Europe
from France and the Benelux were least likely to say there has been an increase.
LEGEND UK & Ireland
Women
Increase
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Thinking only about the last 12 DATAS E T : O C C U PAT I O N
Decrease % of respondents
anyNo changein the inclusiveness
change Men
of the tech industry in Europe?
NOTE: OCCUPATION
Numbers
rounding. Non-binary
Increase
Decrease
Founder or startup/scale-up employee
No change
Other
Prefer not to say
Venture Capitalist
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
% of respondents
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
% of respondents
rounding.
rounding.

When asked to share their sentiment on any change in the inclusiveness of the culture within their
own companies in the past 12 months, the responses were similar to those based on the industry-
wide view. Half of all respondents saidtheir
When asked to share there had been
sentiment on anyno change
change in the in the pastof12the
inclusiveness months, but 44%
culture within their own
were more positive and companies
statedinthey
the past
had 12 seen
months,
antheincrease
responsesinwere
thesimilar to those basedof
inclusiveness onthe
the industry-wide view. Half of
culture at their
When asked to
all respondents share
said their
there had sentiment
been onthe
no change in any
pastchange in but
12 months, the44%
inclusiveness of the
were more positive andculture
stated within their own
companies. Respondents based
they had
companies seenin inthe
an thepast
UKinwere
increase most the
themonths,
12
likely
inclusiveness toculture
have reported
ofresponses
the atwere an increase.
their companies.
similar toRespondents
those based based
oninthe
the industry-wide
UK view. Half of
were most likely to have reported an increase.
all respondents said there had been no change in the past 12 months, but 44% were more positive and stated
they had seen an increase in theDATAS inclusiveness
E T : G E ND E R
of the culture at their companies. Respondents based in the UK
Thinking only about the last 12
were most
months, likely
have you to have reported an increase.
experienced
of the culture at your company?
GENDER
LEGEND
months,
Increase have you experienced
Women

Decrease
of No
the culture at your company?
change Men
LEGEND Non-binary
Women
When Increase
asked to share their sentiment on any change in the inclusiveness of the culture within their own
companies
Decrease in the past 12 months, the responses were similar to those based on the industry-wide view. Half of
Other
all respondents
No change said there had been no change in the past 12 months,Men
but 44% were more positive and stated
they had seen an increase in the inclusiveness of the culture at their companies. Respondents based in the UK
Prefer not to say
0 Non-binary
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
% of respondents
Thinking only about the last 12 DATAS E T : E T H N I C I T Y
Other
NOTE:
ETHNICITY
rounding.
LEGEND Asian
No change
Caucasian/White 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
% of respondents
Hispanic/Latinx

When asked to share their sentiment on any change in the inclusiveness of the culture within their own
companies
NOTE: in the past 12 months, the responses were similar to those based on the industry-wide view. Half of
Mixed
allNumbers
respondents said there had been no change in the past
may not add to 100 due to Other
12 months, but 44% were more positive and stated
rounding.
were most likely to have reported an increase. Prefer not to say
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
% of respondents
Thinking only about the last 12 DATAS E T : R E G I O N
When asked to share their sentiment on any change in the inclusiveness of the culture within their own
companies in the past 12 months, the responses were similar to those based on the industry-wide view. Half of
NOTE:
of the culture at your company? S OREGION
allNumbers
respondents said
may not add to 100 due to there had been no change in the past 12 months, but 44% were more positive and stated
rounding.
they
LEGEND
had seen an increase in the inclusiveness CEE of the culture at their companies. Respondents based in the UK
Increase
were most
Decrease
likely to have reported an increase.
DACH
No change
France & Benelux

Nordics
months,
When have
asked you experienced
to share their sentiment on any change in the inclusiveness of the culture within their own
any change
companies in in
thethe inclusiveness
past 12 months, the responses were similar to those based on the industry-wide view. Half of
Rest of Europe
allofrespondents
the culture said
at your company?
there had been no change in the past 12 months, but 44% were more positive and stated
Southern Europe
were
LEGEND most likely to have reported an increase.
UK & Ireland
Women
Increase
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Decrease % of respondents
anyNo changein the inclusiveness
change Men
NOTE: S OOCCUPATION
Numbers
rounding. Non-binary
Increase
Decrease
No change
Other
Prefer not to say
Venture Capitalist
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
% of respondents
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
% of respondents
rounding.
rounding.

We asked respondents to share whether they felt more comfortable in bringing their whole selves
to work. A material share of respondents stated that they had increased comfort levels in this regard,
We asked respondents to share whether they felt more comfortable in bringing their whole selves to work. A
but there are also meaningful numbers
material share of respondents
of respondents who
stated that they said they
had increased had felt
comfort levelsno change
in this regard,or
buteven
there are also
felt a decreased comfort
We level.
meaningful
asked For
numbers example.
respondents to10%
of respondents of
who
share women
whether and
said they had 16%
felt
they of Black/African/Caribbean
no change
felt more
or even felt a decreased comfort level.
comfortable in bringing their whole selves to work. A
For example. 10% of women and 16% of Black/African/Caribbean respondents said they felt less comfortable
respondents said they felt less
material comfortable
share
over the last
over the
of respondents
12 months.
last that
stated 12 months.
they had increased comfort levels in this regard, but there are also
meaningful numbers of respondents who said they had felt no change or even felt a decreased comfort level.
For example.
Thinking 10%
only about of12women andDATAS
the last 16%E T :of Black/African/Caribbean
G E ND ER respondents said they felt less comfortable
over the last 12 months.
any change regarding your
comfort level in bringing your
whole self to work in your tech
company? GENDER DATASET: ETHNICITY
months,
LEGEND
have you experienced
Increase
Women
comfort
Decrease level in bringing your
Men
No change
company?
We asked respondents to share whether they felt
Non-binary
more comfortable in bringing their whole selves to work. A
material share of respondents stated that they had increased comfort levels in this regard, but there are also
meaningful
LEGEND numbers of respondents who said they Other
had felt no change or even felt a decreased comfort level.
Asian
Increase
over the last 12 months. Prefer not to say
No change
Thinking only about the last 12 DATAS E T :Mixed
ETHNICITY
Caucasian/White
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
% of respondents
comfort level in bringing your Hispanic/Latinx
company?
NOTE: S OETHNICITY
Numbers Asian
rounding.
Increase
Other
No change
Prefer not to say
Caucasian/White
We asked respondents to share whether they felt more comfortable in bringing 0

their10whole selves
20
to work.
30
A 40 50 60 70
Hispanic/Latinx
material share of respondents stated that they had increased comfort levels in this regard, but there are also % of respondents
meaningful numbers of respondents whoMiddle
saidEastern/North
they had felt no change or even felt a decreased comfort level.
African
over the last 12 months. Other
NOTE:
Prefer not to say
Numbers
Thinkingmay
onlynot addthe
about to 100
lastdue
12 to DATAS E T : R E G I O N
rounding. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
% of respondents
When asked to share their sentiment
company?
NOTE: on any change in the inclusiveness of the culture within their own
companies in
Numbers may not add the
to 100 past
due to 12 months,REGION
the responses were similar to those based on the industry-wide view. Half of
rounding.
LEGEND
all respondents
Increase said there had been noCEEchange in the past 12 months, but 44% were more positive and stated
theyDecrease
had seen an increase in the inclusiveness DACH of the culture at their companies. Respondents based in the UK
were most likely to have reportedFrance
No change
an& increase.
Benelux
We asked respondents to share whether they felt more comfortable in bringing their whole selves to work. A
material share of respondents stated that theyNordics
had increased comfort levels in this regard, but there are also
Thinking only
meaningful aboutofthe
numbers last 12
respondents who said theyDATASET:
Rest of Europe
had felt noGENDER
change or even felt a decreased comfort level.
months,
For have
example. you
10% of experienced
women and 16% of Black/African/Caribbean respondents said they felt less comfortable
anythe
over change inmonths.
last 12 the inclusiveness Southern Europe

UK & Ireland
LEGEND
months, have you experienced 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
anyIncrease
change regarding your Women % of respondents

Decrease
company?
NOTE:
No change S O U R C E : The State Of European Tech
MenSurvey
Numbers may not add to 100 due to OCCUPATION
LEGEND
rounding.
Increase
Decrease Non-binary
No change
Other
Prefer not to say

Venture Capitalist
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
% of respondents
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
% of respondents

rounding.
rounding.

I think we're rightly seeing more thought and attention being given
to diversity and inclusion. At Monzo we've taken a really important
step and hired our first head of diversity and inclusion, Sheree
Atcheson. I feel we're making progress in this space but there’s still
a long way to go.
Tom Blomfield
Monzo CEO
The divided sentiment around progress on diversity and inclusion is also visible when asking respondents to
share their sentiment on the priority level at their companies to recruit, retain and grow talent from diverse
demographics, backgrounds or experiences. 45% of respondents who are founders or working at tech startups
The divided sentiment around
and scale-upsprogress on
reported an diversity
increase andlevel
in priority inclusion
and 55%is
of also visible
venture when
capitalist asking But, again, we
respondents.
found that more than four in ten respondents reported they felt there had been no change in priority level.
respondents to shareThetheir sentiment
divided sentiment on the priority
around level aton
progress their companies
diversity to recruit,
and inclusion retain
is also andwhen asking respondents to
visible
grow talent from diverse
share demographics,
their sentiment backgrounds or experiences. 45% of respondents who are
Thinking only about the last 12 on the priority
DATAS E Tlevel
: G E ND E Rat their companies to recruit, retain and grow talent from diverse
founders or working demographics,
atmonths,
tech havestartups and scale-ups reported an increase in priority
backgrounds or experiences. 45% of respondents who are founders
you experienced level and 55% of or working at tech startups
venture capitalist respondents.
and But, again,
any change regarding the priority
scale-ups
level of your companyreported we found that more than four in ten respondents reported
to recruit, an increase in priority level and 55% of venture capitalist respondents. But, again, we
they felt there had been
found noand
retain change
thatgrowmore infrom
talent priority
than fourlevel.
in ten respondents reported they felt there had been no change in priority level.
diverse demographics,
backgrounds or experiences?
GENDER
Thinking
LEGEND only about the last 12 DATASET: GENDER
Women
months,
Increase
Decrease
any
The changesentiment
divided regardingaround
the priority
progress on diversity and inclusion is also visible when asking respondents to
No change
level of your
share their company
sentiment onto recruit,
the
Men
priority level at their companies to recruit, retain and grow talent from diverse
retain and grow
demographics, talent fromor experiences. 45% of respondents who are founders or working at tech startups
backgrounds
diverse
and demographics,
scale-ups reported an increase in priority level and 55% of venture capitalist respondents. But, again, we
Non-binary
backgrounds
found that moreorthan
experiences?
four in ten respondents reported they felt there had been no change in priority level.
Other
LEGEND DATAS E T : E T H N I C I T Y
Women
Decrease
level of your company to recruit, 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
retain and grow talent from
No change Men % of respondents
backgrounds or experiences?
NOTE:
ETHNICITY
LEGEND Non-binary
S O U R C E : The State Of European
Asian
Tech Survey
Increase
rounding.
Decrease
share their sentiment on the priority level at their

No change companiesOther to recruit, retain and grow talent from diverse
When asked to share their sentiment on any change
Caucasian/White
in the inclusiveness of the culture within their own
demographics, backgrounds or experiences. 45% of respondents who are founders or working at tech startups
companies
and scale-upsin the past
reported 12 months,
an increase thelevel
in priority responses
and 55% ofwere
Hispanic/Latinx similar
venture torespondents.
capitalist those based But,on thewe
again, industry-wide view. Half of
all respondents
found that more than said
fourthere had been
in ten respondents no change
reported
Middle Eastern/North they
Prefer insaythe
felt
not to
African past
there 12 months,
had been no changebut 44% were
in priority level. more positive and stated
they had seen an increase in the inclusiveness Mixed
of the culture at their companies. Respondents based in the UK
were most
Thinking likely
only about theto
lasthave
12 reported an increase.
DATAS E T : R E G I O N
Other
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
months, have you experienced % of respondents
Prefer not to say
level of your company to recruit,
Thinking onlytalent
retain and grow about the last 12
from DATASET:
0
GENDER
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
months,
NOTE: have you experienced % of respondents
backgrounds or experiences? SOURCE: The State Of European Tech Survey
any change
Numbers inadd
may not thetoinclusiveness
100 due to REGION
rounding.
LEGEND
NOTE: S O U R C E : TheCEE
State Of European Tech Survey
Increase
rounding.
share their sentiment on the priority level at their
Decrease
LEGEND companies to recruit, retain and grow talent from diverse
DACH
demographics,
No change
Increase backgrounds or experiences. 45% of respondents Women who are founders or working at tech startups
France & Benelux
and Decrease
scale-ups reported an increase in priority level and 55% of venture capitalist respondents. But, again, we
found that more than four in ten respondents reported
Nordics
they felt there had been no change in priority level.
No change Men
Rest of Europe
Southern Europe
any change regarding the priority Non-binary
level of your company to recruit,
UK & Ireland
retain and grow talent from
diverse demographics, 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Other
backgrounds or experiences? % of respondents
LEGEND OCCUPATION
Increase
NOTE:
Prefer not to say
Decrease
rounding.
No change
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
% of respondents
NOTE:
Venture Capitalist
rounding.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
% of respondents

rounding.
In our experience hiring At Karma we're 60% female, which is unusual in a tech
company. And those women are across all teams, including
in Europe, we assumed engineering and product. We feel extremely lucky to have
there might have been attracted this talent.
a challenge in terms of
Another thing we had on our side was the level of English
gender diversity, but spoken in Sweden; it was a clear advantage for us
this actually became an expanding internationally. At Karma we spoke English Elsa Bernadotte
internally from the very beginning, even when all employees Karma
advantage for us. were Swedish. Now that we have offices in 3 countries and Co-Founder & COO
70 employees from over 20 countries, it's a no-brainer to
communicate in English.
Despite large numbers of respondents reporting increases in the quantity of diverse talent hired into their
companies overall, far fewer respondents reported that the diversity of senior leadership in their company had
increased over the last 12 months.
Despite large numbers of respondents
Despite large numbers reporting increasesreporting
of respondents in the quantity of diverse
increases talent hired
in the quantity into talent hired into their
of diverse
their companies overall, far
Thinking
companies fewer
only aboutrespondents
the last 12
overall,
months, have you
reported that
DATAS E T : G E ND E R
the diversity of senior leadership in
far fewer respondents reported that the diversity of senior leadership in their company had
experienced
their company had increased
any change over
increased overthe
regarding the last
the last
level of12
12months.
months.
diversity of senior leadership in
your company?
GENDER
Thinking
LEGEND only about the last 12 DATASET: GENDER
Women
months,
Increase
Decrease
any change regarding the level of
No change
diversity of senior leadership in Men
your company?
Non-binary
Despite large numbers of respondents reporting increases in the quantity of diverse talent hired into their
LEGEND
Women
increased
Increaseover the last 12 months. Other
Decrease
No change DATAS
Prefer E T :toEsay
not THNICITY
Men
any change regarding the level of 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
diversity of senior leadership in % of respondents
your company? Non-binary

ETHNICITY
LEGEND
NOTE: S O U R C E : The State Of Asian
Increase
Other
rounding.
No change
Caucasian/White
When asked to share their sentiment on any

Preferchange
Hispanic/Latinx
not to say in the inclusiveness of the culture within their own
companies in the past
Despite large numbers 12 months,
of respondents the
reporting responses
increases
in were
the similar
quantity to those
of diverse talentbased ontheir
hired into the industry-wide view. Half of
companies
all overall, far
respondents saidfewer respondents
there had beenreported
no change that the diversity
in the of senior
0 past leadership
1210 months, in their
20 but 44% company
30 werehadmore
40 positive
50 and
60 stated 70
increased over the last 12 months. Mixed % of respondents
DATAS E T : R E G I O N
Other

Prefer not to say
NOTE:
any change regarding the level of SOURCE: The State Of European Tech Survey
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Thinking
Numbers ofonly
diversitymay about
not add
senior to 100the last
duein
leadership to 12 DATASET: GENDER % of respondents
rounding.
your company?
REGION
any
LEGEND
change in the inclusiveness
NOTE: S O U R C E : TheCEE
of Increase
the culture at your company? State Of European Tech Survey
rounding.
Decrease DACH
LEGEND
No change
France & Benelux Women
Increase
Despite large numbers of respondents reporting
Decrease increases in the quantity of diverse talent hired into their
Nordics
No change Men
increased over the last 12 months. Rest of Europe
Southern Europe
Non-binary
months, have you experienced UK & Ireland
any change regarding the level of
diversity of senior leadership in 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
% of respondents
your company? Other
LEGEND
OCCUPATION
NOTE:
Increase S O U R C E : The State Of European Tech Survey
Prefer not to say
Decrease
rounding. Founder or startup/scale-up employee
No change
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
% of respondents
NOTE: Venture Capitalist

rounding.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
% of respondents

rounding.
The net net is that there are still far too many
people who believe they must overcome
obstacles to be successful in the European
tech industry. 43% of women respondents and
The net net is that there are still far too many people who believe they must overcome obstacles to be
more than 40% of respondents
successful in from minority
the European tech industry. 43% of women respondents and more than 40% of respondents from
ethnic groups shared minority
that they believe
ethnic groups it is more
shared that they believe it is more di cult to be successful in tech because of their
The net netand/or
background is that there are still far too many people who believe they must overcome obstacles to be
identity.
difficult to be successful in tech because of their
successful in the European tech industry. 43% of women respondents and more than 40% of respondents from
background and/or identity.
minority ethnic groups shared that they
DATAS believe
E T : G E ND ER it is more di cult to be successful in tech because of their
Do you agree or disagree with
background and/orItidentity.
the following statement: is
Themore
netdi net is me
cult for thatto bethere are still far too many people who believe they must overcome obstacles to be
successful in tech because of my
successful in the
background and/or European tech industry. 43% of women respondents and more than 40% of respondents from
identity
GENDER DATASET: GENDER
minority
Do ethnic
you agree
(socio-economic groups
orstatus,
disagree shared that
genderwith they believe it is more di cult to be successful in tech because of their
and/or age)
background and/or identity.
the following statement: It is
more
LEGENDdi cult for me to be
successful
Agree in tech because of my Women
background
you agreeand/or
Do Disagree identity
or disagree with DATASET: GENDER
(socio-economic
the following statement: status, gender
It is
and/ordiage)
more cult for me to be Men
successful
The net net isinthat techtherebecause of my
are still far too many people who believe they must overcome obstacles to be
background
LEGEND
successful in and/or
the Europeanidentity
tech industry.Non-binary
43% of women respondents and more than 40% of respondents from
(socio-economic
Agree ethnic groups
minority status, gender
shared that they believe it is more di cult to be successful in tech because of their
Women
and/or
background
Disagreeage)and/or identity.
Neither agree nor disagree Other
LEGEND DATAS E T : E T H N I C I T Y
Do you agree or disagree with Men
Agree
the following statement: It is 0 Women
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
more di cult for me to be % of respondents
Disagree
successful in tech because of my
Neither agree
background nor disagree
and/or identity
(socio-economic status, gender
NOTE: ETHNICITY Non-binary
S O U R C E : The State Of European
Men Tech Survey
and/or age)
rounding.
LEGEND Asian
Agree Other
Disagree Non-binary

Caucasian/White
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 8
Hispanic/Latinx % of respondents
Other
Mixed
NOTE: 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 8
rounding. Prefer not to say
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

% of respondents

rounding.
rounding.
I only heard the concept The CEE has more gender diversity in its tech workforce
than other regions in Europe. This is a 'side effect' of
of 'part time' when I the old communist regimes where it was the basis of
moved out of Romania! the society that both women and men worked equally.
Women often pursued careers in STEM fields, which
was encouraged due to the focus on industrialisation.
I experienced this firsthand as I was growing up in
Romania. It was natural for professional-age women to Irina Haivas
work - most of our mothers worked full time as engineers,
Atomico Principal
entrepreneurs, doctors and lawyers, and took pride in
their careers. I only heard the concept of 'part time' when
I moved out of Romania! They encouraged their children,
regardless of gender, to have educational and career
ambitions, and they provided role models. This doesn't
mean that there isn't work still to be done, including more
representation in key political roles, reporting of diversity
statistics and addressing pay gaps.

Community-Led Change
We asked respondents to share their views on initiatives they believe have had the biggest impact on
promoting or enabling greater diversity in the European tech ecosystem. The most cited factors include better
We asked respondents education
to shareontheir
the views
topic, greater awareness
on initiatives via media
they believe have coverage
had and the impact of events focussed on the topic
the biggest impact on ofpromoting
diversity and or inclusion.
enabling greater diversity in the European
tech ecosystem. TheWe most asked respondents
cited to share
factors include theireducation
better views on initiatives
on the topic, they believe have had the biggest impact on
greater awareness via promoting
media or enabling
coverage and greater
the
In your opinion, which initiatives, diversity
impact of in the
events European
focussed
Education &ontech
training ecosystem. The most cited factors include better
We asked respondents to share their views on initiatives they believe have had the biggest impact on
the topic of diversityeducation
and any, on
inclusion.
ifpromoting
haveor the
had the topic,
biggest
enabling
greater awareness via media coverage
Media focus
greater diversity in the European tech ecosystem.& coverage and the impact of events focussed on the60topic
The most cited factors include better
ofimpact
diversity
education onand inclusion.
in promoting orgreater
the topic, enabling
awareness via media coverageD&I-focused
and the impact
events of events focussed on the topic 45
greater diversity
of diversity and inclusion in
and inclusion.
the European tech ecosystem? Diversity reporting & measurement 42
Education & training
In your opinion, which initiatives, Education & trainingWomen in technology 39 92
In your opinion, which initiatives,
if any,
if any,have hadthethe
have had biggest
biggest Media focus & coverage
Media focus & coverage 60
60
#MeToo campaign 34
impact
impactin promoting
in promoting or enabling
or enabling
D&I-focused events D&I-focused events 45 45
greater diversity
greater diversity and inclusion
and in
inclusion in Diversity VC initiatives 32
Women in technology Diversity policies 39 26
Women in technology 39
#MeToo campaign 34
Equal treatment & pay focus 23
Diversity VC initiatives #MeToo campaign 32 34
Inklusiiv 12
Diversity policies 26
Diversity VC initiatives 32
Equal treatment & pay focus 0 23 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Diversity policies 26 # of mentions
Inklusiiv 12
Equal treatment
0
&10pay focus
20 30 40 50 23 60 70 80 90 100
# of mentions
NOTE: Inklusiiv 12
Keyword analysis performed on open-ended SOURCE: The State Of European Tech Survey
NOTE: 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
answers, similar spellings and keywords
aggregated.
Keyword analysis performed on open-ended S O U R C E : The State Of European Tech Survey # of mentions
aggregated.
NOTE:
Keyword analysis performed on open-ended SOURCE: The State Of European Tech Survey
aggregated.
Intuitively, it feels like diversity and inclusion have gained an increased level of prominence in the news
Intuitively, it feels likenarrative
diversityaround
and inclusion have gained
the European an increased
tech industry. But ourlevel of of more than 450,000 tech-related articles
analysis
prominence in the news narrative around the European tech industry. But our
published in the past year by over 1,000 European news sources shows that diversity and inclusion actually
analysis of more thandeclined
450,000astech-related
a relative share articles published
of total in the past
news coverage, evenyear by it increased in absolute terms versus 2018. By
though
over 1,000 European contrast,
news sources showsshare
the relative that diversity and inclusion
of news coverage focussed actually
on topics such as fundraising or AI increased in 2019.
declined as a relativeIntuitively, it feels
share of total news likecoverage,
diversity andeveninclusion
thoughhave gained an
it increased in increased level of prominence in the news
narrative around the European tech industry. But our analysis of more than 450,000 tech-related articles
absolute terms versusIntuitively,
2018. Byit contrast,
Share of total tech news
the relative share of news coverage
published infeels
the past
like year and
diversity by over 1,000
inclusion haveEuropean news sources
gained an increased shows that
level of prominence diversity
in the news and inclusion actually
focussed on topics such as fundraising
narrative
narrativearound
(%) by the
topic or AI
European increased
area and in 2019.
tech industry. But our analysis of more than 450,000 tech-related articles
Fundraising
declined
published
as a relative share of total news coverage, even though it increased in absolute terms versus 2018. By
in the past year by over 1,000 European news sources shows that diversity and inclusion actually
year
contrast,
declined asthe relative
a relative share
share ofnews
of total news coverage
coverage, focussed
even though on topics
it increased suchterms
in absolute as fundraising or AI increased in 2019.
versus 2018. By
contrast,
LEGEND
the relative share of news coverage focussed on topics such as fundraising or AI increased in 2019.
22%
2018 22%
Share of total tech news
Share of total tech news Fundraising
54%
2019
narrative (%)byby topic
narrative (%) topic areaarea
and and Fundraising
11% 56%
year
year Blockchain/crypto
22% 12%
LEGEND Artificial Intelligence 22%
LEGEND Artificial Intelligence
2018 22%
2018
2019
10% 22%
Diversity & inclusion 11%
2019 Blockchain/crypto 9%
12% 11%
Blockchain/crypto
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
10% 12%
Diversity & inclusion % of stories
9%
NOTE: 10%
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
Diversity & inclusion
Based on ~5,460 stories across 1,094 % of stories
9%
European news sources from 1 October 2017
toNOTE:
30 September 2018 (2018 data) and on
5,300
Basedstories across
on ~5,460 1,105 European
stories across 1,094 news SOURCE: 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
European
sources fromnews 1sources
October from2018
1 October
to 302017
to 30 September 2018 (2018 data) and on % of stories
September 2019 (2019 data).
5,300 stories across 1,105 European news SOURCE:
sources from 1 October 2018 to 30
NOTE:
Based on ~5,460 stories across 1,094
to 30 September 2018 (2018 data) and on

05.3
It is notable, however, that the overall sentiment of news coverage focussed on the topic of diversity and
Community-Led Change
inclusion shifted to be more positive in 2019 versus the prior year. It is important to share positive messages
with underrepresented communities and not simply further reinforce deeply entrenched stereotypes that have
made
It is notable, however, thattech so unwelcoming
the overall sentimenttoofthese
newsgroups.
coverage focussed on
the topic of diversity and inclusion shifted to be more positive in1002019 versus the
It Share
is notable,
prior year. It is important toof totalhowever,
share (%) that
positive
stories the overall
messages
per withsentiment of news coverage focussed on the topic of diversity and
underrepresented
communities and notinclusion
simply
topic by shifted
further
sentiment to be more
reinforce
summary positive
deeply in 2019
entrenched versus the
stereotypes
It is notable, however, that the overall sentiment of news coverage prior year.
focussed on theIt is important
topic to share positive messages
of diversity and
that have made techwith underrepresented
soinclusion
unwelcoming tomore
shifted to be communities
these groups.
positive and not
in 2019 versus simply
the prior
75
year.further reinforce
It is important to sharedeeply
positiveentrenched
messages stereotypes that have
made tech so unwelcoming
with underrepresented
LEGEND to these
communities and not groups.
simply further reinforce deeply entrenched stereotypes that have
made tech so unwelcoming to these groups.
Positive
% of total stories
Neutral 100
100
Share
Share of totalstories
of total
Negative stories (%) per
(%) per 50
topic
topicby sentiment
by sentiment summary
summary
75
LEGEND
75
LEGEND
Positive
% of total stories
Positive
Neutral 25
% of total stories
Negative
Neutral 50
Negative 50
25 0
2018 2019
NOTE:
25
Based on ~5,460 stories across 1,094 0
2018 2019
to NOTE:
30 September 2018 (2018 data) and on
sources
Europeanfrom
news1sources
October 2018
from to 302017
1 October 0
September 20192018
to 30 September (2019 data).
(2018 data) and on 2018 2019
NOTE:

to 30 September 2018 (2018 data) and on
Photo by: Samuli Pentti

05.3 Community-Led Change
ns to be optimistic about the possibility of making and accelerating positive

One ofEuropean
and inclusive the most powerful reasons to be optimistic
tech ecosystem about
is the large andthegrowing
possibility number
of making of
and accelerating
positive change towards a more diverse and inclusive European tech ecosystem is the large and
chieve this goal. Last year, we included a list 28 initiatives identi ed by Diversity
growing number of initiatives working directly to achieve this goal. Last year, we included a list 28
ar, Sifted initiatives
has beenidentified
able tobyidentify
Diversity100
VC indifferent
just the UKinitiatives from
alone. This year, all across
Sifted has been able to identify
100 different initiatives from all across Europe.
European diversity initiatives and organisations by region

DATAS E T : U K & I R E L AND
UK & IRELAND
Type of
Scope Country Description
Initiative
Volunteer-run organization hosting hundreds of events across Europe and beyond teaching
Django girls Non-profit Global UK
women to build their first web application using HTML, CSS, Python and Django.
A community for recent graduates and university students from underrepresented groups
Xuntos Community Online UK
in tech.
Since Google's London Campus reopened earlier this year, it has focused on supporting
Google for diversity. It regularly hosts #poctech meetups, Black and Good (a community for black
Community Europe UK
Startups social innovators), Womxn, Series Q (a network for LGBTQ+ people at startups) and YSYS
events.
A collective for BAME women working and interested in STEAM due to the lack of
representation, support and progression for un derrepresented groups within tech. They
Women Like Me Meet-up Local UK
host monthly events that create safe spaces to discuss gender and racial issues across
London, using human-centred design methodologies.
Social A for-profit social enterprise working to promote inclusivity in the tech sector through
Hustle Crew Global UK
enterprise talks, training and mentorship.
A new grant scheme from London co-work ing space and community TechHub. It is offering
TechHub free membership to 30 founders from underrepresented backgrounds to its business
Coworking Europe UK
Accelerate support programme and workspace, along with access to its network of mentors and
investors.
An accelerator programme for 'underestimated' founders, funded by US investor Arlan

Backstage USA and
Accelerator UK Hamilton's firm Backstage Capital. The first cohort took p lace in London earlier this year,
Accelerator UK
with five companies graduating. Watch this space for future programmes.
ThisAbility Consultancy Local UK A consultancy, founded in 2016, which works to empower disabled creatives.
Diverse & Equal Events Local UK A two-day conference on diversity and inclusion, held in Manchester.
WTF stands for Women's Tech Focus. A support network for women working in, or
WTF Community Events Local UK interested in, technology. They organise events/workshops in London (…and soon
Amsterdam) and are looking to provide a safe place for sharing or getting advice.
An independent organisation aiming to increase the number of people from black and
Social
UKBlackTech Local UK ethnic minority backgrounds working in tech and founding tech businesses. It offers
enterprise
employer training, university progra mmes and mentorship.
Short for 'Your Startup, Your Story', YSYS is a community for founders and others working in
tech who are interested in promoting diversity in the ecosystem. It hosts an extremely
YSYS Community Local UK
collaborative Slack community, runs a pre-accelerator to help 18-24 year-olds launch
businesses and TalentDoor, a series of career-focussed workshops for diverse talent.
Started in 2018, Foundervine 'helps diverse entrepreneurs build startups from scratch'. It
runs a startup-building programme, educational masterclasses, festivals and training for
Foundervine Acc elerator Global UK
corporates around the UK. It is also launching a nine-week scale-up programme for
businesses run by black entrepreneurs, which starts in October.
Supports underrepresented founders in L ondon with everything from startup weekends to

OneTech Community Local UK
mentoring and free workspace.
Hosts events at tech companies (such as Uber and Microsoft) for black and ethnic minority
Witty Careers Events Local UK
women, and also offers career support, through mentorship and resources.
A non-profit organisation founded in 2016 which aims to increase the number of ethnic
minorities entering the U K's tech workforce. It runs four programmes, including a pre-
Colorintech Non-profit Local UK
accelerator, an internship scheme for university students and a coding event for school
students.
A WhatsApp community for black founders and investors which has been growing through
10×10 Community Local UK
word-of-mouth since 2015.
Dubbed as 'LinkedIn for black professionals', BYP holds conferences, hosts a jobs board and
BYP Network Events Local UK runs a networking app, all to help young black professionals meet and support one another.
Its annual conference is taking place in London on 3 September.
Muslamicmakers Meet-up Local UK A meetup event for Muslims (and non-Muslims) to discuss, pitch and share ideas.
Hosts events at tech companies (such as Uber and Microsoft) for black and ethnic minority
Witty Careers Events Local UK
women, and also offers career support, through mentorship and resources.
A non-profit organisation founded in 2016 which aims to increase the number of ethnic
05.3 Community-Led Change minorities entering the U K's tech workforce. It runs four programmes, including a pre-
Colorintech Non-profit Local UK
accelerator, an internship scheme for university students and a coding event for school
students.
UK10×10
& IRELAND A WhatsApp community for black founders and investors which has been growing through
Community Local UK
word-of-mouth since 2015.
Dubbed as 'LinkedIn for black professionals', BYP holds conferences, hosts a jobs board and
BYP Network Events Local UK runs a networking app, all to help young black professionals meet and support one another.
Its annual conference is taking place in London on 3 September.
Muslamicmakers Meet-up Local UK A meetup event for Muslims (and non-Muslims) to discuss, pitch and share ideas.
Don't Sleep on
Events Loc al UK An event for people from BAME backgrounds working on side projects.
Us
A tech festival by and for black people of African and Caribbean heritage'. Held annually in
Afrotech Fest Events Local UK
and inclusive European tech ecosystem is the large and growing number of
London.
chieve thisSolidarity
goal. Last
in
year, we included a list 28 initiatives identi ed by Diversity
Aims to 'dispel certain myths about the tech/STEM industry' and make it as inclusive an
Events Local UK
ar, Sifted has been able to identify 100 different initiatives from all across
Tech industry as possible.
Inspiring underrepresented teens of c olour to pursue careers in tech, through events and
Coders of Colour Events Local UK
workshops.
DATAS E T : C E E & DAC H

CEE & DACH
Type of
Initiative
A community of senior women investors from across Europe (managing

European Women in VC Community Europe Poland partners, founders of VC funds and business angels). Their mission is to
strengthen the presence of women in the VC industry in Europe.
Czech Non-profit aiming to increase diversity in the tech sector through education
Czechitas Non-profit National
Republic and workshop initiatives.
A business incubator for people with a refugee or migrant background. It also

Capacity Incubator Local Switzerland
runs workshops and training and mentoring schemes.
Switzerland's first women-friendly hackathon (69% of participants to the last

Hach'n'Lead Events Local Switzerland
event were new to hackathons.)
A non-profit that aims to tack le gender inequality in tech by educating and

Girls Tech Switzerland Non-profit Local Switzerland empowering women who are passionate about technology. It offers events and
workshops.
A recruitment site with a diversity focus, connecting companies and

TechFace Recruitment National Switzerland candidates in tech. Their catchphrase is 'making tech more colourful' and they
assess companies for culture and commitment to diversity before engaging.
A network of more than 1600 women and men dedicated to greater diversity in
We Shape Tech Co mmunity National Switzerland tech and innovation. Currently has chapters in Zurich, Basel, Bern and Geneva
and is expanding into other cities in Switzerland and beyond.
Female Founders A hub for female founders in Vienna, which runs regular events, an accelerator
Academy from Hatch Accelerator Local Austria program me for startups from all over Europe and beyond, and a corporate
Enterprise (Austria) leadership programme.
SOURCE:

DATAS E T : F R A N C E & BENELUX

FRANCE & BENELUX
Type of
Initiative
The Next A global community of ambitious entrepreneurs, investors and executives that has
Fund Online Netherlands
Women created its own fund to help close the gap on female funding.
EWPN
(European A not-for-profit organisation dedicated to building a community for women in cards,
Women Non-profit Europe Netherlands fintech and payments in Europe, which org anises local networking evenings, workshops,
Payments annual events, awards and research.
Network)
Fighters A free one-year programme for founders of early-stage startups, from underprivileged
Coworking Local France
Programme backgrounds. Run by startup mega campus Station F in Paris.
A two-part programme from government-backed organisation La French Tech to support

aspiring entrep reneurs from underrepresented groups in 13 regions. The first phase —
La French 'Prepa' — helps founders prototype and test their business idea, supported by a €17,000
Accelerator Local France
Tech Tremplin grant. The second phase, 'Incubation', is for early-stage businesses, and includes
membership of a partner accelerator, access to financial and business experts, and
introductions to investors and stakeholders.
An organisation promoting social, cultural and ethnic diversity in the digital sphere —
Diversidays Accelerator Local France through training and mentoring, running events and engaging with economic and political
decision makers across France.
Startup An association formed in 2017 which hopes to inspire a generation of entrepreneurs in the
Community Local France
Banlieue suburbs. It runs mentoring programmes and events.
An annual event, this year held at Station F in Paris, which brings together founders,
Afrobytes Events Local France investors, academics, industry and more to explore business opportunities in Africa's tech
ecosystem.
Les Founded in 2015, this non-profit organisation offers entrepreneurs in suburban and rural
Non-profit Local France
Determinés areas training and workshops.
An organisation which suppor ts refugees by, amongst other things, helping them launch
Singa France Community National France
businesses. Active in eight cities across France.
Willa (formerly
An incubator for female founders which runs several programmes across France, catering
known as
Incubator Local France to different business stages and sectors. It also runs programmes for corporates and
Paris
'intrapreneurs' — those innovating within a business.
Pionnières)
Founded in 2010 by Roxanne Varza (now director of Paris mega campus Station F) and
StartHer Comm unity Local France Mounia Rhka, StartHer aims to put a spotlight on women working in the tech sector,
through events, content and networks.
Women in
Meet-up Local France Regular meetups for women in fintech in Paris.
Fintech
Group supporting entrepreneurs from Paris' banlieue. It brings together e ntrepreneurs and
French Tess Community Local France investors, promotes role models, demystifies the world of technology and looks for new
ways to make the ecosystem more inclusive.
Currently active in Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Delft, Utrecht and Eindhoven, Female Ventures
Female
Community Local Netherlands supports women in leadership roles with an online community, one-on-one mentorship
Ventures
and events. It also supports the Fundright initi ative.
An intentionally inclusive accelerator for women-led startups that focus on social impact
FEM-START Accelerator Local Netherlands or tech. Provides communication and confidence training as well as giving access to
capital and important business tools.
Amsterdam
Creative A collective of creative entrepreneurs in Amsterdam. Hosts dinners, events and learning
Events Local Netherlands
Entrepreneurs experiences.
Collective
A group looking to close the gender gap in code. They host meetups for coders and
Girl Code Meet-up Local Netherlands
everyone interested in code (men are welcome too!).
Organization that aims to empower women by bringing diversity to the technology scene.
SheSharp Meet-up Local Netherlands
They host monthly events that bridge the gap between STEM and Entrepreneurship.
Swedish group supporting women in tech via events and the 'Techionista Academy', which
Technionista Events Local Nethe rlands
provides one-day Masterclasses week-long Bootcamps or up to 3 months training.
Code to They're looking to provide women with the skills to succeed in the job market. They host a
Meet-up Local Netherlands
Change mentorship programme and lots of events in Amsterdam.
www.stateofeuropeantech.com An initiative119
backed by 25 Dutch VCs to improve both theIn Partnership with within their
gender balance & own
#Fundright Advocacy Local Netherlands workforce and of the companies they invest in. (In 2017, less than 2% of venture capital in
the Neth erlands went to female founders.)
Events Local Netherlands
Entrepreneurs experiences.
Collective
05.3 Community-Led Change A group looking to close the gender gap in code. They host meetups for coders and
Girl Code Meet-up Local Netherlands
everyone interested in code (men are welcome too!).
FRANCE & BENELUX Organization that aims to empower women by bringing diversity to the technology scene.
SheSharp Meet-up Local Netherlands
They host monthly events that bridge the gap between STEM and Entrepreneurship.
Swedish group supporting women in tech via events and the 'Techionista Academy', which
Technionista Events Local Netherlands
provides one-day Masterclasses week-long Bootcamps or up to 3 months training.
ns to be optimistic
Code to
about the possibility of makingThey're
andlooking
accelerating positive
to provide women with the skills to succeed in the job market. They host a
Meet-up Local Netherlands
and inclusive European tech ecosystem is the large and growing number
Change mentorship programme and lots ofin Amsterdam.
of events
An initiative backed by 25 Dutch VCs to improve both the gender balance within their own
ar, Sifted has been able to identify 100 different initiatives from
#Fundright Advocacy Local Netherlands workforce and all across
of the companies they invest in. (In 2017, less than 2% of venture capital in
the Netherlands went to female founders.)
DATAS E T : N O R D I C S
NORDICS
Type of
Initiative
Helps girls and women learn sketching, prototyping and basic programming and get
Rails Girls Non-profit Global Finland introduced to the world of technology. Rails Girls was born in Finland, but is nowadays a
global, non-profit volunteer community.
SHE
Community Local Norway Initiative pushing for gender equality in the workplace.
Community
TENK Thin k' runs workshops and events to encourage women and girls to consider careers in
Events Local Norway
Norge tech.
Pangea is an accelerator program and an investment platform that matches African

Pangea Accelerator Local Norway
startups with investors.
Charge Incubator Local Norway Charge is a 12-month startup incubator for first generation immigrants.
An initiative by the City of Stockholm to support equ al opportunities for women and men.
A Woman's Over 100 tech companies have joined and declared themselves 'A Woman's Place', including
Advocacy Local Sweden
Place local unicorns Spotify, Klarna, iZettle and King. Its website has resources for all companies
looking to improve their gender equality.
Femtech A free, intensive one-week accelerator programme for female founders, set up in 2018 by
Accelerator Local Sweden
Bootcamp numerous government organisations.
Di Digital
An event series for female founders to pitch their ideas and, for a successful few, take part
Female Events USA/Swedeb Sweden
in a trip to New York.
Founders
A movement challenging Finnish fast-growing tech companies to report their diversity data.
Inklusiiv Advocacy National Finland Their website brings together studies and best practices for improving diversity in
business.
A talent accelerator in Helsinki designed to support a diverse group of people into the
The
Accelerator Local Finland startup community. It works at the grassroots level to build a community of startup doers
Shortcu t
and now has over 90 nationalities and more men than women.
Women in Open community running events, online forums, a slack group and a mentorship programme
Community National Denmark
Tech DK to build relation ships between female founders.
SOURCE:

DATAS E T : S O U T H E R N EUROPE
SOUTHERN EUROPE
Type of
Initiative
This is an initiative devoted to empowering women as leaders and potential founders. It

MujeresTech Community Online Spain
trains kids, teenagers and adults.
This Barcelona-based initiative is an AI training campus dedicated to women in tech. It

Coding
AllWomen.tech Local Spain offers Data Science, UX – UI Design, and Product Management courses for women, by
school
women .
A Spanish Association of Women Executives, CEOs, and Managing Directors, whose goal
Eje&Con Community National Spain is to increase the number of women in Senior Management positions as well as in
corporates' Boards of Directors.
A programme by Obra Social La Caixa that provides free advice to low-income and low-
resource entrepreneurs (for example, people with disab ilities, long-term unemployed,
Autoempleo
Community Local Spain youth at risk of exclusion, gender violence victims, immigrants, and former prisoners),
Incorpora
and accompanies them through the founding process. They analyse the viability of the
project and help find funds.
SheTech Italy is a community founded with the aim of supporting women in technology,
She Tech Italy Community Local Italy digital and entrepreneurship, through networking event s, workshops and professional
opportunities.
#BcnTech4Women is a working group to promote the voices of women in the Barcelona
and inclusive European tech
#BcnTech4Women ecosystem
Non-profit Local isSpain
the large
techand growing
community, number
under the of
umbrella of Barcelona Tech City, a non-profit organisation of
more than 800 companies.
ar, Sifted has been able to identify 100 different initiatives

Portuguese
fromin all
Portuguese Women Techacross
is a community and web resource that draws attention to
Community National Portugal fem ale talent in tech. The group organizes events and has published a booklet to
Women in Tech
distribute around schools in Portugal.
DATAS E T : N O RT H A MERICA
NORTH AMERICA
SOURCE:
ns to be optimistic about
Type of the possibility of making and accelerating positive
and inclusive European tech ecosystem is the large and growing number of
Initiative
chieve thisAnitaB.org
goal. Last year, weGlobal
Community included
USA a list 28 initiatives identi ed by Diversity
A global organisation that is known for the Grace Hopper Celebration (GHC), a massive gathering of
women technologists. There are are a series of AnitaB.org local communities in various cities.
WOW A networking dinner series, promoting diversity and inclusion in tech. It's active in several countries
Non-profit Global Canada
Dinner around the world, including Spain, France, the UK, Portugal and Germany.
DATAS E T : G LO BA L
GLOBAL
SOURCE:
Type of
Initiative
Events hosting speeches coming from top innovators and leaders. Has offshoots all over
TedXWomen Events Global NA
Europe (e.g. TEDxAmsterdamWomen and TEDxLondonWomen).
A friendly, welcoming and collaborative community of women in UX, with a growing number of
Ladies that UX Community Global NA
local groups based in cities worldwide (including 12 across Europe).
An international mentorship group with a focus on helping more women become active
Pyladies N etwork Global NA participants and leaders in the Python open-source community. They have a series of Meetups
and/or a Facebook group for most countries in Europe (as well as elsewhere across the world).
A non-profit that aims to increase diversity in tech by making female role models in te ch more
Inspiring Fifty Non-profit Global NA
visible.
Community of leaders from around the world dedicated to supporting one another via executive
FutureWomenX Community Global NA coaching, global expeditions, impact accelerators and Personal Boards (groups of women from
across sectors who get together to serve as each other's ongoing 'Personal Board of Directors').
Chicas A community that is active around the world b ut also has a home in Spain. It is all about
Community Global NA
poderosas empowering women and promoting female founders in media.
SOURCE:

DATAS E T : O N L I NE
ONLINE
Type of
Initiative
A new platform which aims to support women in tech — through educational podcasts, networking
50inTech Community Online NA
and working with industry stakeholders — and reach an equal gender balance in tech by 2050.
A community-driven initiative bringing empowerment, knowledge and active collaboration via

Women in AI Community Online NA education, research, events (acro ss Europe and beyond) and blogging.Their mission is to increase
female representation and participation in AI.
Femstreet began as a newsletter for female founders and investors, and has grown into a global
Femstreet Community Online NA community, with events in the US and Europe, and an invite-only Slack community for active
newsletter readers.
Non-profit dedicated to educatin g, equipping and empowering women and girls with the necessary
Women in skills to succeed in STEM career fields. Their work includes education in schools as well as
Non-profit Online NA
Tech mentoring, incubation and acceleration camps, networking events and research. Events are
located across Europe.
Lesbians This group is a big community (50,000+ including allies) based in the US that is expanding to
Community Online NA
Who Tech Europe. Th ey host lots of summits and events and have a coding scholarship programme.
Global D&I A safe environment with driven D&I champions facilitating knowledge sharing. Consists of a mix of
Knowledge Community Online NA founder of tech startups solving D&I challenges, corporates, NGOs and educational institutions, as
Community well as individuals such as D&I experts and up-and-coming D&I professionals.
A diversity and inclusion platform founded by Furkan Karayel that provides diversity news,
Diverse i n Community Online NA consultancy services and events. It helps develop sustainable strategies for companies to make
equal and happier workplaces with its 20+ ambassadors from all over the world.
Helps women in tech gain public speaking experience and skills, to counter the
300Seconds Events Online NA
underrepresentatio n of women onstage at conferences.
SOURCE:

In some areas, European tech has certainly become more

diverse in the last year. Initiatives like OneTech, funds like
Backstage Capital and communities like Foundervine,
Blooming Founders and Femstreet have grown in scale
and influence in the main hubs, and there is a growing Check Warner
understanding of the importance of inclusion and not just Diversity VC
Co-Founder
diversity, which is very welcome.
As the industry has focused more of its attention on the topic of diversity, there has been a large rise in the
As the industry has focused
number more of its
of events attention
focused on the
on D&I topicthe
across ofregion
diversity,
in recent years.
there has been a large rise in the number of events focused on D&I acros
the region in recent years.
Share and number of tech-
6.5%
6,000
related Meetup events focused
Asonthe
D&Iindustry
by year has focused more of its attention on the topic of diversity, there has been 6.1%a large rise in the
As the industry has focused more of its attention on the topic of diversity, there has been a large rise in the 4,843
number
number
of events focused on D&I across the region in recent years.
LEGENDof events focused on D&I across the region in recent years.
# of tech-related Meetups # of tech-related Meetups
4,002
# of events hosted 4,000 5.7%
Share
6.5% 6.5%
% ofand
Share and
all number
number
events of tech-
hosted of tech- 6,000 5,839 6.5
related Meetup events focused 6,000
related Meetup
on D&I by year
events focused 2,903
6.1%
on D&I by year 4,843
% of tech-related Meetups hosted

6.1%
4,843
# of tech-related Meetups
LEGEND 6.0
2,000 1,815
5.0% 4,002
LEGEND 5.6%
% of all events hosted 4,002
2,903 5.5
% of all events hosted
2,000 1,815
5.0% 2,903
0 5.0
2015 2016 2017 2018
2,000 1,815
5.0%
0 4.5
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
NOTE: SOURCE:
2019.
NOTE: SOURCE: 0
2019 annualised based on data to September 2015 2016 2017 2018
2019.
NOTE:
SOURCE:
2019.
Still we have to be honest We still see about 80% of the founder teams being
predominantly male. But we strongly believe that one
that both our industry of Europe's biggest assets in global competition is its
and ourselves need to do diversity. Europe sees a large number of initiatives to
more to really change the encourage and include specifically female founders
and entrepreneurs, and it seems that these dynamics
picture. are accelerating in a very positive way, also triggered
by an increasing number of top-level female investors. Daniel Keiper-Knorr
Speedinvest is actively supporting local initiatives to
Speedinvest
drive gender equality and age equality such as 'Female
Founders' and 'WisR'. Still we have to be honest that both Founder & Partner
our industry and ourselves need to do more to really
change the picture.

According to Meetup, 'Women in Technology' is one of Top
05.3 Community-Led10 fastest-growing
Change topics for all tech-related Meetup
events in Europe in 2019.
According to Meetup, 'Women in Technology' is one of Top 10 fastest-growing

Digital media
topics for all
The 10 fastest growing topics for
tech-related Meetup events in Europe in 2019.
tech-related
According toMeetup
Meetup,events in
'Women in Technology' is oneFounders of Top 44%
Europe in 2019
10According to Meetup, 'Women
fastest-growing topicsinforTechnology' is one of Top
all tech-related Meetup
Agile transformation 40%
10 fastest-growing topics for all tech-related Meetup
events
eventsin Europe
in Europe in 2019.
in 2019. Product development 39%
3D animation 38%
Digital media 55%
The 10 fastest growing topics for Digital media
The 10 fastest growing topics for Agile coaching 35%
tech-related Meetup events in Founders 44%
tech-related
Europe in 2019Meetup events in Founders 44%
Agile transformation Scrum 40% 35%
Europe in 2019
Product development
Agile transformation 39%
40%
SEO 28%
3D animation
Product development 38% 39%
Women in technology 27%
Agile coaching 35%
3D animation 38%
Technology professionals 26%
Scrum 35%
Agile coaching 35%
SEO 0 5 10 15
28% 20 25 30 35 40 45
Women in technology Scrum 27% YoY growth (%) 35%
Technology professionals 26%

SEO 28%
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
NOTE:
Women in technology YoY growth (%) 27%
2019 annualised based on data to September SOURCE:
2019. Only events with at least 250 events in Technology professionals 26%
2018 included.
NOTE:
2019 annualised based on data to September SOURCE: 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
2019. Only events with at least 250 events in YoY growth (%)
2018 included.
NOTE:
2019 annualised based on data to September SOURCE:
Despite the rise
2019. Only events with atof events
least 250 eventsfocussed
in on bringing together and supporting underrepresented groups within
European
2018 included.
Despite the rise of events tech, at
focussed onabringing
macro level there and
together has supporting
not been anyunderrepresented
material improvement in female attendees in tech-
groups
related Meetup events in Europe in recent years. Women
within European tech, at a macro level there has not been any material improvement in female accounted for only 23.4% of participants in 2019, a
number that has only crept upwards from 23.0% in 2018.
attendees in tech-related Meetup events in Europe in recent years. Women accounted for only 23.4%
of participants in 2019, a number
Despite thatofhas
the rise onlyfocussed
events crept upwards from together
on bringing 23.0% inand
2018.
supporting underrepresented groups within
Share of female
European tech,attendees
at a macro in level there has not been any material improvement in female attendees in23.0%
25.0
tech-
tech-related
Despite the riseMeetup events
of events in on bringing together and supporting underrepresented groups within
focussed
related Meetup events in Europe in recent years. Women accounted
21.5% for only 23.4%
21.6% of participants in 2019, a
Europe tech, at a macro level there has not been any material improvement in female attendees in tech-
European
number that events
related Meetup has only creptinupwards
in Europe from
recent years. 23.0%
Women in 2018.
accounted
20.0 for only 23.4% of participants in 2019, a
number that has only crept upwards from 23.0% in 2018.
% of female attendees % of female attendees
Share of female attendees in 15.0

25.0
Share of female attendees in 25.0
tech-related Meetup
tech-related Meetup eventsevents
in in 23.0% 23.4% 23.0%
21.5% 21.6%
Europe
Europe 21.5% 21.6%
20.0 10.0
20.0
% of female attendees
15.0
5.0
15.0
10.0
0.0
10.0
5.0
2016 2017 2018
0.0 5.0
2016 2017 2018 2019
SOURCE:
NOTE:
% of the reported gender of attendees. 0.0
SOURCE: 2016 2017 2018
NOTE:
% of the reported gender of attendees.
SOURCE:
NOTE:
% of the reported gender of attendees.

Eastern European countries are the main constituents of the top 10 list of countries for female
participation at tech-related Meetup events. Though there are differences across countries, the
participation of women in tech community events throughout Europe remains low; Hungary, the
Eastern number
European countries
one countryare
by the main
share constituents in
of participants of events
the topthat
10 list
areofwomen,
countries for the
tops female
list participation
with just 28%.at
tech-related Meetup events. Though there are differences across countries, the participation of women in tech
Denmark,
Eastern at the other
European end of
countries the
are list,
the hasconstituents
main one of the lowest
of the female participation
top 10 list of countriesrates at justparticipation
for female 18%. at
community events throughout Europe remains low; Hungary, the number one country by share of participants
tech-related
in events Meetup
that are women, events.
tops Though
the list there
with just areDenmark,
28%. differences across
at the countries,
other the
end of the participation
list, of women in tech
has one of the
community
lowest female events throughout
participation Europe
rates at just 18%. remains low; Hungary, the number one country by share of participants
in events that are women, tops the list with just 28%. Denmark, at the other end of the list, has one of the
lowest female participation rates at just 18%.
Share of woman attendees in DATAS E T : TO P 1 0 C O U N T R I E S
tech-related Meetup events by TOP TEN COUNTRIES
country Share of woman attendees in DATASET: TOP 10 COUNTRIES
tech-related Meetup events by
country Romania 27.6%
Latvia 27.5%
Romania 27.6%
Germany 26.4%
Latvia 27.5%
Spain 25.9%
Germany 26.4%
Luxembourg 25.7%
Spain 25.9%
Ireland 25.7%
Luxembourg 25.7%
Norway 25.5%
Ireland 25.7%
Eastern European countries are the main constituents
Switzerland of the top 10 list of countries for female participation at 25.5%
tech-related Meetup events. Though there are Lithuania

Norway
differences across countries, the participation of women in tech 25.5%
25.5%
community events throughout Europe remains Sweden

low; Hungary,
Switzerland the number one country by share of participants 25.3%
25.5%
in events that are women, tops the list with just 28%. Denmark, at the other end of the list, has one of the
Lithuania 25.5%
0.0 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 12.5 15.0 17.5 20.0 22.5 25.0 27.5 30.0
lowest female participation rates at just 18%. Sweden % of women 25.3%
0.0 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 12.5 15.0 17.5 20.0 22.5 25.0 27.5 30.0
COUNTRIES
DATAS E T : C O U11-20
NTRIES 11-20 % of women
Share of woman attendees in
NOTE:
tech-related
% of the reported Meetup events by
gender of attendees. Only SOURCE:
countrywith
countries at least 100 female attendees
NOTE:
included.
% of the reported gender of attendees. Only SOURCE:
countries with at least 100 female attendees United Kingdom 24.9%
included.
Netherlands 24.7%
France 24.2%
Eastern European countries are the main constituents of the top 10 list of countries for female participation at
Bulgaria
tech-related Meetup events. Though there are differences across countries, the participation of women in tech 24.2%
community events throughout Europe remains low; Hungary, the number one country by share of participants
Portugal 24.0%
in events that are women, tops the list with

Serbia just 28%. Denmark, at the other end of the list, has one of the 23.0%
lowest female participation rates at just 18%.

Estonia 22.9%
Ukraine
Eastern European countries are the main constituents of the top 10 list of countries for female participation at 22.6%
Share of woman attendees in DATASET: TOP 10 COUNTRIES

tech-related Meetup events. Though there areAustria
differences across countries, the participation of women in tech 22.4%
tech-related Meetup events by
community events throughout Europe remainsFinland
low; Hungary, the number one country by share of participants 21.9%
country
in events that are women, tops the list with just 28%. 0.0 Denmark,
2.5 at5.0the other
7.5 end10.0
of the list,
12.5 has15.0one of 17.5
the 20.0 22.5 25.0 27.5
lowest female participation rates at just 18%. Romania
% of women
27.6%
Latvia 27.5%
NOTE: DATAS E T : T H E R E ST
Share of woman attendees in THE REST Germany 26.4%
SOURCE:
tech-related
% of the reported Meetup events by
gender of attendees. Only
countries with at least 100 female attendees Spain 25.9%
country
included.
Luxembourg 25.7%
Belgium 21.5%
Ireland 25.7%
Croatia 21.2%
Norway 25.5%
Hungary 20.8%
Switzerland 25.5%
Turkey 20.8%
Lithuania 25.5%
Poland 20.7%
Sweden 25.3%
Italy 19.8%
Greece 0.0 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 12.5 15.0 17.5 20.0 22.5
19.7% 25.0 27.5 30.0
% of women
Denmark 18.0%
Czech Republic 17.6%

NOTE:
Russia 17.1%
countries with at least 100 female attendees Slovenia 15.4%
included.
0.0 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 12.5 15.0 17.5 20.0 22.5
% of women
NOTE:
countries with at least 100 female attendees
included.
People
What kinds of people work in European tech jobs?

The archetype of a European founder is still overwhelmingly a
man with financial stability. Founders are feeling the heat from
increased competition for talent. The debate is now turning to how
to keep that talent engaged through incentives and stock options,
and healthy through discussions of mental health and wellness.

Portrait of a European Tech Founder
Our survey of more than 1,200 founders from across Europe found that 21% of founder respondents self-
identify as female. The gender diversity of founders varies across the region. According to the survey
responses,
Our survey of more than the UK and
1,200 founders Ireland
from have
across the highest
Europe found gender diversity,
that 21% of while France, the Benelux and Southern
Europe have the lowest levels.
founder respondents self-identify as female. The gender diversity of founders
varies across the region. According to the survey responses, the UK and Ireland
Our
have the highest gender survey
diversity,
Which of do
gender more
while than 1,200the
France,
you identify founders
Benelux from
and across
UK Southern
& Ireland
Europe found that 21% of founder respondents self-
identify
Our surveyas
with? female.
of more thanThe
1,200gender
foundersdiversity
from acrossof founders
Europe varies
found that 21% across the
of founder region. According
respondents self- to the survey
responses, the UK and Ireland have the highestNordics gender diversity, while France, the Benelux and Southern
identify as female. The gender diversity of founders varies across the region. According to the survey
responses, the UK and Ireland have the highest gender diversity, while France, the Benelux and Southern
Europe
LEGEND have the lowest
levels.
Women
Rest of Europe
Men
Which
Which gender do you
gender doidentify
you identify UK & Ireland UK & Ireland
Non-Binary
with?
with?
Other
DACH
Nordics
LEGEND Nordics
Prefer not to say
LEGEND
Women CEE
Rest of Europe
Men
Women
Non-Binary Rest of Europe
Men DACH Southern Europe
Other
Non-Binary
Prefer not to say
CEE DACH
Other France & Benelux
Prefer not to say Southern Europe
CEE
France & Benelux
NOTE: Southern Europe

Founders only. Numbers may not add to 100
due to rounding.
NOTE: France & Benelux
due to rounding.
NOTE:
due to rounding.
The overwhelming majority of founders who responded to the survey self-

identify as White/Caucasian, making upmajority
The overwhelming 84% of of
responses
founders received. The ethnic
who responded to the survey self-identify as White/Caucasian, making
diversity of founder respondents was highest
up 84% of responses in theThe
received. UK,ethnic
wherediversity
20% of founder
of founder respondents was highest in the UK, where 20%
of founder
respondents self-identified respondents
with self-identi
a minority ethnic ed with a minority ethnic group.
group.
The overwhelming majority of founders who responded to the survey self-identify as White/Caucasian, making
upWhich
84%best
of responses received. The ethnic diversity
describes your UK & Ireland of founder respondents was highest in the UK, where 20%
The overwhelming majority of founders who responded to the survey self-identify as White/Caucasian, making
ethnicity?
ofupfounder respondents
84% of responses received.self-identi ed with
The ethnic diversity a minority
of founder ethnicwas
respondents group.
highest in the UK, where 20%
of founder respondents self-identi ed with a minority ethnic
France group.
& Benelux
LEGEND
Which best describes your

Caucasian/White UK & Ireland
Which best describes your DACH
ethnicity?
Asian
ethnicity?
UK & Ireland
Mixed France & Benelux France & Benelux

Nordics
LEGEND
LEGEND
Caucasian/White
Caucasian/White DACH
Middle
Asian Eastern/North African DACH
Southern Europe
Asian
Hispanic/Latinx
Mixed
Nordics
Mixed
Other Nordics
Black/African/Caribbean Rest of Europe
Prefer not to say Southern Europe
Hispanic/Latinx
Other Southern Europe
Hispanic/Latinx
Rest of Europe CEE
Prefer not to say
Other
CEE
Rest of Europe
Prefer not to say
NOTE: SOURCE: TheCEE

Founders
due only. Numbers may not add to 100
to rounding.
due to rounding.

due to rounding.

Central and Eastern Europe, it is only just over 10% of founders.
06.1 Portrait of a European

AreTech
you Founder
based in your country of UK & Ireland 43% 57%
origin?
Around one-quarter Around

ofLEGEND
all European
one-quarter founderof allrespondents
European founder to therespondents
survey are immigrants;
to the survey inare
other
immigrants; in other words, they
words, they have chosen to build
Founder their
not based company
in country of origin in a country not theDACH same
have chosen to build their company in a country not the same as their country as their country
32%
of origin.
of origin. There is a huge
68%
There is a huge variance among

Around the different
Founder based in country of origin
variance among
one-quarter the
of alldifferent
Europeanparts of Europe.
parts
founder of Europe.
respondents In the
toIn
France & theUK,
the approaching
UK,
survey
Benelux approaching
are immigrants;
30%
50%
in50%ofof
other allall founders
words, they are immigrants.70%
In
founders are immigrants.
have In Central
chosen to build and
theirEastern
company inEurope,
a country it is
not only
the
Central and Eastern Europe, it is only just over 10% of founders. same just
as over
their 10%
countryof
of founders.
origin. There is a huge
variance among the different parts of Europe. In the UK, approaching 50% of20%
Rest of Europe
all founders are immigrants. In 80%
Central and Eastern Europe, it is only just over 10% of founders.
Are you based in your country of UK &Nordics
Ireland 18% 43% 82% 57%
origin?
Are you based in your country of UK & Ireland 43% 57%
origin?
CEE
Southern Europe 11% 37% 89% 63%
LEGEND
LEGEND
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Founder
Founder notnot based
based in country
in country of origin of origin DACH DACH 32% 32% 68% 68%
% of respondents
Founder based in country of origin
Founder based in country of origin France & Benelux 30% 70%
France & Benelux 30% 70%
Rest of Europe 20% 80%
NOTE: Rest of The
SOURCE: Europe 20%
State Of European Tech Survey 80%
Nordics 18% 82%
due to rounding. Nordics
CEE 11% 18% 89% 82%
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
CEE 11% % of respondents 89%
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
The
The founder respondents founder
due to respondents
to our survey
rounding.
showed to aour survey
high levelshowed a high level
of educational of educational attainment. Three-quarters of
attainment.
founders
Three-quarters of founders have a bachelor's
haverespondents
a bachelor'sto or master's
orour
master's degree, while another 7% have
havea doctorate. This compares to just 35%
The
NOTE:founder surveydegree,
showed while
highOfanother
a State
SOURCE: The level 7%Survey
ofTech
European educational attainment. Three-quarters of
of EU-28
a doctorate. This compares population
tohavejust aged 25-54 who have attained tertiary or higher education, according to Eurostat.
founders
Founders only. a35%
Numbers ofadd
EU-28
bachelor's
may not or population
to 100 aged 25-54
master's degree, who have
while another 7%attained
have a doctorate. This compares to just 35%
due to rounding.
tertiary or higher education,
of EU-28accordingpopulationtoaged Eurostat.
25-54 who have attained tertiary or higher education, according to Eurostat.
What best describes your France & Benelux
highest formal educational
The founder respondents
What best describes yourto our survey showed a high level of educational attainment. Three-quarters of
France & Benelux
attainment?
founders a bachelor's or master's degree, while anotherDACH
highest have
formal educational 7% have a doctorate. This compares to just 35%
of EU-28 population aged 25-54 who have attained tertiary or higher education, according to Eurostat.
attainment?
LEGEND DACH
Rest of Europe
Bachelor's degree
What best describes your
LEGEND France & Benelux
Rest
UKof
& Europe
Ireland
Master's
highest degree
formal educational
Bachelor's degree
attainment? DACH
Doctoral degree
UK & Ireland
Master's degree CEE
Professional degree
LEGEND Rest of Europe
Doctoral degree
Bachelor's
Trade degree
school CEE
Professional Nordics
Master's degree degree
UK & Ireland
Some college/university study without
Doctoralschool
Trade
earning degree
a degree CEE Nordics
Professional degree Southern Europe
Some college/university
Secondary school study without
Trade school
earning a degree Nordics
Primary/elementary school
Some college/university study without Southern Europe 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Secondary school
earning a degree % of respondents
No formal education completed Southern Europe
Secondary school
Primary/elementary school 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Primary/elementary school 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
% of respondents 100
No formal education completed % of respondents
No formal education completed
NOTE: LIVING COMFORTABLY
81% of entrepreneurs
Founders
NOTE:
only. Numbers may not add were
to 100living comfortably before they
81%
NOTE:
due to rounding. S O U R C E : The State Of European Tech Survey
founded
Founders only.their
Founders
company,
Numbers may not add to 100 compared
only. Numbers may not add to 100
due to rounding.
with 39% of Europeans
who
due tosay they were living fairly easily, easily or very easily
rounding.
according to Eurostat.
LIVINGcomfortably/met
Lived COMFORTABLY basic expenses with extra left ov
81% of entrepreneurs81%
wereofliving comfortably
entrepreneurs were living comfortably before they LIVING COMFORTABLY
81% 81%
before they founded their company,
founded comparedcompared
their company, with with 39% of Europeans LIVING COMFORTABLY
39% of Europeans who say
who
81% they
Howsay
of were
they living
youwere
entrepreneurs
would fairly
living
were
describe yourfairly
living easily, easily
comfortably or very easily
before they Lived comfortably/met basic
81%
founded their company, compared with 39% of Europeans expenses with extra left over
easily, easily or very easily according
according
nancial to right
Eurostat.
to Eurostat.
situation before Lived comfortably/met basic expenses with extra left
who say they were living fairly easily, easily or very easily
starting your company? Lived
over comfortably/met basic expenses with extra left ov
according to Eurostat.
Lived comfortably/met basic expenses with extra left over
How would you describe your

How would you describe your
nancial situation
nancial situation right
right before
before Lived comfortably/met basicJust met basic
expenses
Lived comfortably/met basic expenses with extra left
withexpenses
extra left 13%
over 81%
starting yourcompany?
starting your company? over
Just met basic expenses 13%

Not enough/struggled to meet basic expenses 6%
Just met basic expenses 13%
Not enough/struggled to meet basic expenses 6% 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

% of respondents
Not enough/struggled to meet basic expenses 6%

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
% of respondents

0 10 20 30 40 50 60
NOTE:
due to rounding. S O U R C E : The State Of European Tech Survey % of respondents
due to rounding.
NOTE:
Founders only. Numbers may not add to 100 128 In Partnership with &
due to rounding.
06.1 Portrait of a European Tech Founder
The assumption that all founders have access to 'friends and family
rounds' still bewilders me.
The assumption that all founders have access On YSYS pre-accelerator FoundersDoor, one of
to 'friends and family rounds' still bewilders our alumni Emilia Servane Founder of The Good
me. We need to develop an empathetic Hair Co, took part and was able to crowdfund
understanding that this is not accessible to all, £1,500 to which Natwest matched an additional
and thus develop inclusive pathways that level £1,500 - this capital will now give her the ability Deborah Okenla
the playing field. to validate her ideas and move forward. YSYS
Founder & CEO
These pathways look like community groups, We need more impactful interventions like this
diverse angels and early-stage pre-seed funds. to truly have a diverse and inclusive European
Initiatives such as Natwest Back Her Business startup ecosystem.
are making those first steps, the program match
Looking only at those foundersfunds
whofemale
have founder
crowdfunding degree, there are interesting differences in the
campaigns.
diversity of subjects studied by founders from different regions. Founders in the Nordics, UK & Ireland have
more diverse backgrounds than in other regions. CEE, DACH and Southern Europe stand out with the largest
share of founders with a technical degree.
Looking
Lookingonly onlyatatthose
thosefounders
founderswhowho have
have attained
a university degree, there
degree, areare
there interesting differences in the
interesting
diversity
differences of subjects studied of
in the diversity by subjects
founders studied
from different by founders regions. Founders
from in the
different Nordics,
regions. UK & Ireland
Founders in thehave
Share ofmore diverse
Nordics,
capital UK &backgrounds
invested Ireland
(%) by havethan
more in diverse
other
DATAS E T : Aregions.
backgrounds CEE,
RTS / S O C I A L S C I E NDACH
thanand
CES Southern
in other Europe
regions. CEE,stand outand
DACH with the largest
Southern
share
education of stand
founders
background
Europe and by with a technical degree.
out with the largest share of founders with a technical degree.
region, 2015-2019
ART/SOCIAL SCIENCES
DATASET: BUSINESS & L AW
L E G END Share of capital invested (%) by
education
% of capital raised background and by 15
15%
European region, 2015-2019

average capital raised (%)
12%
LEGE ND 11 11 11 11 11 11
% of capital raised 61%

10% 10%
10 60
% of capital
Looking onlyEuropean average capital raised (%)

at those founders who have attained a university degree, there55%are interesting differences in the 8%
diversity of subjects studied by founders from different regions. Founders in the Nordics, UK & Ireland have
more diverse backgrounds than in other regions. CEE, DACH 40and Southern Europe 40 stand out
40 with the largest
40 40 40
share of founders with a technical degree. 5 40

% of capital
37% 37%
32%
29%
Share of capital invested (%) by DATAS E T : T E C H N I CA L 1%

education background and by 0 20
region, 2015-2019 Nordics United Kingdom & Ireland France & Benelux DACH Southern Europe CEE
L E G END
NOTE:
Looking only at those founders who have attained a university degree, there are interesting differences in the
TECHNICAL
diversity of subjects studied by founders
% of capital raised
Numbers don't add up to 100 because deals S O U R40 from
C E : Dealroom
41% different regions. Founders in the Nordics, UK & Ireland have
0 40%
Southern Europe DACH France & Benelux Nordics United Kingdom & Ireland CEE
canEuropean more diverse backgrounds than in other regions.
have moreaverage
than onecapital raised
founder (%)
involved. 35 CEE, DACH35and Southern38%Europe stand out
35 37%
35 with the largest
35 35
share of founders with a technical degree. 33%
NOTE:
30
Numbers don't add up to 100 because deals SOURCE: Dealroom
% of capital
can haveof
Share capital
more invested
than one (%) by
founder involved. DATASET: BUSINESS & L AW
Looking only at those
education founders
background andwho
by have attained a university degree, there are interesting differences in the
2019 based on data up to September 2019. 22%
diversity of subjects
region, studied by founders from
2015-2019
20
different regions. Founders in the Nordics, UK & Ireland have
more diverse backgrounds than in other regions. CEE, DACH and Southern Europe stand out with the largest
share of founders
LEGE ND
with a technical degree. 10
% of capital raised 61%
60
European average capital raised (%) 55%
Share of capital invested (%) by DATAS E T : B U S I NE S S & L AW
0
education background and by Southern Europe DACH CEE France & Benelux United Kingdom & Ireland Nordics
40 40 40 40 40 40
region, 2015-2019
40
% of capital
37% 37%
NOTE:
L E G END 32%
BUSINESS & LAW 29%
Numbers don't add
% of capital up to 100 because deals
raised S O U R C E : Dealroom61%
can have more than one founder involved. 60
2019 based on data upcapital
European average raised (%)
to September 2019. 55%
20
40 40 40 40 40 40
40
% of capital
37% 37%
0 32%
Southern Europe DACH France & Benelux Nordics United Kingdom & Ireland
29% CEE
NOTE: 20
Numbers don't add up to 100 because deals SOURCE: Dealroom

can have more than one founder involved.
0
Southern Europe DACH France & Benelux Nordics United Kingdom & Ireland CEE
NOTE:
Numbers don't add up to 100 because deals S O U R C E : Dealroom

can have more than one founder involved. 129 In Partnership with &
The Unicorn Trajectory

In November 2019, Notion, a European VC investing in early-stage SaaS and enterprise
tech startups, published a comparison of people hired into leadership teams of B2B
software $1B+ companies (unicorns) and B2B software companies that raised the same
amount of VC money at the same time as unicorns, but did not enjoy the same levels
of success. The research paints a useful picture of the diversity of leadership teams
(Founders, C-level, EVP, SVP, VP) of these companies.
A high proportion of companies that have scaled to $1 billion or more have at least one leader with a top
university degree, but also a high proportion of these same companies have leaders that didn't attend
university at all.
A high proportion of companies that have scaled to $1 billion or more have at least one leader with
a top university degree, butofalso
Share a high(%)
companies proportion
that of these same companies have leaders that didn't
A have
highatproportion
attend university at all. of companies
least one leader with that have scaled 100
to $1100%
billion or more have at least one leader with a top
university degree, but also a high proportion of these same companies have leaders90%
A high proportion of companies that have scaled to $1 billion or more have at least one leader with a top
different academic that didn't attend
university degree, but also a high proportion of these same companies have leaders that didn't attend
university at
quali cations
university at all.
all. 78%
75
LEGEND
% of companies
Share ofof
Share companies (%) that
Unicornscompanies (%) that 100% 58%
have at least one leader with 100 100%
have at least one leader with
Controlacademic
different group
100
90%
50
different academic
quali cations 90% 44%
78%
quali cations 75
LEGEND 78%
% of companies
75
Unicorns 58%
LEGEND 25
% of companies
Control group 50
Unicorns 58% 44% 44%
Control group 50
25 0 44%
Top 50 undergraduate university Top 10 MBA
NOTE:
0 25
For access to Notion's full report on Top 50 undergraduate university Top 10 MBA No degree
leadership
NOTE:
hiring at unicorn companies, The
Unicorn Trajectory, please visit: SOURCE: Notion Venture Capital
For access to Notion's full report on
https://notion.vc/resources/how-unicorns-
leadership hiring at unicorn companies, The
hire/
Unicorn Trajectory, please visit: 0
S O U R C E : Notion Venture Capital
https://notion.vc/resources/how-unicorns- Top 50 undergraduate university Top 10 MBA
hire/
NOTE:

The prevalence of leaders in $1B+ companies with no university degree is highest in sales, technical and
hire/
operational
The prevalence of leaders functions
in $1B+ and with
companies lowest
noinuniversity
nance and marketing.
degree is highest in sales,
technical and operational functions and lowest in finance and marketing.
Share of companies (%) that
The prevalence
have at least one of leaders
person in $1B+ companies80 with no university degree is highest in sales, technical and
with no
operational
university
The functions
degree
prevalence inand
in their
of leaders $1B+lowest in with
companies nance and marketing.
no university degree is highest in sales, technical and
leadershipfunctions
operational team perand
function
lowest in nance and marketing. 62%
60
LEGENDof companies (%) that
Share
% of companies
Share of companies (%) that 80

have
have atatleast
Unicornsleast
oneone person
person with nowith no 80 78%
university degree
university degree
Control Group in their
in their
40
leadership team per function
leadership team per function 60
62%
62% 32%
LEGEND 60
% of companies
LEGEND
% of companies
Unicorns 44%
20%
Control Group
20
Unicorns 40
14%
12% 32% 12%
Control Group 10% 10%
40 8%
6%
4%
20% 2% 2% 32%
20
0 14%
12% 12% 12%
Finance Marketing
10% 10% Operations Other Product Sales Tec
8%
6%
4% 20%
20 2% 2%
NOTE: 0 14%
Finance 12%
Marketing Operations Other Product Sales 12%
Technical Any function
For access to Notion's full report on 10% 10%
8%
NOTE:
leadership hiring at unicorn companies, The 6%
4%
Unicorn
For accessTrajectory,
to Notion's fullplease visit:
report on
SOURCE: Notion Venture Capital
2% 2%
leadership hiring at unicorn companies, The 0
Unicorn Trajectory, please visit: S O U R C E : Notion Venture Capital Finance Marketing Operations Other Product Sales Tec
hire/
hire/
NOTE:
hire/

Across Europe, 40% of seed stage startups have EUROPEAN FOUNDING TEAMS
a founding team aged between 26-30 years old.
50%
EUROPEAN FOUNDING TEAMS
EUROPEAN of FOUNDING TEAMS
Southern Europe, DACH and
Across the CEE
Europe, 40% ofregions
seed stage startups have a seed stage European founding
Across Europe, 40% of seed stage startups have a
50%
founding team aged between 26-30 years old. Southern teams are on average less than
have the largest share of young founders.
50%
founding
Europe, DACHteam
and aged
the CEEbetween 26-30
regions have yearsshare
the largest old. Southern 30 years old.
Only 7% of founding teams
of youngin
Europe, the CEE
DACH
founders. and are
Only 7%over
the CEE
of regions
founding teamshave
in thethe
CEElargest share
of seed stage European founding teams are on average less than 30 years
40 years old - while inofFrance,
are over 40 this
young years number
Onlyis7%
old - while in
founders. France, this number is close
of founding teams in the CEE old.
close to 20%. to 20%. of seed stage European founding teams are on average
are over 40 years old - while in France, this number is close
old.
toShare
20%. of founding team (%) in DATAS E T : 2 0 - 2 5
age groups by region
20-25
Share of founding team (%) in DATASET: 20-25
15%
age groups by region 15
14%
13%
12 12 12 12 12 12
% of founding team in age group

12% 12%
10
15%
15
Across Europe, 40% of seed stage startups have a 13%
8%
50%
12 12 12 12 12
founding team aged between 26-30 years old. Southern

12% 12%
Europe, DACH and the CEE regions have the largest
5 share
of young founders. Only 7% of founding teams in the CEE
10 of seed stage European founding teams are on average less than 30 years
old.
to 20%. 8%
0
Southern Europe DACH CEE United Kingdom & Ireland France & Benelux Nordics
Share of founding team (%) in DATAS E T : 2 6 - 3 0

NOTE: 5
Seed stage startups founding team average
age post 2015. All Dealroom.co data excludes
26-30
transactions, debt, lending capital, grants. 43%
40 40 40 42%
40 40 40
41%
40 39%
37%
0
Southern Europe DACH CEE 33%& Ireland

United Kingdom France & Benelu
30
NOTE: Europe, 40% of seed stage startups have a
Across
50%
founding
Seed stageteam aged
startups between
founding 26-30 years old.
team average 20 Southern
age post DACH
2015. Alland
Dealroom.co data excludes SOURCE: Dealroom
Europe, the CEE regions have the largest share
oftransactions,
young founders. Onlycapital,
debt, lending 7% ofgrants.
founding teams in the CEE
of seed stage European founding teams are on average less than 30 years
are over 40 years old - while in France, this number 10
is close
old.
to 20%.
0
Across Europe, 40% of seed stage startups have a DACH
Southern Europe CEE United Kingdom & Ireland France & Benelux Nordics
50%
Share of founding team (%) in DATAS E T : 31 - 4 0
founding
age groups team
NOTE: by regionaged between 26-30 years old. Southern
Europe, DACH
Seed stage startups and
founding the CEE regions
team average
age post 2015. All Dealroom.co data excludes S O31-40
have the largest share
U R C E : Dealroom
ofthe
young founders.
following: biotech, secondary Only 7% of founding teams in the CEE
41%
40 of seed stage European36 founding teams
39% are on average l
are over 40 years old - while in France, this 36
number is37%
close
36 36 36 36
35% old. 35%
34%
to 20%.
30

Across Europe, 40% of seed stage startups have a DATASET: 20-25
Share ofteam
founding team (%)26-30
in years old.
50%
founding aged between 20 Southern
age groups
Europe, DACHby region
and the CEE regions have the largest share
of young founders. Only 7% of founding teams in the CEE
10 of seed stage European founding teams are on average less than 30 years
old.
to 20%. 15
15%
0
Southern Europe DACH CEE 13% United Kingdom & Ireland France & Benelux Nordics
Share of founding team (%) in DATAS E T : 41 + 12 12 12 12 12
12% 12%
NOTE:
age post 2015. All Dealroom.co data excludes 41+ 10
17%
8%
15%
15
14%
13 13 13 13 13 13
11% 5
10
7% 7%
5
0
Southern Europe DACH CEE United Kingdom & Ireland France & Benelux
NOTE: 0
Southern Europe DACH CEE United Kingdom & Ireland France & Benelux Nordics

age post 2015. All Dealroom.co data excludes
the
Seedfollowing: biotech,
stage startups foundingsecondary
team average
transactions,
age post 2015. Alldebt, lending
Dealroom.co datacapital,
excludesgrants. S O U R C E : Dealroom

The importance of age diversity is supported by Notion's research. Teams of

companies that scale to a valuation of $1 billion or more are significantly more
diverse in leadership experience
The importancethanof agethose inisthe
diversity control
supported group.research.
by Notion's Their most
Teams of companies that scale to a
valuation of $1 billion or more are signi cantly more diverse in leadership experience than those in the control
experienced leaders have
group. more experience,
Their most experienced and their
leaders haveleast experienced
more experience, leaders
and their least experienced leaders less, than
The importance of age diversity is supported by Notion's research. Teams of companies that scale to a
less, than those in the control
those in thegroup.
control group.
valuation of $1 billion or more are signi cantly more diverse in leadership experience than those in the control
group. Their most experienced leaders have more experience, and their least experienced leaders less, than
DATAS E T : U N I C O R N S
Years of experience of least and
those in the control
most experienced leaders ingroup.
The importance of age diversity is supported by Notion's research. Teams of companies that scale to a
unicorn companies versus the
valuation ofaverage
control group $1 billion
per yearor more are signi cantly more diverse in leadership experience than those in the control
since founding UNICORNS
group.
Years of Their most of
experience experienced
least and leaders have DATASET: more experience, and their least experienced leaders less, than
UNICORNS
those in the control group.

most
LEGEND experienced leaders in
30.0 28.0
29.0
unicorn companies
Least experienced leaders versus the
27.6
25.3
control groupleaders
Most experienced average per year 25.0
# of years of prior work experience

since founding
Years of experience of least and DATASET: UNICORNS
20.6
most experienced leaders in 20.0 17.9
unicorn companies versus the

LEGEND
30.0 28.0
control group average
Least experienced leaders per year 15.0 27.6
The importance
since
Most experiencedof
founding age diversity is supported by Notion's research. Teams of companies that scale to a 25.3
leaders
valuation of $1 billion or more are signi cantly 10.0
more diverse
25.0 in leadership experience than those in the control
of prior work experience

6.5 6.2 6.0 6.2 6.2
group.
LEGEND Their most experienced leaders have more experience, and their least experienced 20.6 leaders less, than
5.8
those in the control group. 5.0 30.0

27.6 28.0
Least experienced leaders 20.0 17.9
25.3
Most experienced leaders 0.0
Years of experience of least and DATAS E T : C O N T RYear
O L 025.0
GROUP Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
experience
most experienced leaders in
NOTE:
15.0
20.6
unicorn
For companies
access to versus
Notion's full report on the
of years
control group
leadership hiring at average per year
unicorn companies, The 20.0 17.9
Unicorn Trajectory, please visit: S O U R C E : Notion Venture10.0
Capital
# of years of prior#work
since founding
hire/
CONTROL GROUP 6.5 6.2 6.0 6.2 5.8
LEGEND 15.0 22.5
22.2
5.0 21.8 21.9
Least experienced leaders 20.9
Most experienced leaders 20.1
20.0 10.0
# of years of prior work experience
0.0 6.5
Year 0 6.2 1
Year 6.0 2
Year 6.2 3
Year 5.8 4
Year
5.0
NOTE:
15.0
leadership hiring at unicorn companies, The 0.0
Unicorn Trajectory, please visit: SOURCE: Notion Venture
Year 0 Capital Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4
10.0 9.7
https://notion.vc/resources/how-unicorns- 10.0 9.0 9.2 9.2 9.3
hire/
NOTE:

Unicorn Trajectory, please visit: 5.0 SOURCE: Notion Venture Capital
Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
hire/
NOTE:

Unicorn Trajectory, please visit: S O U R C E : Notion Venture Capital
hire/
The wide range of experience in the average $1B+ company, and how this evolves through the journey of the
The wide range of experience in the average $1B+ company, and how this
company, can be seen in the distribution of leaders by years of experience.
evolves through the journey of the company, can be seen in the distribution
of leaders by years ofThe wide range of experience in the average $1B+ company, and how this evolves through the journey of the
experience.
company, can
Distribution be seenyears
of previous in the
of distribution of leaders
30 by years of experience.
experience of each leader in an
average
The unicorn
wide range per year since
of experience in the average $1B+ company, and how this evolves through the journey of the
Distribution
company,
foundingcan be of previous
seen in the years of
distribution 30
of leaders by years of experience.
average
LEGEND
unicorn per year since 20
Distribution of previous years of 30
% of leaders% of leaders
founding
Year 0
average unicorn per year since
Year 1
founding 20
LEGEND
Year 2
Year 0
LEGEND 20
10
% of leaders
Year 3
Year0 1
Year
Year1 4
Year
Year 2
Year2 5
Year
10
Year 3 10
Year 3
Year4 4
Year
Year 0
Year5 5 0-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 31-35
NOTE: 0
0-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 40+
0
For access to Notion's full report on 0-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 31-35
NOTE:
Unicorn
For accessTrajectory,
to Notion's fullplease visit:
report on SOURCE: Notion Venture Capital
NOTE:
Unicorn Trajectory, please visit: S O U R C E : Notion Venture Capital
For
hire/ access to Notion's full report on
leadership
hire/ hiring at unicorn companies, The
hire/

anies seeding the largest

The companies number
seeding the of European
largest number of Europeantech founders
tech founders are mostly
are mostly from
from the US. Ten the US. Ten of the Top
of the Top 15 companies by number of founder alumni are American, with Microsoft in first place
nies by number
followed ofGoogle
The companies
by founder
seeding thealumni
and BCG. isare
largest number
Nokiaalumni American, with
of European tech
the highest-ranked Microsoft
founders
European
are mostlyin
company.
fromrst
Rocket place
the US. Ten offollowed
Internet
the Top
is the and by Google and
15 companies by number of founder are American, with Microsoft in rst place followed by Google
a is the highest-ranked
only homegrown,
BCG. European
Internet-era
Nokia is the highest-ranked company.
company
European that makesRocket
company. 15.Internet
the TopInternet
Rocket is homegrown,
is the only the only homegrown,
Internet-era Internet-era
hat makes thethat
company Top 15. the Top 15.
makes
Company HQ Country Founding Decade
Top 15 companies by number of 1 Microsoft Company United States HQ1970s
Country Founding Decade
founder alumni
mpanies by number of 1 2Microsoft
Google United States United States
1990s 1970s
umni 3 The Boston Consulting Group United States Pre-Internet
2 Google United States 1990s
4 IBM United States Pre-Internet
3 5The Boston
McKinsey Consulting Group United States United States
Pre-Internet Pre-Internet
6 Nokia Corporation Finland Pre-Internet
4 IBM United States Pre-Internet
7 Accenture United Kingdom Pre-Internet
5 8McKinsey
Yahoo! United States United States
1990s Pre-Internet
9 Siemens Germany Pre-Internet
6 Nokia Corporation Finland Pre-Internet
10 Rocket Internet Germany 2000s
7 11Accenture
eBay United States United Kingdom
1990s Pre-Internet
12 EY Ernst & Young Uni ted Kingdom Pre-Internet
8 Yahoo! United States 1990s
13 Goldman Sachs United States Pre-Internet
9 Siemens
14 PwC United States GermanyPre-Internet Pre-Internet
15 JP Morgan United States Pre-Internet
10 Rocket Internet Germany 2000s
11 eBay United States 1990s

SOURCE: Dealroom
12 EY Ernst & Young Uni ted Kingdom Pre-Internet
13 Goldman Sachs United States Pre-Internet
14 PwC United States Pre-Internet
15 JP Morgan United States Pre-Internet
SOURCE: Dealroom

How Founders Get Started
Starting out...
We wanted to explore the initial phase of the founding journey. How do founders
finance their companies? Who do they raise those initial funds from? How much do
they raise? How do they decide where to build their companies? What personal and
business considerations influence their decisions?
Nearly 50% of rst-time founders set up and start their companies with less than $25,000. Repeat founders
Nearly 50% of first-time founders set up and start their companies with less than
who have successfully scaled companies in the past are far more likely to raise signi cantly more to start their
$25,000.
Nearly 50% Repeat founders
of rst-time who have
founders successfully
set up and scaled companies inless
the than
past $25,000. Repeat founders
next companies. 32% of repeat founders withstart
signitheircantcompanies
experience with
raised more than $500,000 to set up and
Nearly 50%
are
who of
far
have rst-time
more founders
likely
successfullyto raise set
scaled up and start
significantly
companies their
more
in the companies
to start
past aretheir
far with
next
more less than
companies.
likely to $25,000.
signiRepeat
32%
raise cantlyfounders
more to start their
start their most recent companies, versus 12% of rst-time founders.
who haveofsuccessfully
nextrepeat
companies. scaled
founders 32% companies
with
of significant
repeat in the past
withare
experience
founders far more
raised
signi cant likely
more to raise
than
experience signimore
$500,000
raised cantly
to set more
than to startto
$500,000 their
set up and
next companies.
up and
start 32%
start
their of
their
most repeat founders
mostcompanies,
recent with
recent companies,signi
versus 12% cant
versus experience raised
12% of first-time
of rst-time more
founders.founders.than $500,000 to set up and
start theirHow
most
muchrecent
capitalcompanies,
did you 'raise' versus 12% of rst-time founders.
No capital 13%
20%
or collect in order to set-up and 7%

20%
start this company?
How much capital did you 'raise' No capital 13% 20% 25%
How much orcapital
collectdid you 'raise'
in order to set-up and No capitalLess than $25k 7% 25%
13%
or collectLEGE
in order
start thisto
ND set-up and
company? 7% 25%
25%
start this company?
First-time founder Less than $25k 25% 25%
LEGE ND founder with limited experience in
Repeat Less than $25k $25k-$100k
Between 25% 25% 29%
LEG E ND scaling company 25% 24%
First-time founder 25%
First-time founder
Repeat founder
founder with
with limited
signi cant Between $25k-$100k 19% 25% 29%
Repeat experience in
experience
scaling in scaling company Between $100k-$500k
Between $25k-$100k 23%24%29%
Repeat founder withcompany
limited experience in
scaling company 24% 31%
Repeat founder with signi cant 19%
experience
Repeat founder with signiin scaling
cant company Between $100k-$500k 12% 19% 23%
experience in scaling company Between $100k-$500k
More than $500k 13% 23% 31%
31% 33%
12%
More than $500k 0 5 12% 10 13% 15 20 25 30 35
More than $500k 13% % of respondents 33%
33%
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
0 5 10 15 20 % of respondents
25 30 35
% of respondents
NOTE:
due to rounding.
NOTE:
due
Founders only. to rounding.
Numbers may not add to 100
due to rounding.

06.2 How Founders Get Started
LookingLooking at the differences

at the differences between between men and
men and women womenand
founders founders and their entrepreneurial
their entrepreneurial experience, experience,
we found
we found that women first-time founders were significantly more likely
that women rst-time founders were signi cantly more likely to have set up and started theirto have setmost
up and started
recent
Looking
their at
most the differences
recent company between
with nomen and
capital women
or with founders
less than and their
$25,000. entrepreneurial
This gap experience,
company with no capital or with less than $25,000. This gap disappears, though, when looking at the though,
disappears, we found
that
when
differences women rst-time
lookingexperienced
between founders
at the differences were
men and signi repeat
between
women cantly more
experienced likely
founders.mentoandhave set uprepeat
women and started their most recent
founders.
company with no capital or with less than $25,000. This gap disappears, though, when looking at the
differences between experienced men and women repeat founders.
How much capital did you 'raise' DATAS E T : F I R ST-T I ME FO U ND E R
or collect in order to set-up and FIRST-TIME FOUNDER
start this How much capital did you 'raise'
company? DATASET: FIRST-TIME FOUNDER
or collect in order to set-up and
L E G E ND start this company? 23%
No capital
Women 18%
Men LEGE ND 23%
No capital 32%
Women 18%
Less than $25k
Men 23%
32%
Less than $25k 23%
Between $25k-$100k 23%
25%
23%
Between $25k-$100k 16%
Between $100k-$500k 25%
20%
16%
Looking at the differences between men and women founders
Between $100k-$500k and their
6% entrepreneurial experience, we found
More than $500k 20%
that women rst-time founders were signi cantly more likely to have set up and started 14%their most recent
company with no capital or with less than $25,000. This gap disappears,
More0 than $500k 5
though,
6%
10
when looking
15
at the20 25 30 35
differences between experienced men and women repeat founders. 14%
% of respondents
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
% of respondents
How much capital did you 'raise' DATAS E T : R E P E AT FO U ND E R W I T H L I M I T E D E XP E R I E N C E I N S CA L I N G
or collect in order to set-up and REPEAT FOUNDER WITH LIMITED EXPERIENCE IN SCALING
start this company?
due to rounding.
NOTE:
L E G E ND Founders only. Numbers may not add to 100
due to rounding. 15%
No capital
Women 13%
Men
25%
Less than $25k
22%
36%
Between $25k-$100k
26%
Looking at the differences between men

Between and women founders and their entrepreneurial
$100k-$500k
17%
experience, we found
that women rst-time founders were signi cantly more likely to have set up and started their most 25%
recent
Looking at the differences between men and women founders and their entrepreneurial experience, we found
company with no capital or with less than $25,000. This gap disappears,
8% though, when looking at the
that women rst-time founders were signi cantly more likely to have set up and started their most recent
More than $500k
differences between experienced men and women repeat founders. 14%
company with no capital or with less than $25,000. This gap disappears, though, when looking at the
differences between experienced men and women repeat founders.
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
% of respondents
How much capital did you 'raise' DATASET: FIRST-TIME FOUNDER

How muchstart capital DATAS E T : R E P E AT FO U ND E R W I T H S I G N I F I CA N T E XP E R I E N C E I N S CA L I N G
thisdid you 'raise'
company?
NOTE: SO U R C E : The
REPEAT State Of European
FOUNDER Tech Survey EXPERIENCE IN SCALING
WITH SIGNIFICANT
start this
Founders company?
only.LEGE
Numbers
ND may not add to 100 23%
due to rounding. No capital
Women 18%
L E G E ND 5%
Men No capital
Women 8% 32%
Less than $25k
Men 23%
5%
Less than $25k
4% 23%
Between $25k-$100k
25%
11%
Between $25k-$100k
16%
26%
Between $100k-$500k
20%
42%
Between $100k-$500k
6% 30%
More than $500k
14%
37%
More than $500k
0 5 10 15 20 33% 25 30 35
% of respondents
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
% of respondents

NOTE: due to rounding. S O U R C E : The State Of European Tech Survey
due to rounding.

We also observed material

We alsodifferences in the responses
observed material differences in the responses STARTING WITH who
from founders LESSself-identi
THAN $25Ked with different ethnic
groups. 60% ofwith
from founders who self-identified founders whoethnic
different self-identi ed as Black/African/Caribbean started their most recent company
with no
groups. 60% of founders who capital or with less
self-identified
African/Caribbean started their most recent company
with no capital or with less than $25,000.
asthan $25,000.
Black/ of women first-time founders
start their company with no initial
capital
55%
We also
How observed
much capital material
did you 'raise'differences in theBlack/African/Caribbean
responses from founders who self-identi ed with different ethnic
groups. 60%
or collect of founders
in order who self-identi ed as Black/African/Caribbean started their most recent company
to set-up and
start
with
We nothis
also company?
capital
observed or withdifferences
material less thanin$25,000. Middle Eastern/North African
the responses from founders who self-identi ed with different ethnic
groups. 60% of founders who self-identi ed as Black/African/Caribbean started their most recent company
with no capital or with less than $25,000.
LEGEND Caucasian/White
How much capital did you 'raise'

No capital Black/African/Caribbean
Other
or collect
Less
How in order
thancapital
much $25k to set-up
did you 'raise' and Black/African/Caribbean
start thisincompany?
or$25k-$100k
collect order to set-up and Middle Eastern/North African
start this company? Middle Eastern/North African Hispanic/Latinx
$100k-$500k
LEGEND
LEGEND
Caucasian/White
More than $500k Caucasian/White
Asian
No capital
No capital
Other Other
Less than $25k
Less than $25k
$25k-$100k Mixed
$25k-$100k Hispanic/Latinx
$100k-$500k
Hispanic/Latinx
$100k-$500k
More than $500k 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Asian
% of respondents
More than $500k
Asian
Mixed
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
Mixed
Founders only. Numbers may not add to 100 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
due to rounding. % of respondents
due to rounding.
NOTE:
due to rounding.
The need for funds This is why I started interviewing black founders and
creating a database with their permission. It is important
focused on diversity is to shine a light on the differences, especially as black
as important as the need founders have become synonymous with a seemingly
perpetually fixed 0.2% funded statistic or the fact that 67%
for insights and related of those I surveyed mentioned that they were struggling to
to diverse founders - and meet their needs before starting a company, compared to
there is zero data on 19% of the respondents surveyed by Atomico.
Andy Davis
black founders in the UK. It's time that black founders have realistic insights and Backstage Capital
perspectives as to what it takes to be a black founder and
know that there are others in their ecosystem like them.
This will hopefully create a clearer path for future black
founders and the investors who back them.
The survey doesn't allow us to explore the relationship between the initial nancing and the eventual success of
a company. What we can say, though, is that founders of companies that have scaled to more than 100
employees are more likely to have set up and started with a larger sum of initial nancing compared with
founders of companies where the employee count is still less than 100 employees.
The survey doesn't allow us to explore the relationship between the initial financing and the eventual
success of a company.The survey
What doesn't
we can say,allow
though, us to explore
is that the relationship
founders of companies
40 between the initial
that have scalednancing
to and the eventual success of
aThe
more than 100 employees company.
Howare
muchmoreWhat
capital we
did
likely can
you
to say,
'raise'
have though,
set up and is that
startedfounders
with a of companies
larger sum of that
initial have scaled
financing
survey doesn't allow us to explore the relationship between the initial nancing and the eventual success of
to more than 100
or collect inare
employees order to setlikely
more up andto have set up and started with a larger sum of initial nancing compared with
compared with founders of companies
a company. What we
start this company? where
can the
say, though, employee count
is that founders is still
of companies less than
that have100 employees.
scaled to more than 100
founders
employeesof
arecompanies
more likely to where
have set the employee
up and count
started with
30
issum
a larger stillofless
initialthan 100 compared
nancing employees.
with
founders of companies where the employee count is still less than 100 employees.
LEGEND 26%
40
% of respondents
40
How<100 employees
much capital did'raise'
you 'raise' 23% 23% 23%
How much capital did you
or collect
or>100 inin
employees
collect order
order toupset
to set andup and 20
20% 35%
start this
start thiscompany?
company?
30
30 15%
LEGEND 26%
LEGEND 26%
% of respondents
<100 employees 11% 23% 23% 23%

% of respondents
<100 employees
>100 employees 10 20% 23% 23% 23%
20 8%
>100 employees 20% 16%
20 15%
11%
10 15%
8%
0
11% No capital Less than $25k $25k-$100k $100k-$500k
10
8%
0
No capital Less than $25k $25k-$100k $100k-$500k More than $500k
NOTE:
0
due to rounding. No capital Less than $25k $25k-$100k $100k-$500k
due to rounding.
NOTE:
due to rounding.
We also wanted to understand how founders nance the initial setup of their companies. The overwhelming
majority of founders (around two-thirds) did so by tapping into their personal savings. The sources of initial
funds
We alsovary signi cantly,
wanted however,how
to understand depending
foundersonfinance
the levelthe of experience
initial setupofofthe founders.
their As one might expect,
companies.
repeat
The overwhelming majority of founders (around two-thirds) did so by tapping into their personaland VC
founders with previous success are signi cantly more likely to have used angel investments
money for initial nancing.
savings.
We The sources
also wanted of initialhow
to understand funds vary significantly,
founders nance the initial however, setupdepending on the levelThe
of their companies. of experience
overwhelming
majority of founders (around two-thirds) did so by tapping into their personal savings. The sourcesmore
of the founders. As one might expect, repeat founders with previous success are significantly of initial
Personal savings
likely
funds to
varyhave used
signi angel
cantly, investments
however, and VC
depending onmoney
the level forofinitial financing.
experience
of their companies. The overwhelming expect,
of the founders. As one might
How did you nance the initial
We also wanted to earliest
understand
set up founders
and howyourfounders
phaseprevious
of nance the initial setup
Family & friends investment
repeat
majority of founders with success are signi cantly
(around two-thirds) did so by tapping into their more likely tosavings.
personal have usedTheangel investments
sources of initial and VC
money for initial nancing. Angel investment
funds vary signi cantly, however, depending on the level of experience of the founders. As one might expect, Public grant
repeat founders
LEGE ND with previous success are signi cantly more likely to have used angel investments and VC
Personal debt (credit cards, overdraft, etc)
money forHow
initial
First-time nancing.
did youfounder
nance the initial
Personal savings
Accelerator funds
setRepeat
up and founder with limited
earliest phase experience
of yourin Family & friends investment
scaling company
most recent company? Venture capital
Angel investment
Personal savings
How did youRepeat
nance founder
thewith signi cant
initial Incubator funds
experience in scaling company
set up andLEGE
earliest Family & friends investment Public grant
ND phase of your
Bank loan
most recentFirst-time
company? founder
Personal debt
Angel(credit cards, overdraft, etc)
investment
Corporate grant
Repeat founder with limited experience in Accelerator funds
Public grant
L E G E ND scaling company Crowdfunding
Venture capital
Personal debt (credit cards, overdraft, etc)
First-time founder
Repeat founder with signi cant 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
experience in scaling company Incubator funds
Accelerator funds
Repeat founder with limited experience in % of respondents
scaling company Bank loan
Venture capital
Repeat founder with signi cant Corporate grant
experience in scaling company Incubator funds
NOTE: Bank Crowdfunding

SOURCE: The State Ofloan
Founders only. Numbers do not add to 100 as Corporate grant 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
% of respondents
Crowdfunding
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
% of respondents
NOTE:
Founders only. Numbers do not add to 100 as
It's interesting to look at how the sources of initial financing raised by founders to start their journeys
vary across Europe. There is a material level of variance in the most prevalent form of initial funding
depending on where you start your company. In the Nordics, for example, government grants are a
much
It's more common
interesting to look source of initial
at how the financing
sources for founders
of initial nancing raisedin those bymarkets.
foundersIn toFrance, there's
start their a higher
journeys vary
It's interesting to look at how the sources of initial nancing raised by founders to start their journeys vary
likelihood
across of obtaining
Europe. There isa acorporate grant
material level ofthan
across elsewhere
variance
Europe. Thereinisthe inmost
Europe.
a material prevalent
level of variance inform ofprevalent
the most initialform
funding
of initialdepending
funding dependingonon
where you start your company. In the Nordics, for example, government grants are a much more common
where you start your company. In the Nordics, for example, government grants are a much more common
source of initial nancing for founders in those markets. In France, there's a higher likelihood of obtaining a
source of initial nancing for founderscorporate
in those markets.
grant In France,
than elsewhere in Europe. there's a higher likelihood of obtaining a
corporate grant than elsewhere in Europe.
How did you nance the initial DATAS E T : P E R S O N A L S AV I N G S
set up and earliest phase of your PERSONAL SAVINGS
How did you nance the initial DATASET: PERSONAL SAVINGS
80
set up and earliest phase of your 72%
most recent company? 68%

65% 65%
62%
60 58%
80 50%
% of respondents
72% 40
68%
65% 65%
62%
NOTE: 60 20 58%
Founders only. Numbers do not add to
50%
% of respondents
100 as respondents could select multiple

how the sources of choices.
initial nancing raised by founders to start their journeys
It's vary
interesting to look at how the sources of initial 0 nancing raised by founders to start their journeys vary
Southern Europe France & Benelux DACH UK & Ireland Nordics CEE Rest of Europe
a material level of variance in the most prevalent form of initial funding depending
across Europe.
on There is a material level of variance in the most prevalent form of initial funding depending on
40
mpany. In the Nordics, for example, government grants are a much more common where you start your company. In the Nordics, for example, government grants are a much more common
g for founders in those markets. In France, there's a higher likelihood of obtaining
source
NOTE:
aof initial nancing for founders in those markets. In France, there's a higher likelihood of obtaining a
ewhere in Europe. corporate grant than elsewhere in Europe.
ial DATASET: FAMILY & FRIENDS INVESTMENT 20 nance the initial

How did you DATAS E T : A N G E L I N VE ST ME N T
your FAMILY & FRIENDS INVESTMENT set up and earliest phase of your ANGEL INVESTMENT
40
37%
36% 0 30
30%
29%
Southern Europe France & Benelux DACH UK28%
& Ireland Nordics CEE Rest of Europe
26%
25%
30%
30 23%
28%
27%
% of respondents
% of respondents
20%
20
22%
21%
NOTE:
20 SOURCE: The State Of European Tech Survey
respondents could select multiple choices. 10
10
0 0
Southern Europe CEE Rest of Europe France & Benelux UK & Ireland Nordics DACH UK & Ireland Nordics Southern Europe CEE DACH France & Benelux Rest of Europe
NOTE:
o 100 as Founders only. Numbers do not add to 100 as
oices. respondents could select multiple choices.

how the sources of initial nancing raised by founders to start their journeys
It's vary
interesting to look at how the sources of initial nancing raised by founders to start their journeys vary
a material level ofHOW DID in
variance YOU
theFINANCE THE INITIAL
most prevalent SET UP
form of initial AND depending
funding EARLIEST PHASEThere
across Europe.
on OF YOUR MOST level of variance in the most prevalent form of initial funding depending on
is a material
RECENT COMPANY?
mpany. In the Nordics, for example, government grants are a much more common where you start your company. In the Nordics, for example, government grants are a much more common
source aof initial nancing for founders in those markets. In France, there's a higher likelihood of obtaining a
ewhere in Europe. corporate grant than elsewhere in Europe.
ial DATASET: P UBLIC GR ANT How did you nance the initial DATAS E T : P E R S O N A L D E BT
your PUBLIC GRANT set up and earliest phase of your PERSONAL DEBT
40
33% 35%
30
30
24%
% of respondents
% of respondents
20
20
17%
15% 15% 16% 16%
14%
14%
13%
11% 12%
10 10
8%
0 0
how the sources of initial Nordics
nancing raised DACH CEE
by founders to startRest of Europe
their Southern Europe
journeys
It's vary
interesting France & Benelux
to look at how UK & Ireland
the sources of initial Rest of Europe
nancing raised CEE Nordics
by founders to start UK & Ireland
their DACH
journeys vary France & Benelux Southern Europe
a material level of variance in the most prevalent form of initial funding depending across Europe.
mpany. In the Nordics, for example, government grants are a much more common where
NOTE:
you start your company. In the Nordics, for example, government grants are a much more common
g for founders inSOURCE:
o 100 as
thoseThe State Of European Tech Survey
markets. In France, there's a higher likelihood of obtaining source aof initial nancing for founders inS those
O U R C E : The State Of European Tech Survey
markets. In France, there's a higher likelihood of obtaining a
ewhere in Europe.
oices. corporate grant
respondents could than
select elsewhere
multiple choices. in Europe.
ial DATASET: ACCELER ATOR FUNDS How did you nance the initial DATAS E T : VE N T U R E CA P I TA L
your ACCELERATOR FUNDS set up and earliest phase of your VENTURE CAPITAL
25% 15% 15%

25 15
14%
13% 13%
12% 12%
20
17%
% of respondents
% of respondents
10
15 14%
13%
12%
10
8% 5
7%
0 0
Rest of Europe CEE DACH UK & Ireland Southern Europe France & Benelux Nordics Rest of Europe UK & Ireland DACH CEE Southern Europe France & Benelux Nordics
how the sources of initial nancing raised by founders to start their journeys It's vary
across Europe.
NOTE: you start your company. In the Nordics, for example, government grants are a much more common
og100
for
as founders in those markets. In France, there's a higher likelihood of obtaining
source
Foundersa
of
only.initial
Numbers do nancing for
not add to 100 as founders in those markets. In France, there's a higher likelihood of obtaining a
ewhere in Europe.
oices. corporate grant than elsewhere in Europe.
ial DATASET: INCUBATOR FUNDS How did you nance the initial DATAS E T : BA N K LOA N
your INCUBATOR FUNDS set up and earliest phase of your BANK LOAN
15
13 12% 14%
11%
10%
10
9%
10
% of respondents
% of respondents
8 7%
6% 7%
5
5% 5% 5%
4% 5
4%
3
2%
0 0
DACH UK & Ireland Rest of Europe France & Benelux CEE Southern Europe Nordics Nordics CEE DACH Rest of Europe Southern Europe France & Benelux UK & Ireland
how the sources of initial nancing raised by founders to start their journeysIt's vary
across Europe.
NOTE:
you start your company. In the Nordics, for example, government grants are a much more common
o 100 as
source aof initial nancing for founders in those markets. In France, there's a higher likelihood of obtaining a
ewhere in Europe.
oices. corporate grant
respondents could than
select elsewhere
multiple choices. in Europe.
ial DATASET: CORPOR ATE GR ANT How did you nance the initial DATAS E T : C R OWD F U ND I N G
your CORPORATE GRANT set up and earliest phase of your CROWDFUNDING
8
7% 7% 5%
5
6
4%
4
5%
% of respondents
% of respondents
3% 3%
4% 3
4
3% 3%
2%
2
2%
2
0 0
France & Benelux Nordics Rest of Europe UK & Ireland DACH Southern Europe CEE DACH UK & Ireland France & Benelux Nordics CEE
NOTE:
o 100 as Founders only. Numbers do not add to 100 as
oices. respondents could select multiple choices.

We set out to understand how the journey of starting a company affects founders. Not just in terms of the
Founder Challenges & Well-Being

company-building challenges, but also in exploring some of the intense personal challenges that founders must
deal with on a daily basis. We started by asking what they consider to be the most challenging aspects of being
a founder. Our respondents, more than 1,200 of them, most frequently cited balancing working and personal
lives, loneliness at the top and securing access to talent and capital as their biggest challenges.
Securing access to capital

Since you started a company,
what have you found the top Finding a reasonable balance between your working and
We set out to understand
threehow
mostthe journeyaspects
challenging of starting a company affects founders. Not personaljust
lives in terms
of the company-building challenges,

of being a founder?but also in exploring some of the intense personal challenges
Securing access to talent 33%
We set
that founders must deal withoutontoa understand
daily basis. how the journey
We started of starting
by asking what athey
company
Developing as aconsider affects
leader of your to be
company founders.
the mostNot just in terms of the 27%
challenging aspects company-building

of being a founder.challenges, but alsomore
Our respondents, in exploring
than 1,200some of of the
them, intense
most
Finding mentors/advisors who add value
personal
frequently challenges that founders
25%
must
deal
cited balancing working with
Weand
set outon
to a dailylives,
basis.
understand
personal how We started
the journey
loneliness by
theasking
of starting
at top what
a company
and they consider
affects
securing founders.
accessNot to be
tojust the most
in terms
talent challenging aspects of being
andof the
company-building
a founder. challenges, butmore
Our respondents, also in exploring
than 1,200 someofofthem,
the intense
most personal
frequentlychallenges
Feeling lonely at the top that founders must
cited balancing working and personal
23%
capital as their biggest challenges.
deal with on a daily basis. We started by asking what they consider to be the most challenging aspects of being
lives, loneliness
a founder. at the top
Our respondents, and
more securing
than access
1,200 of them, mostto talent and
frequently citedcapital
Support as their and
from your investors
balancing working biggest challenges.
personal 13%
lives, loneliness at the top and securing access to talent and capital as their biggest challenges.
Future career/reconversion prospects 8%
Since you started a company, Securing access toSupport
capital from family and friends 6% 48%
what have you found the top
Finding a reasonable balance between your working and
personal lives 0 44%
three
threemost challenging
most challenging aspects
aspects personal lives 10 20 30 4
% of respondents
of of
being
being a founder?
a founder? Securing access to talent Securing access to talent 33% 33%
Developing as a leader of your company 27%

NOTE: Finding mentors/advisors who add value 25%
Finding
SOURCE: The State Ofmentors/advisors who add value
European Tech Survey 25%
Founder respondents only. Numbers do not Feeling lonely at the top 23%
add to 100 as respondents selected up to
three options. Support from your investors Feeling lonely at the top
13% 23%

Support from your investors 13%
Support from family and friends 6%
0 10 20 30 40 50
% of respondents
Support from family and friends 6%
NOTE: 0 10 20 30 4
Founder respondents only. Numbers do not S O U R C E : The State Of European Tech Survey % of respondents
three options.
NOTE:
Mental health isn’t
Founder respondents only. Numbers do not
Mental health isn’t a PR campaign, it's a paradigm shift.
Millennials and Generation Z are acutely aware of mental
aadd
PR campaign,
to 100 it’s aup to
as respondents selected
three options. health issues, and it is something that we incorporate
paradigm shift. into our community events. It’s about making sure that
entrepreneurs have a support system and have people to
have honest conversations with. I'm interested to see in
five to ten years how these conversations about mental
health at the early stage will filter through to conversations
Abby Scarborough
about founders' relationships with investors, and what the
Yena
expectations on the part of investors are.
The same challenges surfaced with similar frequency for both men and women founderCo-Founder
respondents, though
responses did demonstrate small differences around the challenge of securing access to capital, nding a
reasonable balance in their personal and working lives, and nding mentors and advisors who actually add
value.
The same challenges surfaced with similar frequency for both men and women founder respondents,
though responses did The same
demonstrate
Since challenges
you started small surfaced
differences
a company, witharound
similarthe
frequency
challenge for of
both
Securingmen and
access to
securing capitalwomen founder respondents, though
access to though
The same
what havechallenges
responses did
you found surfaced
the top with
demonstrate similar
small frequency
differences foraaround
Finding both menbalance
reasonable and women
the challenge founder
between your of
working respondents,
securing
and access to capital, nding a
capital, finding a reasonable
responsesbalance
did in their
demonstrate
three most challenging
personal
small and
differences working
around the lives,
challenge and
of finding
securing mentors
access
personal to and
capital,
lives nding a
reasonable balance inaspects
their personal andlives,
working lives,mentors
and and nding mentors and advisors who actually add 33%
advisors who actually add value.
reasonable
of being balance
a founder? in their personal and working and nding advisors who
Securing access to talent
actually add
value.
value. 29%
27%
Developing as a leader of your company
LEGEND 25%
47%
Since you started a company, Securing access to capital 24%53%
Men you started a company, Finding mentors/advisors who add
Securing access value
to capital
Since
what have you found the top Finding a reasonable balance between your working and 43% 29%
what have
Women
three you foundaspects
most challenging the top personal lives
Finding a reasonable balance betweenFeelingyour working
lonely at the and
top 33%
47%23%
of being a founder? Securing access to talent personal lives 25%

three most challenging aspects 29%
27% 13% 33%
ofLEGEND
being a founder? Support
Developing as a leader of your company from
Securing your investors
access to talent 25% 15% 29%
24% 7%
Men Finding mentors/advisors who add value
Future career/reconversion 27%
Developing as a leader of yourprospects
company 29%
8%
LEGEND
Women 23% 25%
Feeling lonely at the top
25%6% 24%
Men Support from family
Finding mentors/advisors whoand friends
add value
Support from your investors
13% 4% 29%
15%
Women 7% at the top 0
Feeling lonely 10 20 23% 30 40
Future career/reconversion prospects
8% 25%
% of respondents
6% 13%
Support from family and friends
Support from
4% your investors
15%
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
7%
NOTE: Future career/reconversion prospects % of respondents
8%
Founder respondents only. Numbers do not SOURCE: The State Of European Tech Survey 6%
NOTE: 4%
three options.
Founder respondents only. Numbers do not S O U R C E : The State Of European Tech Survey
0 10 20 30 40
three options. % of respondents
NOTE:
Founder respondents only. Numbers do not
three options.
06.3 Founder Challenges & Well-Being
Where we saw a greater variance in responses was when we asked

founders with different levels of experience. Repeat founders with
significant experience in scaling
Where a previous
we saw a greatercompany
variance inare materially
responses was when we asked founders with different levels of experience.
Repeat
more likely to state that founders
securing withto
access signi cant
talent experience
is the most in scaling a previous company are materially more likely to state
challenging aspect ofthat securing
being access
a founder. to talent
They is the
were also mostless
much challenging aspect of being a founder. They were also much less
likely than first-time likely thantorst-time
founders cite the founders
challengetoofcite the challenge
developing as a of developing as a leader or being able to nd mentors.
Where we saw
leader or being able to find mentors. a greater variance in responses was when we asked founders with different levels of experience.
Repeat founders
Where we withvariance
saw a greater signi incant experience
responses was when inwe scaling a previous
asked founders with
Securing
company
different
access
are materially more likely to state
to capitallevels of experience.
that securing
Repeat access
founders to
with signi
talent
cant is the
experience most challenging
in scaling a previous companyaspect areof being
materially a
founder.
more likely toThey
state were also much less
that securing
likely than access to talent
rst-time is the most
founders to challenging
cite the aspect of of
challenge being a founder. They
developing as awere
personal also much
leader
lives or less able to nd mentors.
being
three most challenging aspects
likely than rst-time founders to cite the challenge of developing as a leader or being able to nd mentors.
of being a founder? Securing access to talent
Since
Sinceyou started
you started a company,
a company, Securing Developing asSecuring
access to capital a leader access
of your to capital
company
LEGEND
what have you found the top Finding a reasonable balance between your working and
Finding a reasonable
Finding
balance
personal lives
between your working and
mentors/advisors that add value
three mostfounder
First-time challenging aspects personal lives
three most
of being challenging aspects
a founder? Securing access to talent
Repeat founder with limited experience in
of scaling
beingcompany
a founder? Developing as a leader of your company
Feeling lonely
Securing accessattothe top
talent
LEGEND
Repeat founder with signi cant
First-time founder Developing
Finding mentors/advisors Support from
as a leader
that add value of your investors
company
LEGEND
Repeat founder with limited experience in Feeling lonely at the top
First-time founder
scaling company Finding
Futurementors/advisors thatprospects
career/reconversion add value
Repeat founder with signi cant Support from your investors
experience in scaling company SupportFeeling lonely
from family at the
and top
friends
scaling company Future career/reconversion prospects
Repeat founder with signi cant Support from your investors 0 10 20 30 40

experience in scaling company % of respondents
0
Future career/reconversion10
prospects 20 30 40 50
% of respondents

NOTE:
NOTE:
Founder respondents only. Numbers do not SOURCE: The State Of European Tech Survey 0 10 20 30 40
add to 100 as respondents selected up to % of respondents
three
threeoptions.
options.
NOTE:
Founder respondents only. Numbers do not SOURCE: The State Of European Tech Survey
three options.
It should not be a surprise that the most challenging aspects of being REPEAT FOUNDERS
a founder also change at each step of the scaling journey. As their
40%
It should not be a surprise that the most challenging aspects of being a founder also change at each step of the
companies grow in scale, founders point out that the challenges of of experienced repeat founders
scaling journey. As their companies grow in scale, founders point out that thementioned challenges thatof the earlier
'securing stages,
access
the earlier stages, such
such asassecuring
securingaccess
accessto tocapital
capitaland
andfinding
nding mentors, become much less of toatalent'
concern.
is oneInstead,
of the topitthree
becomes
mentors, become much much less of a concern.
clearer that nding Instead, it becomes
a balance much and personal lives and developing
in their working as leaders
most challenging of their
aspects.
clearer that finding agrowing
balancecompanies
in their working and personal lives
become the most challenging and aspects of being a founder.
developing as leaders It of
should
theirnot be a surprise
growing companies that become
the mostthe challenging
most aspects of being a founder also change at each step of the
challenging aspects scaling
ofIt being journey.
a As
founder. their companies grow in scale,offounders
should not be a surprise that the most challenging aspects point
being a founder out
also thatatthe
change
challenges
each step of the of the earlier stages,
Since
such asyou
scaling started
securing
journey. aaccess
company,
As their to capital
companies grow inand nding mentors,
scale, founders point out thatbecome muchofless
the challenges of a concern.
the earlier stages, Instead, it becomes
whatashave you found thetotop Finding a reasonable balance between your working and
much
such clearer
securingthat
accessnding a balance
capital and nding inmentors,
their working
become much and personal liveslives
less of a concern.
personal and developing
Instead, it becomes as leaders of their
three clearer
much most challenging
that ndingaspects
a balance in their working and personal lives and developing as leaders of their
growing companies
of beingcompanies
growing a founder?becomebecome the most challenging aspectsSecuring
the most challenging aspects of being a founder.
of being atalent
access to founder.
LEGEND Securing access to capital Securing access to capital
Since you
Since youstarted a company,
started a company,
<10 employees Finding a reasonable balance between Finding mentors/advisors
your working and who add value
three most challenging aspects
Finding a reasonable balance
personal lives between your working and
11-100 employees personal lives
three most
of being challenging aspects
a founder? Securing access to talent Feeling lonely at the top
of >100
being a founder?
employees
LEGEND Support from your investors
<10 employees Developing
Finding mentors/advisors as a leader of your company
who add value
LEGEND Future career/reconversion prospects
11-100 employees Feeling lonely at the top
<10 Finding mentors/advisors who add value
>100employees
employees
11-100 employees Feeling lonely at the top
Future career/reconversion prospects 0 10 20 30 40
>100 employees
% of respondents
0 10
Future career/reconversion prospects20 30 40 50 60
% of respondents
NOTE:
NOTE:
add to 100 as respondents selected up to 0 10 20 30 40
three options.
add to 100 as respondents selected up to % of respondents
three options.
NOTE:
three options.

FOUNDERS
We asked founders if the experience of starting and
19%
building a company had led to any change in their mental
06.3 health.
Founder Challenges While founders were most likely to say it had mostly
& Well-Being
had a positive impact on their mental health, we also found
of all founders said that starting a company mostly had a
that one in ve founders said it had a mostly negative
on their well-being.
FOUNDERS
We asked founders ifimpact
Wetheasked
experience
forfounders of starting
their mental if the health. andItbuilding
experience is interesting a
of starting and FOUNDERS
that
19% 19%
company had led to any change
'success'
building asin de
a-company their ned mental
had here
ledby health.
toscaling While
any change founders
a companyin theirtomentala
were most likely to say meaningful
it hadWhile
health. mostly number had of
founders employees
a positive
were most impact-likely
is not more
say itlikely
ontotheir to
had mostly of all founders said that starting
FOUNDERS
lead a company mostly had a negative
mental health, we also had We ato
found positive
that
positive
asked one
founders mental
ifin
impact the onhealth
five their outcomes.
founders
experience mental saidhealth,
of starting itandIn fact,
had founders
awe also found
impact
of all founders onthat
said their well-being.
starting a company mostly had a
of larger companies were less likely to say they had
19%
building a company had led to any change in their mental
mostly negative impact thatfor one
health.
theirin mental
While
ve founders
founders
health.
were
said
most
Itlikely
is interesting
it had
to
a mostlythat
say it had
negative
mostly on their well-being.
experienced
'success' - as definedimpact for a
their positive
mental change
health. to Itin their mental
is interesting health.
here
had aby scaling
positive impact a company
on their mental ahealth, we also foundthat
meaningful
of all founders said that starting a company mostly had a negative impact
number of employees 'success'
-that
is not
one in - asvede
more nedto
likely
founders here
lead
said bytoscaling
it had apositive a company
mostly negativemental to a on their well-being.
impact for their
meaningful mental of
number health. It is interesting
employees - is that more likely to
not
health outcomes. In fact, Have founders as de of
you -experienced
'success' larger
ned anybycompanies
here scaling a company were to less likely
a Positive change 29%
lead
to say they had experienced changeto positive
meaningfulainpositive
your
number
mental
mentalofchange health
health
employees
outcomes.
in -their
is not mental
more likely
In fact, founders
health.
to
30%
ofsince
larger
lead toyou companies
founded
positive wereoutcomes.
yourhealth
mental less likely to say
In fact, they
founders had
Negative change
19%
23%
company?
experienced
of larger companies a positive
were lesschange
likely toin their
say they mental
had health. 22%
experienced a positive change in their mental health. 23%
LEGEND No change 19%
24%
Have
Have you experienced
<10 employees
you experienced any any Positive change Positive change 16%29%
36%
29%
change
change in your
yourmental
11-100 employees mental health
health Not aware of change 16% 30% 30%
since you founded your 19%
since
>100you founded your
employees Negative change 23%
16% 19%
company? Negative change 2% 22% 23%
company? 22%
Prefer not to say 6% 23%
LEGEND No change 3% 19%
24%
23%
LEGEND
<10 employees No change 5% 19%
16%
11-100 employees Not aware of change Other 6% 16% 24%
<10 employees 16%
>100 employees 4% 16%
2%change
Not aware of
11-100 employees 16%
Prefer not to say 0
6% 5 10 15 20 25 30
3% 16%
>100 employees % of respondents
5% 2%
Other Prefer not to say 6% 6%
4%
3%
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
5% % of respondents
NOTE: 6%
Other Of European Tech Survey
SOURCE: The State
4%
Founder respondents only. Numbers may not
to 100 due to rounding. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
% of respondents
to 100 due to rounding.
NOTE:
I am a co-founder so that has helped as [I have] done lone

founder before, and it is tough so you have to team up
with other founders/CEOs to support when getting going.
State of European
Tech survey
respondent
It is also noteworthy that we saw little difference between rst-time and repeat founders. Experienced repeat
founders were just as likely to say they had experienced a mostly negative change in their mental health as
rst-time founders. We did nd that experienced repeat founders were more likely to say that they don't believe
that being a founder had had any impact at all on their mental health.
It is also noteworthy that we saw little difference between first-time and repeat founders.
Experienced repeat founders were just asthat
It is also noteworthy likely
weto sawsaylittle
theydifference
had experiencedbetweena mostly
rst-timenegative change
and repeat founders. Experienced repeat
Have you experienced any
in their mental healthfounders
as
It first-time
is also were founders.
just
noteworthy as
that
change in your mental healthwe We
likely
saw todidsay
little find that
they had
difference experienced
Positive change
experienced
between rst-time repeat
a
and founders
mostly
repeat negative
founders. were more
change
Experienced in their mental health as
repeat
3
3
likely to say that they don't
sincebelieve
founders
rst-time were that
just
founders.
you founded
as being
likely to a
yourWe did founder
say they
nd had had had any
thatexperienced
experienced impact
a mostly atfounders
all
negative
repeat on their
change mental
inwere
their morehealth.
mental health
likelyasto say that 20%
they don't believe
rst-time founders. We did nd that experienced repeat founders were more likely to say that they don't believe
Negative change 18%
that being a founder had had any impact at all on their mental health.
company?
that being a founder had had any impact at all on their mental health. 21%
20%
LEGEND No change 23%
36%
Haveyou
you experienced any any 31%
Have
First-timeexperienced
founder
Positive change
Positive change 32%
3
change in your mental health 17% 32%
change
since you
Repeat
in yourwith
founded
founder
mental
your health
limited experience Not aware of change 20% 17%
3
since you founded your

company?
Negative change 18%
21%
12% 20%
Repeat founder with signi cant previous Negative change 18%
company?
experience 3% 20% 21%
LEGEND No change Prefer not to say 3% 23%
2% 31% 20%
First-time founder
LEGEND No change 17% 23%
Repeat founder with limited experience Not aware of change 4% 17% 31%
First-time founder Other 12% 8%
Repeat founder with signi cant previous
experience 3% 3% 17%
Repeat founder with limited experience Not aware of 3%
Prefer not to say change 17%
2% 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
12%
Repeat founder with signi cant previous 4%
3% % of respondents
experience Other 8%
Prefer not3%to say 3%
0 5 102% 15 20 25 30 35 40
4% % of respondents
NOTE: Other 8%
SOURCE: The State Of European3%
Tech Survey
NOTE: 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
add to 100 due to rounding. S O U R C E : The State Of European Tech Survey
Founder respondents only. Numbers may not % of respondents

Where we did see a larger variance was between founders of externally funded and bootstrapped companies.
Founders of bootstrapped companies were materially less likely to tell us that being a founder has had a mostly
Where we did see a larger variance
negative was
impact on between founders
their mental health of externally
compared funded
with those founders who have raised external capital.
and bootstrapped companies. Founders of bootstrapped companies were
materially less likely to tell us that being a founder has had a mostly negative 31%
Have you
Where weexperienced any
did see a larger variance was between Positive founders
raisedof externally funded and bootstrapped companies.
change
impact on their mental health
change incompared with those
your mental health founders who have
Founders
Where weofdidbootstrapped companies
see a larger variance were
was between materially
founders lessfunded
of externally likelyand
to bootstrapped
tell us that companies.
being a founder has had a mostly
external capital. since you founded your 23%
negative
company?impact on their mental health compared with those founders who have raised
Founders of bootstrapped companies were materially Negative
less likely external capital.
to tell us that being a founder has had a mostly
change
15%
negative impact on their mental health compared with those founders who have raised external capital.
23%
LEGEND No change
31%
Have
Haveyou
you experienced
experienced any any Positive change Positive change
31% 22%
Raised external capital 38%
change
change in yourmental
in your mental health
health 15%
since
you founded
you
Bootstrapped
since founded your
your Not aware of change
Negative change
23%
17% 23%
company? Negative change 15%
company? 15%
5% 23%
LEGEND No change
Other (please specify)
5%
22% 23%
Raised external capital
LEGEND No change
15% 22%
Bootstrapped Not aware of change 3%
Raised external capital Prefer not to say
17%
3% 15%
Bootstrapped Not aware of change
5%
5% 17%
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
3% 5%
Prefer not to say % of respondents
3%
5%
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
3% % of respondents
Prefer not to say
3%
Founder respondents only. Numbers may not 0 5 10 15 20 25 30

NOTE:
to 100 due to rounding. S O U R C E : The State Of European Tech Survey
% of respondents

I am under more stress than I've ever been, but I am also

more intellectually stimulated than I've ever been. These
positives and negatives are both felt at the same time, so
they don't cancel out - but they are both felt.
State of European
Tech survey
respondent
We also saw that the decision to take external capital introduces a different set of challenges for those
We also saw that thefounders.
decision to takemany
While external capitalare
challenges introduces
cited at the a different
same level setby founders of both types of companies, such as
of challenges for thosethefounders. While many
sense of loneliness challenges
at the top, there are cited
were at the
clear same of opinion on whether others were amongst the
differences
mosttypes
level by founders of both challenging aspects of
of companies, being
such a founder.
as the sense of Notably,
loneliness founders of companies who have raised capital were
at the top, there weremore
clear likely to see access
differences of to capital
opinion on and talent
whether othersas a were
challenge, while founders of bootstrapped companies were
We also saw that the decision to take external capital introduces a different set of challenges for those
more likelyaspects
amongst the most challenging to say that ndingamentors
of challenges
being founder. was a challenge.
Notably,
founders.
We also sawWhile many
that the decision are capital
to take external cited at thefounders
introducessame level set
a different by of founders
challenges offorboth
thosetypes of companies, such as
of companies who have the raised
senseWhile
founders. capital
of many were
loneliness more
at
challenges the likely
aretop, atto
thesee
cited there access
were
same clear
level to capital
differences
by founders of both of typesopinion on whether
of companies, such as others were amongst the
and talent as a challenge,
the
most while
sense
Since founders
youofstarted
loneliness
challenging at of
thebootstrapped
a aspects
company, top,
ofthere
being were companies
clear differences
a founder. Notably, were
of opinion more
on whether
founders
Securing toothers
capital were amongst
of companies
access who havethe raised capital were
42%
most challenging aspects of being a founder. Notably, founders of companies who have raised capital were
likely to say that finding
more mentors
what have you
likely towas
found
see a challenge.
the
accesstop to capital and talent
Finding aas a challenge,
reasonable while
balance between founders
your working and
more likely to see access to capital and talent as a challenge, while founders of bootstrapped companies were
of bootstrapped companies were
three most challenging aspects personal lives
more
more likely
likely toto
saysay
thatthat
ndingnding mentors
mentors was a challenge.
was a challenge.
4
of being a founder? By funded 36%
versus bootstrapped companies 28%
54%
Since you started a company, Securing access to capital 29%
Since youyou
what have started a company,
found the top
Developing asSecuring
a leader access
of your to
company
capital 42%
24% 42%
LEGEND Finding a reasonable balance between your working and 45%
what
three have you found
most challenging the top
aspects personal lives
43% 24%
ofFunded
being a founder? By fundedaspects Feeling lonely at the top
three most challenging Securing access to talent personal lives 36% 23% 4
versus bootstrapped companies 28%
of Unfunded
being a founder? By funded 29% 20% 36%
Developing as a leader Finding mentors/advisors
of your company who add
Securing access value
to talent
versus
LEGEND bootstrapped companies
24% 28% 31%
24% 16%
Funded Feeling lonely at the top 29%
Developing Support from
as a leader of your investors
company 23%
10% 24%
Unfunded
LEGEND 20%
Finding mentors/advisors who add value
6% 31% 24%
Funded Future career/reconversion
Feeling lonelyprospects
at the top
16% 9% 23%
10%
Unfunded 4% 20%
Support from family
Finding mentors/advisors
6%whoand friends
add value
Future career/reconversion prospects 8% 31%
9%

4% 16%
Support from your
8% investors
10%
6%
NOTE: SOURCE: The State Of European Tech Survey 9%
Founder respondents only. Numbers may not 4%
Founder respondents only. Numbers may not Support from family and friends
add to 100 due to rounding. 8%


We tried to explore the most challenging aspects of being a founder that were more or less likely to be
06.3
correlated with founders who experience negative or positive impact on their mental health, and found some
Founder Challenges & Well-Being
clear differences. Respondents who said that being a founder had had a mostly negative impact on their mental
health were materially more likely to point to balance in the personal and working lives and loneliness at the top
as
We tried to explore the being
Wemost the most challenges
tried challenging
to explore aspects
the issues.
of being a founder
most challenging aspects that of beingwerea more
founder or that
less werelikelymore
to or less likely to be
be correlated with founders
correlated who experience
with founders negative
who experience or positive
negativeimpact on theirimpact
or positive mentalon health, and health, and found some
their mental
We tried to explore the most challenging aspects of being a founder that were more or less likely to be
clear
Sincedifferences.
found some clear differences.
correlated
you with Respondents
Respondents
founders
started who said
who experience
a company, who said
that
negative that
being
or abeing
positivefounder a founder
impact had
on had
theirhad
Securing a had
access
mental mostly a mostly
tohealth,
capital negative
negative
and found some impact on their mental
health
impact on their mental clear
what were
health materially
were
differences.
have you materially more
Respondents
found the top more
who likely to point
saidlikely
that being ato
to point balance
a to
founder
Finding balancein the
had had
reasonable inpersonal
theyour
a mostly
balance between personal
negative and
working working
impact
and andon theirlives and loneliness at the top
mental
ashealth
being
three
working lives and loneliness were
mostthe
at materially
most
challenging
the more
as likely to issues.
top challenges
aspects
being the point to balance in the personal and working personal
most challenges issues. lives andlivesloneliness at the top 40%
as
of being
beingthe most challenges issues.
a founder? Securing access to talent
34%
36%
25%
Securing access to capital Securing access to capital
Since youstarted
Since you
LEGEND started a company,
a company, 46%
28%
what have
have you found the top 20%
what you
Mostly negative found
impact the top Finding a reasonable balanceabetween
Finding your working
reasonable balance
Finding and between your working and
mentors/advisors
personal lives
who add value
40%
55%
27%
three most challenging aspects personal lives 40%
three most
ofMostly
challenging
beingpositive impact
a founder?
aspects Securing access to talent
34%
31% 34%
Feeling lonely at the top 36%
of being a founder? Securing access to talent
25%
18% 36%
LEGEND 28% 17%
Support from your investors 25%
Developing
Finding mentors/advisors as a leader of your company
who add value
20% 12%
Mostly negative impact
LEGEND 27% 28%
10%
Mostly positive impact Future career/reconversion 20%
whoprospects
31%
FeelingFinding
lonely mentors/advisors
at the top add value 7%
Mostly negative impact 18% 27%
17% 7%
Mostly positive impact Support from your investors 31%
SupportFeeling
from family and
lonely friends
at12%
the top 6%
10% 18%
7% 0 10 20 30 40
17%
Support from 7%
your investors
Support from family and friends 12% % of respondents
6%
10%
Future career/reconversion
0 10 prospects 20 30 40 50 60
7%
% of respondents
7%
NOTE: Support from family and friends
6%
Founder
NOTE: respondents only. Numbers do not SOURCE: The State Of European Tech Survey
0 10 20 30 40
add to 100
Founder as respondents
respondents selected
only. Numbers do not up to S O U R C E : The State Of European Tech Survey
three
add tooptions.
100 as respondents selected up to % of respondents
three options.
NOTE:
Due to the power dynamic between founders and investors, if the investor
three options.
does not set the tone, founders may not feel that asking for help or voicing
a need for support is possible.
Chronic stress and exhaustion are driven and be able to have an honest conversation
by an imbalance between an employees' when growth expectations are not achievable
perceived and actual resources, and their because the market is simply not yet there. Madeleine Evans
work and demands in the workplace. Stress
Levell
and burnout, and then even more severe In order to have open conversations, you need
Founder & CEO
symptoms of negative mental health, are often to have trust and open communication. Due
signs of deeper root causes, which can range to the power dynamic between founders and
from personal time management practices to investors, if the investor does not set the tone,
physical health, and relationships. founders may not feel that asking for help or
voicing a need for support is possible. Investors
At an individual level, employees and founders need to signal in many different ways that
need to be able and supported to manage the founders have permission to ask for help, get
root causes that allow them to both perform support, and talk about their overall mental/
and be well. At the company level, employees, physical health and well-being.
founders, and investors need to be able to
We alsothe
manage setneed
outforto growth
explore
in awhat support,
smarter way if any, founders are receiving from their investors to manage the
pressures they experience. More than half of founder respondents who have raised external capital state they
have received some level of support from their investors, with another 11% saying they had received signi cant
support. But that leaves nearly 40% of founders who said they had received no support at all from their
investors.
We also set out to explore what support, if any, founders are receiving from their investors to manage
We also set More
the pressures they experience. out tothan explore
halfwhat support,
of founder if any, founders
respondents who are
havereceiving from their investors to manage the
raised external
pressures
capital state they haveWe also
What setthey
received some
out
support, experience.
toany,
if level
explore
havewhat
you More than
of support,
support from
if any, half of
their
founders founder
investors,
are respondents
receiving
Significant support with
from another
their who have
11%
investors raised
saying
to manage the external capital state they
11%
pressures
have they your
received
received from experience.
some More
level
investors to than
of half of from
support foundertheir
respondents
investors,who have
withraised external
another 11% capital
sayingstatethey
they had received signi cant
they had received significant
have support. But that leaves nearly 40% of founders who said they had
specireceived
support. cally
But
some
help
thatyoulevel of support
manage
leaves the from
nearly 40%
their investors, with another 11% saying they had received signi cant
of founders who said they had received no support at all from their
received no support atsupport.
all from
pressuresButtheir
ofthat
being investors.
leaves nearly 40% of founders who said they had received no support at all from their
a founder?
investors.
investors. Some support
What support, if any, have you No support 38%

What support,
received from yourif investors
any, have to you
Significant support
Significant support
11%
11%
received from
speci cally help your investors
you manage the to
pressures
speci of being
cally helpayou founder?
manage the Some support 46%
Prefer not to say 2%
pressures of being a founder? Some support
No support 38%
Other 3%
No support 38%
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Other 3% % of respondents who raised external capital
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
NOTE: % of respondents who raised external capital
Founder respondents who have raised SOURCE: TheOther 3% Tech Survey

State Of European
external
NOTE: capital only. Numbers may not to
100 due to rounding. S O U R C E : The State Of European Tech Survey
Founder respondents who have raised 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
external capital only. Numbers may not to
100 due to rounding. % of respondents who raised external capital
NOTE:
Founder respondents who have raised 143
SOURCE: The State Of European Tech Survey In Partnership with &
One investor/advisor in particular has been useful but

mostly by being a role model. Or you see someone else
acting in the right way (e.g. work-life balance, right
morals). It is easy to keep those standards. Many words
are just hot air. State of European
Tech survey
respondent
We also explored if founders who hadifexperienced

We also explored founders who negative SUPPORT
had experienced negative FROM
impact INVESTORS
on their mental health were receiving
support, and found that 41%
impact on their mental health were receiving support, andof those founders had received no support at all from their investors.
found that 41% of those founders had received no support
at all from their investors.
What support, if any, have you
received from your if investors
capital said they had received
15%
Significant support
to who had experienced negative impact on
38%
of founders who raised external
no support at all from their

We also explored founders 10%their mental health were receiving
investors to help them manage
speci
We alsocally helpifyou
explored manage
founders the
support, and found that who
41% had
of experienced negativehad
those founders impact on their mental
received health were
no support at allreceiving
from
the their investors.
pressures that comes with 40%
pressures
support, offound
and beingthat
a founder?
41% of those founders had received no support at all from their investors.
Some support
being a founder.
LEGEND 15%
What
What support, if any,
support, if any, havehave
you you Significant supportSignificant support
15%
41%
received
Foundersfrom your investors
reporting mostly to
a positive No support
received from your investors to 10%
10% 38%
impact
speci on mental
cally health
help you manage the
speci cally
pressures helpayou
of being manage the
founder? Some support
40%
Founders reporting mostly a negative 40%
pressures of being
impact on mental a founder?
health Some support
2% 48%
Prefer not to say
LEGEND
1% 41%
Founders reporting mostly a positive No support
LEGEND
impact on mental health 38%
3% 41%
Founders reporting
Founders reporting mostly
mostly a positive
a negative No support
2% Other
impact on
impact onmental health
mental health Prefer not to say 38%
3%
1%
Founders reporting mostly a negative 2%
impact on mental health 3% 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Other Prefer not to say
3% 1% % of respondents
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
3% % of respondents
NOTE: Other
3%
Founder respondents who have raised SOURCE: The State Of European Tech Survey
NOTE:
external capital only. Numbers may not to 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Founder respondents who have raised S O U R C E : The State Of European Tech Survey
100 due to rounding. % of respondents
NOTE:
When we asked founders if they would feel comfortable discussing changes in
When
their mental health with we investors,
their asked founders
we saw if they would
a clear feelamongst
divide comfortable discussing changes in their mental health with their
founders.
Those who reported being negatively impacted are much more likely to feel who reported being negatively impacted are much
investors, we saw a clear divide amongst founders. Those
more likely
uncomfortable discussing thesetochanges
feel uncomfortable discussing
with their investors these
- 41% in changes
fact, with their investors - 41% in fact, compared to only
11% for founders for whom becoming a founder has been a positive experience.
compared to only 11%When we askedfor
for founders founders if they would
whom becoming feel comfortable
a founder has beendiscussing
a changes in their mental health with their
positive experience.investors, we saw a clear divide amongst founders. Those who reportedhealth
When we asked founders if they would feel comfortable discussing changes in their mental beingwith
negatively
their impacted are much
investors,
more weto
likely saw a clear
feel divide amongst founders.
uncomfortable Those
discussing who reported
these changes beingwithnegatively
their impacted are-much
investors 41% in fact, compared to only
Would you feel comfortable
more likely to feel uncomfortable discussing these changes with their
Founders reporting investors
mostly - 41%
positive impact in fact, compared to only
on mental
11% for founders
discussing changes for
in whom
your becoming a founder has been
11% for founders for whom becoming a founder has been a positive experience. a positive experience.
health
mental health with your board
investors?
Would you feel comfortable
Would you feel comfortable Founders reportingFounders reporting
mostly positive mostly
impact on
Founders reporting mostly
mental negative impact on mental
discussing changes in your health positive impact on mental
health
discussing
mental healthchanges
LEGEND in your
with your board health
mental
investors?health
Yes, I would feel with your board
comfortable
investors?
No, I would not feel comfortable
Founders reporting mostly negative impact on mental
health
LEGEND
Founders
Founders reporting
reporting mostlyno impactimpact
negative on mental health
on mental
IYes,
don't think
I would feelitcomfortable
is relevant health
LEGEND
No, I would not feel comfortable
Not able to comment Founders reporting no impact on mental health
Yes,
I don'tI think
would it isfeel comfortable
relevant
Prefer not to say
Not able
No, I wouldto comment
not feel comfortable Founders uncertain of the impact on mental health
Other
Prefer not to say Founders reporting no impact on mental health
I don't think it is relevant Founders uncertain of the impact on mental health
Other
Not able to comment 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Prefer not to say % of respondents
% of respondents
Founders uncertain of the impact on mental health
Other
NOTE: S O U R C E : The State Of European Tech Survey 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

NOTE:
Founder respondents only. Numbers may not SOURCE: The State Of European Tech Survey
% of respondents
to 100 duerespondents
Founder to rounding. only. Numbers may not


Of course, it is a fair question to ask whether founders would actually appreciate any support from their
investors. We found that the large majority, around two-thirds of founders, state they would indeed appreciate
Of course, it is a fair question to ask
support from whether
their founders
investors to helpwould actually
manage appreciate
their mental health. This is true whether their experience of being
any support from their investors. We found that the large majority, around
a founder has been mostly positive, neutral or negative (from the perspective of changes to their mental
two-thirds of founders, state they would indeed appreciate support from
health).
their investors to help manageWe
investors. their mental
found thathealth. This
the large is true whether
majority, their
around two-thirds of founders, state they would indeed appreciate
experience of being asupport
founder from
investors. We
has been
their
found that
mostly
investors
the large
positive,
to help
majority,
neutral
manage
around
or
their
two-thirds
Founders
negative
ofmental
founders,
reporting mostly health.
state
positive This
they
impact is true
would
on mental indeedwhether
appreciatetheir experience of being
Would you appreciate receiving
(from the perspective of changes
asupport
founder
supportfromhas
from to
their
your their
been
investorsmental
mostly
to help health).
positive,
manage neutral
their orhealth.
mental negative This is(from
health
the perspective
true whether of changes
their experience of being to their mental
aboard/investors
founder has beentomostly
specipositive,
cally neutral or negative (from the perspective of changes to their mental
health). Founders reporting mostly negative impact on mental
health).
help you with managing your health
mental health?
Would you
Would you appreciate
appreciate receiving
receiving Founders reporting mostly Founders
Founders
positive reporting
reporting
impact mentalno
onmostly impactimpact
positive on mental health
on mental
health
support from your health
support
LEGEND from your
board/investors to speci cally Founders reporting mostly negative impact on mental
board/investors
help to speci
Yesyou with managing your cally Founders
Founders uncertain
reporting of the
mostly
health impactimpact
negative on mental health
on mental
help
No you
mental with managing your
health? health
mental health?
Prefer not to say
Founders reporting no impact on mental health
LEGEND Founders preferring not to say

Founders reporting no impact on mental health
Other
Yes Founders uncertain of the impact on mental health
LEGEND
No
Other
Yes
Prefer not to say Founders uncertain
Founders preferring not toof
saythe impact on mental health
Other
No
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Other
Prefer not to say Founders preferring not to say % of respondents
Other 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
% of respondents
Other
NOTE:
Founder
NOTE: respondents who have raised SOURCE: The State Of European Tech Survey
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
external capital only.
Founder respondents whoNumbers
have raised may not to S O U R C E : The State Of European Tech Survey
100 duecapital
external to rounding.
only. Numbers may not to % of respondents
NOTE:
I think it would benefit the investments to be more open

about things like [managing mental health], because
you can course-correct [and] save the value of the
investment. But good luck with that.
State of European
Tech survey
respondent
Photo by: Tanu Kallio

Strong Talent Base
There's between
There's a huge competition a huge competition
cities and between
countriescitiesacross andEurope
countries across Europe
to position themselvesto position
as themselves as the most
the most attractive place for founders to start up. Given that one-quarter of founders across Europe Europe are migrants and
attractive place for founders to start up. Given that one-quarter of founders across
have moved country to set up and start their companies, this appeal to founder mobility makes sense. As such,
are migrants and have moved country to set up and start their companies, this appeal to founder
There's
we wanteda huge competition
to explore between cities
the considerations andmatter
that countries across Europe
to founders to position
when choosing themselves
where as the most
to start their
mobility makes sense. As such, we wanted to explore the considerations that matter to founders
attractive place
companies. From fora founders
business to start up. Given
perspective, that one-quarter
the most of founders across
important considerations Europe
are access toare migrants
talent and and
when choosing where to start
have moved
customers.
their
There
companies.
country is, to set
however,upFrom
and a business
start
observed their perspective,
companies,
variance in the
the
this most
appeal
responses
important
to
from founder
rst-timemobility makes
founders and sense.
repeatAs such,
There'sto
considerations are access a huge competition
talent between cities
and customers. and countries
There across Europe
is, greater
however, observedto position themselves
variance in theas the most
weattractive
wanted
founders to explore
with
place signi thetoexperience.
cant
for founders considerations thatthat
start up. Given The matter
one-quarter of to
the founders
level
foundersofacross
priorwhen choosing
entrepreneurial
Europe are migrantswhere to start
success,
and thetheir
more likely
responses from first-time founders
companies.
founders
have movedare From and
to consider
country to repeat
a business
set andfounders
up accessperspective,
start withas
to talent
their significant
the
companies, anmost
important
this appeal experience.
important The
consideration
to founder mobility greater
considerations arethe
for sense.
makes locationaccess
As choice.
such, to talent and
level of prior entrepreneurial
we wanted
customers. success,
toThere
exploreis,the more likely
thehowever,
considerations founders
that
observed matter toare toinconsider
founders
variance access
whenresponses
the choosing wheretototalent
from start as anfounders and repeat
their
rst-time
companies. From a business perspective, the most important considerations are access to talent and
important consideration for location
founders
customers.with
There
choice.
signi cant experience.
is, however, observed variance The greater
in the the from
responses level rst-time
of priorfounders
entrepreneurial
and repeat success, the more likely
What were the most important Access to talent
founders are signi
founders with to consider
practical business
accessThe
cant experience. togreater
talentthe
aslevel
an important consideration
of prior entrepreneurial success,for
thelocation
more likelychoice.
founders are to consider access to talent as an important consideration for location choice.
considerations for you when Lower cost base
choosing where to locate your
What
Whatwere themost
most important Access to talent
company werewhen
the you founded it?
important Access to talent
Access to capital/investors
practical business
practical business
considerations forfor
considerations youyou
whenwhen Lower cost base Lower cost base
LEGEND
choosing where to locate your Access to customers
choosing
company
where
when you
to locate
founded it?
your
Access to capital/investors
First-time founder
company when you founded it? Access to capital/investors
Repeat founder with limited experience in Financial incentives (grants, subsidies, etc.)
LEGEND Access to customers
scaling company
First-time founder
LEGEND Access to customers
Repeat founder
Repeat founder with
with signi
limited cant in
experience Friendly
Financial incentives (grants, subsidies, etc.)regulatory environment
First-time
experience founder
in scaling company
scaling company
Repeat founder
Repeat founder with signilimited
with cant experience in Financial
Friendly regulatoryincentives
environment (grants, subsidies, etc.)
experience in scaling company Specific market opportunity
scaling company
Specific market opportunity
Repeat founder with signi cant Friendly regulatory environment 0 10 20 30 40
experience in scaling company 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
% of respondents
% of respondents
NOTE:
NOTE: 0 10 20 30 40
SOURCE: The State Of European Tech Survey % of respondents
Founder respondents
add to 100 as respondentsonly.
couldNumbers
choose do not
add to 100responses.
multiple as respondents could choose
multiple responses.
NOTE:
add to 100 as respondents could choose
multiple responses.
Immigrant founders are signi cantly more likely than local founders to have considered access to capital as an
important practical business consideration for choosing where to locate their company when they founded it.
Immigrant founders Oneare significantly
way to interpret more thislikely than
is that local
there is founders to havefor
a clear incentive considered
cities andaccesscountries to try to build a strong local
to capital as an important practical
Immigrant business
founders are consideration
signi cantly more for choosing
likely
investor base to ensure that local talent does not feel the need than where
local toto
founders locateto their
migratehave considered
elsewhere access access
to ensure to capital
to as an
company when they important
founded
capital practical
it. One
andfounders way
investors. business
to consideration
interpret this is that for choosing
there is a where
clear to
incentive locatefortheir
citiescompany
and when they founded it.
OneImmigrant
way to interpret are signi
this iscantly
thatmore
therelikely
isthan local incentive
a clear founders to have
fordoesconsidered
cities and access to capital
countries to as
tryanto build a strong local
countries to try to build a strong local investor base to ensure that local talent not feel the
important practical business consideration for choosing where to locate their company when they founded it. need
to migrate elsewhereinvestor
to
Oneensurebase
way to to ensure
access
interpret that
toiscapital
this that local
is a talent
and
there does not
investors.
clear incentive feeland
for cities thecountries
need totomigrate
try to buildelsewhere
a strong localto ensure access to 37
capital
What and
were
investor base investors.
thetomost important
ensure that local talent does not feel the need to migrate Access to talent
elsewhere to ensure access to
practical
capital and business
investors.
27%
considerations for you when Lower cost base
30% 37
choosing
What where to locate your
Whatwere the most important Access to talent 37%
were the most important Access to talent 37
company
practical when you founded it?
business
practical business Access to capital/investors
45%
27% 27%
27%
considerations
considerations forfor
youyou
whenwhen Lower cost base Lower cost base 30%
choosing where to locate your 30% 37
choosing
LEGEND where to locate
company when you founded it?
your Access to customers 37%
Access to capital/investors 37
company when you founded it?
Founder (migrant) Access to capital/investors
27%
37% 21% 27%

LEGEND
Founder (local) Financial incentives
Access to customers (grants, subsidies, etc)
38% 21% 37
Founder (migrant)
LEGEND Access to customers 21%
Founder (local) Financial incentives (grants, subsidies, etc) 21%
Founder (migrant) Friendly regulatory environment 21%
15% 21%
21%
Founder (local) Financial
Friendly regulatory incentives
environment (grants, subsidies, etc)
15% 21% 31%
31%
21% 24%
Friendly regulatory environment 24%
0 5 10 15 15% 20 25 30 35
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
% of respondents % of respondents 31%
24%
NOTE: 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Founder respondents only. Numbers do not % of respondents
multiple responses.
multiple responses.
NOTE:
multiple responses.

06.4 Strong Talent Base
I think the great strength of Europe's ecosystem is the plurality of

industrial background we have. While Europe may not have the depth of
pure technology experience that, say, the Bay Area does, I would argue we
understand finance, fashion, food, manufacturing, aerospace and more at
least as well, if not better.
I think the biggest challenge continues to be plurality of industrial background we have. Suranga
the lack of experienced talent, especially for While Europe may not have the depth of pure Chandratillake
later-stage companies and especially in the technology experience that, say, the Bay Area Balderton Capital
areas of sales, marketing and product. does, I would argue we understand finance, General Partner
We just don't have the decades of large fashion, food, manufacturing, aerospace and
companies and start-up history that has more at least as well, if not better. As software
churned out legions of people who've seen eats the world, these skills and this know-how
it and done it before. We will get there but will become crucial in building companies that
some things are hard to accelerate. I think the are about technology but also the context in
great strength of Europe's ecosystem is the which that technology will be used.
Europe has more thanEurope

6 million professional
has more developers
than 6 million and has experienced
professional developers steady
and has experienced growth
steady growth ininthe
thedeveloper
Europe
talent
has more than
pool, in contrast to
6US,
million
thewherewhere
professional
theprofessional
developers
professional developer
and has
base has been
experienced
static for the
steady
past two
growth in the developer
developer talent pool,talent
in contrast to the US, the developer base has
pool, in contrast to the US, where the professional developer base has been been static for years.
static for the past two years.
the past two years.
Number of professional
6.1M
developers by region 6.0
Number of professional 5.5M
5.7M
6.1M
# of professional developers (million)
developers
LEGEND by region 6.0
5.7M
Europe 5.5M
4.4M 4.4M 4.3M
# of professional developers (million)
United States 4.0

LEGEND
Europe 4.4M 4.4M
United States 4.0

2.0
0.0
2.0 2017 2018 2019
hubs for professional developer talent in absolute numbers, and SOURCE:
on professional
Germany anddevelopers.
the UKGermany
are the two
andlargest
the UK hubs fortwo
are the professional developer
largest hubs talent indeveloper
for professional absolute talent
numbers,
in absolute numbers, and 0.0
and together are home to more
together arethan
home1.7to
million
more professional developers.
than 1.7 million professional developers.
2017 2018
Map of professional developer SOURCE:

distribution across Europe by
country
LEGEND
up to 1,000,000
8,000,000 to 900,000
700,000 to 8,000,000
6,000,000 to 700,000
500,000 to 6,000,000
400,000 to 500,000
300,000 to 400,000
200,000 to 300,000
100,000 to 200,000
up to 100,000
SOURCE:

The growth
06.4 in the professional
Strong Talent Basedeveloper talent pool across Europe is a Europe-wide phenomenon, with all
countries (except Luxembourg) experiencing growth in numbers in 2019.
The growth in the professional developer talent pool across Europe is a Europe-wide phenomenon,
Number of professional DATAS E T : TO P 1 0
with all countries (except Luxembourg) experiencing growth in numbers in 2019.
The by
developers growth in2018
country, thevs
professional developer talent pool across Europe is a Europe-wide phenomenon, with all
2019 countries (except Luxembourg) experiencing growth in numbers in 2019.
TOP 10
L E G E ND Germany
2018 Number of professional DATASET: TOP 10
United Kingdom
2019 developers by country, 2018 vs
2019 France
Russia
LEGE ND Germany
Spain
2018
United Kingdom
2019 Netherlands
France
Italy
Russia
The growth in the professional developer talentPoland
pool across Europe is a Europe-wide phenomenon, with all
Spain
countries (except Luxembourg) experiencing growth
Ukraine in numbers in 2019.
Netherlands
Sweden
Italy
Number of professional DATAS E T : R A N K01 1 - 2 0 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 700,000 800,000 900,000 1,000,000
Poland # of professional developers
developers by country, 2018 vs
2019 Ukraine
RANK 11-20
Sweden
L E G E ND Turkey
SOUR CE:
2018 0 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 700,000 800,000 900,000 1,000,000
Switzerland
# of professional developers
2019
Belgium
Romania
Austria
SOURCE:
Czechia
Denmark
Portugal
The growth in the professional developer talent pool across Europe is a Europe-wide phenomenon, with all
countries (except Luxembourg) experiencing growth in numbers in 2019.
Finland
Hungary
Number of professional DATAS E T : R0A N K 21 - 3 020,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 180,000
developers by country, 2018 vs
2019
RANK 21-30
L E G E ND S O UIreland
RCE:
2018
Norway
2019
Greece
Bulgaria
Belarus
Serbia
Slovakia
Croatia
Lithuania
Slovenia
0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000

RANK 31+
SOURCE:

Europe's larger countries are, of course, home to the largest CAPITAL INVESTED IN EUROPE
developer talent pools. It's useful, therefore, to explore the density
of talent on a relative basis to the general population size of different
, home to the largest
countries. developer
When looking talent pools.basis,
on this population-adjusted It's auseful,
number therefore, to 6.1m
professional developers in
Europe which represents an
increase of 400,000 compared
e basis to the general
of smaller population
countries emerge as havingsize of different
a relatively countries.
higher density of When to 2018.
developer talent, such as Sweden,
largerSwitzerland orof
the Netherlands.
is, a number of smaller countries
Europe's
Europe's
emerge are, ofas having
countries are,
larger countries course, homea
course,
torelatively higher
home to the largest developer talent pools. It's useful, therefore, to
the largest developer talent pools. It's useful, therefore, to
explore the density of talent on a relative basis to the general population size of different countries. When
explore the density of talent on a relative basis to the general population size of different countries. When
eden, Switzerland or the Netherlands.
looking on this population-adjusted basis, a number of smaller countries emerge as having a relatively higher
looking on this population-adjusted basis, a number of smaller countries emerge as having a relatively higher
density of developer talent, such as Sweden, Switzerland or the Netherlands.
density of developer talent, such as Sweden, Switzerland or the Netherlands.
developers per 1,000 inhabitants
developers per 1,000 inhabitants
LEGEND
LEGEND
up to 20
up to 20
16 to 18
16 to 18
14 to 16
14 to 16
12 to 14
12 to 14
10 to 12
10 to 12
8 to 10
8 to 10
6 to 8
6 to 8
4 to 6
4 to 6
2 to 4
2 to 4
up to 2
up to 2
NOTE:
NOTE:
Calculated based on the total number of
Calculated based
professional on the in
developers total
thenumber
countryofin
professional
2019 developers
divided by the total in the country
population. in
World
2019
population gures taken from World World
divided by the total population. SOURCE:
population gures takenusing
from World SOURCE:
Development Indicators 2018 world
Development
population Indicators using 2018 world
data.
population data.
SO URC E:
The pool of tech talent The pool of tech talent in Europe is improving quickly in
quality and seniority, but there is still a way to go when you
in Europe is improving compare it with the pool in other larger ecosystems, like
quickly in terms of quality those in the Valley. We're attracting talent from the bigger,
and seniority, but there is more established tech brands, and those bring with them
experience and learning from more established markets.
still a way to go when you This is a good thing for Europe, but it will also be important
compare it to the pool in to ensure European businesses don't become clones of Naren Shaam
those in, for example, the US. Europe has its own startup
other larger ecosystems, style, and I'd love to see that remain a strength.
Omio
like those in the Valley. Founder & CEO

There is also a wide variance in the distribution of talent in different countries.

In smaller countries or those with relatively less mature tech ecosystems, there
tends to be a larger concentration of tech talent in a single hub. Other countries,
There
such is also
as a wideItaly
Germany, variance
and in the distribution
Spain, haveofa more ofdistributed
talent in different countries.
tech talent base, In smaller countries or those
There is also a wide
with variance
relatively in the
less mature distribution
tech ecosystems, talent
there intends
different
to becountries. In smaller countries
a larger concentration or those
of tech talent in a single
thanks
with relatively less
There to the
mature
is also strength
tech
a wide of
variancemultiple
ecosystems, large cities
there tends
in the distribution in those
of to countries.
be ainlarger
talent concentration
different countries. Inof tech talent
smaller in aor
countries single
those
hub. Other countries, such as Germany, Italy and Spain, have a more distributed tech talent base, thanks to the
hub. Other with
countries, such
relatively
strength lessas
of multiple Germany,
mature
large tech Italy
cities andcountries.
Spain,
ecosystems,
in those have
there a more
tends to bedistributed tech talentofbase,
a larger concentration thanksinto
tech talent the
a single
strength ofhub. Otherlarge
multiple countries,
citiessuch as Germany,
in those Italy and Spain, have a more distributed tech talent base, thanks to the
countries.
strength of multiple large cities in those countries.
Share of professional developer Copenhagen 86%
talent (%)developer
Share of professional in the largest hub for Copenhagen 86%
selected
Share
talent (%) in the European
hub forcountries
of professional
largest in
developer Dublin
Copenhagen 83% 86%
2019 (%)
talent
selected European in the largest
countries in hub for Dublin 83%
Brussels 82%
selected European countries in Dublin 83%
2019
2019 Brussels 82%
Vienna
Brussels 80%
82%
Vienna Budapest 75%80%80%

Vienna
Budapest Amsterdam
Budapest 75%
73%
75%
Helsinki
Amsterdam Amsterdam 64% 73% 73%
Helsinki Zurich
Helsinki 60%
64% 64%
Istanbul 57%
Zurich Zurich 60% 60%
London
Istanbul 57%
57%
Istanbul 57%
Paris
London 55%
57%
London 57%
Prague
Paris 54%
55%
Paris 55%
Stockholm
Prague 52%
54%
Prague 54%
Bucharest
Stockholm 49% 52%
Stockholm 52%
Kiev
Bucharest 41% 49%
Bucharest 49%
Moscow
Kiev 40%
41%
Kiev 41%
Madrid
Moscow 37% 40%
Moscow 40%
Warsaw
Madrid 33% 37%
Madrid Milan
Warsaw 27% 37%
33%
Warsaw Cologne
Milan 18% 33%
27%
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Milan Cologne 18%27%
% of professional developers in given city
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Cologne 18%
NOTE: 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
SOURCE:
% of total professional developers in city as
share of country total.
NOTE: SOURCE:
NOTE: SOURCE:

Lower density can also make it more di�cult to �nd sought-after talent. Portugal and Spain are seeing a rise in
Lower
the % ofdensity can also
hard-to-�ll makeengineer
software it more difficult to find
job postings, sought-after
a re�ection, talent.other factors, of the emerging
amongst
Portugalof
strength and Spain
local techare seeing a rise
ecosystems and,ininthe
the%case
of hard-to-fill software
of Portugal, engineer
a trend for larger international companies to
job postings,
build a presence a reflection, amongst
to source local other factors, of the emerging strength
talent.
LowerLower
density can also canmake it more di�cult to �nd sought-after talent. Portugal and Spain are seeing a rise in
of localdensity also make
tech ecosystems it more
and, in thedi�cult
case ofto �nd
Portugal, sought-after talent.
a trend for largerPortugal and Spain are seeing a rise in
the % the
of hard-to-�ll
% of software
hard-to-�ll engineer
software job postings,
engineer job a re�ection,
postings, a amongst
re�ection, other
amongst factors,
other of of
factors, the emerging
the emerging
international companies to build a presence to source local talent.
strength of local
Change
strength inof tech
share ecosystems
(%)
local of software
tech and, and,
ecosystems in the
incase of Portugal, a trend for larger international companies to
the case
Austria of Portugal, a trend for larger international companies to 27%
engineer job postings that are
build abuild
presence to source
a presence local local
to source talent.
talent.
hard to ll, 2018 vs 2019
Portugal 16%
LEGE ND
ChangeChange
in sharein(%)
share (%) of software
of software
% change YoY Austria Austria 27%
27%
engineerengineer job postings
job postings that are
that are
hard to hard to ll,
ll, 2018 vs2018
2019vs 2019 Spain 15%
PortugalPortugal 16%
16%
L E G E ND LEGE ND
% change % change YoY
YoY United Kingdom 10%
Spain 15%
Spain 15%
France 9%
United Kingdom 10%

United Kingdom 10%
Ireland 8%
France 9%
France 9%
Sweden 2%
Ireland 8%
Ireland 8%
Belgium 1%
Sweden 2%
Sweden 2%
Italy -1%
Belgium 1%
Belgium 1%
Netherlands -6%
Italy -1%
Italy -1%
Germany -12%
Netherlands -6%
Netherlands -6%
Denmark -12%
Germany -12%
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Germany -12% % change in share of software engineer job postings that are hard to ll
NOTE: Denmark -12%
%-point change in % of software engineer

Denmark -12%
jobs that are hard to ll in 2019 versus 2018 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
by country. Hard to ll is de ned as % of SOURCE:
'software engineer' job postings on the % change in share of software engineer job postings that are hard to ll
Indeed site(s) for more than 60 days. -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
NOTE:
% change in share of software engineer job postings that are hard to ll
%-point change in % of software engineer
NOTE: jobs that are hard to ll in 2019 versus 2018
%-point change in %
'software of software
engineer' engineer
job postings on the
jobs that are hardsite(s)
Indeed to ll for
in 2019
moreversus 2018
than 60 days.
'software engineer' job postings on the
Indeed site(s) for more than 60 days.
The European We still need to see more startups convert to scale-ups.

One of the challenges is that as our companies scale
ecosystem's greatest there is a small pool of experienced startup execs in
strength continues to be Europe, particularly those who have taken a startup
the quality of technical beyond a couple of hundred people. Competition to hire
experienced startup COOs and CMOs right now is fierce!
talent, particularly those The European ecosystem's greatest strength continues
coming out of some of to be the quality of technical talent, particularly those Alice Bentinck
coming out of some of Europe's world class universities.
Europe's world-class It's exciting to see more and more of these technologists
Entrepreneur First
universities. consider a career as a founder, or in a startup, and this Co-founder
creates a bright long-term future for Europe.

The European talent pools searching for tech job postings are overwhelmingly looking for jobs where they live.
Still, there are some differences in countries like Sweden and Portugal where talent is a bit more open to global
mobility.
The European talentThe pools searching for tech job postings are overwhelmingly
European talent pools searching for tech
looking for jobs where
job postings are overwhelmingly looking for jobs where they live.
100.0
they live. Still, there are some
Share of differences
searches (%) for in countries
'tech' like Sweden and Portugal
Still, there are some differences in countries like Sweden and Portugal where talentwhere is talent
a bit is a bit more open to global
more open to global mobility.
job
The postings
European
mobility.
by country
talent ipsearching for tech job postings are overwhelmingly looking for jobs where they live.
pools
addresses
Still, there are some differences in countries like Sweden and Portugal where talent is a bit more open to global
for 'tech' job postings

75.0
mobility.
100.0
LEGEND
Share of searches (%) for 'tech' 100.0
Domestic
job postings
Share by country
of searches ip
(%) for 'tech'
job postings by country ip
Europe
addresses 50.0
addresses
postings
North America 75.0
% of searches for 'tech' job postings

75.0
searches
LEGEND
Rest of world
LEGEND
% ofjob
Domestic
Domestic
% of searches for 'tech'

Europe 50.0 25.0
Europe 50.0
North America
North America
Rest of world
Rest of world
25.0
0.0
25.0 UK Netherlands Italy France Germany Spain Belgium Ireland
NOTE: 0.0
UK Netherlands Italy France Germany Spain Belgium Ireland Sweden Portugal
'Tech jobs' included in the search for
NOTE: software engineer, programmer,
example:
application developer,
'Tech jobs' included UI/UX/graphic
in the search for 0.0
designer,
example: web developer,
software frontend
engineer, programmer, SOURCE: UK Netherlands Italy France Germany Spain Belgium Ireland
application developer, UI/UX/graphic
developer, backend developer, data
designer, web developer, frontend SOURCE:
NOTE:
scientist,
developer,business intelligence,
backend developer, data it support.
scientist, business intelligence, it support.
'Tech jobs' included in the search for
example: software engineer, programmer,
application developer, UI/UX/graphic
designer, web developer, frontend SOURCE:
developer, backend developer, data
scientist, business intelligence, it support.
Founders don't need to There is now an abundance of talent across engineering,

product, design and growth. Founders don't need to
move any more to build move any more to build world-class teams, because
world-class teams, they're finding that talent at home - whether it be from
because they're finding home-grown successes like Adyen, Spotify, FarFetch or
US tech companies who've expanded here, or from top
that talent at home. engineering schools. It's advantageous and easier to hire
from your network locally, and founders are playing to Ophelia Brown
their strengths.
Blossom Capital
Founder & Partner
Photo by: Petri Anttila

A new form of mobility is emerging: flexibility. Europe has a much FREELANCE DEVELOPERS
larger proportion of professional developers working freelance or
11%
A new form of mobility is emerging: exibility. Europe has a much larger proportion of professional developers
part-time than the United
workingStates. CEE
freelance countries
or part-time thanhave the largest
the United
of professional developers respondents
States. CEE countries have the largest share of freelance
A new formdevelopers.
of mobility is emerging: exibility. Europe has a much larger in Europe work as
proportion ofindependent
professional developers
share of freelance professional
professional developers.
working freelance or part-time than the United States. CEE countriescontractor/freelancers compared
have the largest share to
of freelance
only 6% in the US.
Top 10 countries with the largest DATAS E T : I ND E P E ND E N T C O N T R ACTO R , F R E E L A N C E R S O R S E L F- E MP LOYE D
developers
INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR, FREELANCERS OR SELF-EMPLOYED
Top 10 countries with the largest DATASET: INDEPENDENT CONTR ACTOR, FREEL ANCERS OR SELF-EMPLOYED
LEGEND
% of respondents by country Czech Republic
developers
% of respondents by average: European
and US
LEGEND Ukraine
% of respondents by country Czech Republic

Poland
and US
Ukraine
Italy
Poland
Belgium
Italy
Romania
Hungary
Belgium
Netherlands
Romania
Austria
Hungary
Portugal
A new form of mobility is emerging: exibility. Europe has a much larger proportion of professional developers
Netherlands
working freelance or part-time than the United States.
European average CEE countries have the largest share of freelance
Austria
United States average
Top 10 countries with the largest DATAS E T : PA RT-T I ME

share of freelance professional 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 20.0
developers Portugal % of respondents
PART-TIME
LEGEND
% of respondents by country Switzerland
SOURCE:
European average
and US
Austria
Germany
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0
% of respondents
Netherlands
CzechSOURCE:
Republic
Hungary
Denmark
Finland
Norway
Poland
European average
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0
% of respondents
SOURCE:

As a result, employees are increasingly working remotely, which in turn lowers

the need for mobility between hubs. It is a trend that appears to be materialising
across
As a result,
As techemployees
aemployees
result, companies areofincreasingly
all sizes.
are increasingly working working
remotely,remotely,
which in which
turn lowers
in turnthe needthe
lowers for need
mobility
for between
mobility between
hubs. It is a trend
hubs. It isthat appears
a trend to be materialising
that appears across tech
to be materialising companies
across of all sizes.
tech companies of all sizes.
80 80
Has your company
Has yourexperienced
company experienced 72%
any change in change
any the number ofnumber of
in the
72%
employeesemployees
working remotely?
working remotely?
65% 65% 64% 64%
60 60
L E G E ND LEGE ND
% of respondents
% of respondents
Increase Increase
No change No change 40
40
Decrease Decrease 33%
31% 33%
31%
21%
20 21%
20
7%
4% 4% 7%
4% 4%
0
0 ≤10 employees 11-100 employees >100 employees
≤10 employees 11-100 employees >100 employees

Top 10 fastest-growing countries DATAS E T : 1 0 0 K + D E VE LO P E R S

for professional developers, 2018
100K+ DEVELOPERS
vs 2019 Top 10 fastest-growing countries DATASET: 100K+ DE VELOPERS
L E G E ND vs 2019
YoY growth (%) 15%
15
LEGE
European YoY ND (%)
growth
YoY growth (%) 15%
15
European YoY growth (%) 11%
YoY growth (%)
10
9%
11%
8% 8%
YoY growth (%)
10 7%
9%
6 6 6 6 6 6 6
6% 6
6% 6
6% 6
6%
8% 8%
5 7%
6 6 6 6 6 6 6
6% 6
6% 6
6% 6
6%
0
Belgium Turkey Czech Republic France Netherlands Sweden Austria Germany Switzerland Poland
0
Belgium Turkey Czech Republic France Netherlands Sweden Austria Germany Switzerland Poland
Top 10 fastest-growing countries DATAS E T : < 1 0 0 K D E VE LO P E R S

SOURCE:
vs 2019 <100K DEVELOPERS
SOURCE:
L E G E ND 25
YoY growth (%) 23%
22%
European YoY growth (%)
20 19%
17% 17% 17%

YoY growth (%)
15
12%
11%
10%
10
8%
6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
0
Cyprus Montenegro Croatia Ireland Slovenia Liechtenstein Azerbaijan Albania Finland Lithuania
SOURCE:

Indeed data is able to provide a proxy for the volume of interest in US-based tech job seekers looking to move
Indeed data is able totoprovide
Europeato proxy
take for the volume
up positions of interest
working in tech.in US-based
Looking attech job seekers
searches looking
originating from the US, but scanning for
to move to Europe tojobs
takeinup positions
Europe as a working in tech.data
whole, Indeed's Looking
shows atasearches
decline acrossoriginating from the years since 2017. This, however,
two successive
US, but scanning for masks
jobs inan Europe as a whole,
important Indeed's
underlying trend.data
Theshows
declinea is decline
entirelyacross
accountedtwo successive
for by a reduced level of interest in UK-
Indeed
based databy
jobs isUS
able to provide
tech talent. In a proxy for the
contrast, therevolume
haveThe of interest
been in US-based
two successive tech job seekers looking to move
years since 2017. This, however, masks an important underlying trend. decline is entirelyyears of increase in the relative level
to Europe
ofIndeed
interest to
of take up positions
USinterest
tech talent working
in fornding in tech.
jobsof Looking
ininterest
thetech
rest of at searches
Europe (i.e. originating
anywhere from
else butthe US,
the but scanning for
UK).
accounted for by a reduced level
data
jobs in Europe
of
is able
astoaprovide
whole,
in UK-based
a proxy
Indeed's
jobs
thedata
volume by
shows
US talent.
in US-based
a decline across
In contrast,
tech job seekers
two
there
looking years
successive to movesince 2017. This, however,
have been two successive
masks years
to Europe of up
to take
an important increase
positionsin the relative
working
underlying level
in tech. Looking
trend. The ofsearches
at
declineinterest of USaccounted
originating
is entirely tech
from thetalentforinby
US, but finding
scanning for
a reduced level of interest in UK-
jobs in Europe as a whole, Indeed's data shows a decline across two successive years since 2017. This, however,
jobs in the rest of Europe
based
masks
(i.e.
Sharejobs
by anywhere
destination
an important
else
by US underlying but
tech talent. the
trend.
UK).
InThe
contrast,
decline isthere
entirelyhave beenfortwo
accounted by asuccessive
reduced level of years of in
interest increase
UK- in the relative level
country/region
ofbased
interest
jobs by (%)
ofUSUS oftalent.
tech
tech US-talent in nding
In contrast, there jobs in the
have been tworest of Europe
successive
Europe (i.e.
years of anywhere
increase else but
in the relative levelthe UK).
originated
of cross-border
interest of US tech talent in nding jobs in the rest of Europe (i.e. anywhere else but the UK).
searches containing key 'tech'
titles
Share by destination
Share by destination 25.6%
17.1%
country/region
country/region (%)(%) of US-
of US- Europe Europe 25.2%
originated cross-border
LEGEND United Kingdom
originated cross-border 23.0%
16.4%
searches containing key 'tech'
searches
2017
titles containing key 'tech' 13.6%
titles
2018 17.1%
LEGEND United Kingdom 16.4% 17.1%

2019 8.6%
2017
LEGEND United Kingdom 13.6% 16.4%
2018 Rest of Europe 8.8%
2017
2019 8.6% 13.6%
9.4%
2018 Rest of Europe 8.8%
2019 0.0 2.5 9.4%5.0 7.5 8.6%

10.0 12.5 15.0 17.5 20.0 22.5
% of searches
0.0 Rest of 2.5
Europe 5.0 7.5 10.0 12.5 15.0 8.8%
17.5 20.0 22.5 25.0 27.5
% of searches
NOTE: 9.4%
NOTE:
This data shows the % of total searches for
This
key data shows
'tech' the % of total
job postings searches
on the localforIndeed
key 'tech' job postings on the local Indeed
0.0 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 12.5 15.0 17.5 20.0 22.5
country sitethat
country site that
areare originated
originated from non-
from non- % of searches
native
nativeip addresses,
ip addresses, i.e. from
i.e. from outside
outside the the SOURCE: SOURCE:
speci ed
speci ed country. 'Tech
country. jobs' jobs'
'Tech include:
include:
NOTE:
software engineer, programmer, etc.
This data shows the % of total searches for
Fewer people overall are searching for tech jobs in the UK, but elsewhere in Europe job searches are up 20% in
key 'tech' job postings on the local Indeed
country site that are originated from non-
many countries when compared with 2017. Huge growth in Belgium is supported by a sharp increase in capital
SOURCE:
native ip addresses, i.e. from outside the
invested in the country (+71%) over the period.
speci ed country. 'Tech jobs' include:
Fewer people overall are searching for tech jobs in the UK, but elsewhere in Europe job searches are
up 20% in many countries when compared with 2017. Huge growth in Belgium is supported by a sharp
Fewer people overall are searching for tech jobs in76%the UK, but elsewhere in Europe job searches are up 20% in
increase in capital invested
Changein
in the country
number (+71%) over the period.75 growth in Belgium is supported by a sharp increase in capital
(%) of tech
many countries when compared with 2017. Huge
Fewer people overall
jobs searches are searching
per million by for tech jobs in the UK, but elsewhere in Europe job searches are up 20% in
invested
many in the
countries country
when H1 (+71%)
compared overHuge
with 2017. the growth
period.in Belgium is supported by a sharp increase in capital
of searches (%)
country, 2017 H1-2019

invested in the country (+71%) over the period.
50 45%
42%
36%
Change
Change inin number
number (%) of(%)
techof tech 76%
75
76% 31% 30%
in number
75 27% 26% 26%

jobs searches
jobs searches perper million
million by by 25
Change in number of searches (%)
(%)
country, 2017
country, 2017H1-2019 H1 H1
H1-2019
searches
50 45%
Change in number ofChange
50 42%
45%
36% 42%
0 31% 30%
36% 27% 26% 26%
25 31% 30%
27% 26% 26%
25 7%
0 -25
-3%
m
al
en
nd
ce
ly
an
nd
ai
Ita
ug
iu
an
ed
la
Sp
rm
la
lg
rt
Ire
Fr
Sw
0
er
Be
Po
Ge
th
-25
Ne
m
al
en
nd
ce
ly
m
an
nd
ar
ai
Ita
ug
iu
do
an
ed
la
Sp
nm
rm
la
lg
rt
Ire
ng
Fr
Sw
er
Be
Po
Ge
De
Ki
th
d
Ne
NOTE:
ite
-25
Un
This data measures the relative number of

m
al
en
nd
ce
ly
NOTE:
an
nd
ai
Ita
ug
iu
an
ed
la
Sp
rm
searches per country for tech related job

la
lg
rt
Ire
Fr
Sw
er
Be
Po
Ge

th
postings ascountry
a share forof every million searches
Ne
searches per tech related job

on the local
postings Indeed
as a share sitemillion
of every for each country.
searches SOURCE:
on the local Indeed site for each country. SOURCE:
'Tech jobs' include: software engineer,
programmer,
NOTE: application developer, etc.
programmer, application developer, etc.

searches per country for tech related job
postings as a share of every million searches
on the local Indeed site for each country. SOURCE:
programmer, application developer, etc.
The best part is that French Tech is leapfrogging the usual ecosystem
development curve in 2019. Four years ago, serious
thanks to another 2019 capital was hard to come by. Today, our startups are
milestone, we're open: raising mega-round after mega-round. Our total number
When you join a French of unicorns doubled in six months. And that was before
President Macron announced €5B making its way into the
startup, our new French tech ecosystem or that he grew the French Tech Mission
Tech talent visa can get 10x, making us the biggest (and baddest) pro-startup team Kat Borlongan
inside modern government. The best part is that thanks La French Tech
you and your family here in to another 2019 milestone, we're open: When you join a Director
a matter of weeks with a French startup, our new French Tech talent visa can get
4-year residence permit. you and your family here in a matter of weeks with a 4-year
residence permit. À bientôt!

Incentivising and Retaining Talent
The difference in the level of compensation for founders is material between Europe and the United States at the
early venture stages (Seed to Series B). Founders in the US have higher base salaries and higher incentive pay. At
The difference in theSeries C,compensation
level of the gap in totalfor
compensation
founders is closes,
materialdriven by higher incentive pay for European founders, not higher
between
base salary levels.
Europe and the United States at the early venture stages (Seed to Series B).
Founders in the US have higher base salaries and higher incentive pay. At Series
The difference in the level of compensation for founders is material between Europe and the United States at the
C, the gap in total compensation
Founder basecloses,
early venturesalary
stages ($)driven
by
(Seed bySeries
to higherB).incentive
Founders pay
in for
the US have higher base salaries and higher incentive pay. At
funding
European founders, Series
not higherround in the
base 50th levels.
salary
C, theingap
The difference in total
the level
percentile by region compensation
of compensation closes,
for founders drivenbetween
is material by higher incentive
Europe pay for
and the United European
States at the founders, not higher
($) salary and incentives ($)

base salarystages
early venture (Seed to Series B). Founders in the300,000
levels. US have higher base salaries and higher incentive pay. At
Series C, the gap in total compensation closes, driven by higher incentive pay for European founders, not higher
LEGEND
base salary levels.
Base salary (Europe)
Founder base salary ($) by 200,000
Base salary (United States)
funding round
Founder base in ($)
salary theby50th
Incentive
funding payin(Europe)
roundby the 50th
Founder base
percentile region 300,000
percentile
Incentiveby region
Founder base salary and incentives

Founder base salary and incentives ($)
pay (United States) 300,000

100,000
LEGEND
LEGEND
Base
Basesalary (Europe)
salary (Europe)
200,000
Base salary (United States) 200,000
Base salary (United States)
Incentive pay (Europe)
Incentive 0
Incentive paypay (Europe)
(United States)
Europe United States Europe United States Europe United States
100,000
Incentive pay (United States)
Seed Series A Series B
100,000
NOTE:
0
Note that at Seed stage some Europe United States Europe United States Europe United States Europe United States
Founders may not take a base salary Seed Series A Series B Series C
and take incentive pay instead. 0
NOTE:
Incentive pay is cash bonus or SOURCE: Shareworks
Note that at Seed stage some
incentive, which is not related to
Founders may not take a base salary
Seed Series A Series B
equity
and takeor equitypay
incentive value. Converted EUR
instead.
NOTE:
to USD with
Incentive pay isan
cashFXbonus
rateorof 1.1151 from 30 S O U R C E : Shareworks
incentive,
October which is not related to
Note that2019.
at Seed stage some
equity or equity value. Converted EUR
Founders
to USD with may
an FX not take
rate of 1.1151afrom
base30salary
October
and take 2019.
incentive pay instead.
Incentive pay is cash bonus or SOURCE: Shareworks
incentive, which is not related to
equity or equity value. Converted EUR
to USD with an FX rate of 1.1151 from 30
The average level of founder equity by funding round is closely aligned between
October 2019.
the United States and Europe at the early stages of funding. Post Series C,
European founders maintain more ownership than their American counterparts.
The overall trend in terms of founder equity dilution as companies progress
through multiple funding rounds
The average is of
level important to by
founder equity observe. After
funding round their Seed
is closely aligned round
between the United States and Europe
The
founders hold, on average, average
at the around
early level
stages 32% ofequity
founder
of funding. Post equity
inSeries by funding
theirC,company,
European round
but
foundersthis is closely
more aligned
declines
maintain ownershipbetween the United States and Europe
than their American
at the early
counterparts.
to less than 15% post-Series C. stages
The of
overall funding.
trend in Post
terms of Series
founder C,
equityEuropean
dilution as founders
companies maintain
progress more
through ownership
multiple than their American
funding rounds isThe
counterparts. important to observe.
overall trend in After their Seed
terms round founders
of founder equityhold, on average,
dilution around 32% equity
as companies in
progress through multiple
their company, but this declines to less than 15% post-Series C.
funding rounds is important to observe. After their Seed round founders hold, on average, around 32% equity in
their company, but this declines to less than 15% post-Series C.
Founder equity by funding round
in the 50th percentile by region
30.0
Founder
LEGEND equity by funding round
in the
Europe50th percentile by region
% of founder equity
United States 20.0 30.0
LEGEND 31.5% 32.6%

% of founder equity
Europe
10.0
18.6% 18.3%
United States 20.0
13.0% 12.8% 13.6%
9.8%
31.5% 32.6%
0.0
Europe United States Europe United States Europe United States Europe United States
Seed Funding Only Post Series A Post Series B Post Series C

10.0
18.6% 18.3%
13.0% 12.8%
S O U R C E : Shareworks
0.0
Seed Funding Only Post Series A Post Series B
SOURCE: Shareworks

06.5 Incentivising and Retaining Talent
European tech companies have historically lagged behind those from the US in their use of stock options as an
effective have historically
tool to attract,lagged
incentivisebehind and those
retain from
talent.theHowever,
US in their use ofat
looking stock
Shareworks’ latest employee
options as an effective tool to attract,
ownership survey,incentivise
there are signs and retain
that the talent.
latestHowever,
generation looking at Shareworks’
of companies from Europe are now properly
European tech companies have historically lagged behind those from the US in their use of stock options as an
rewarding
latest employee ownership theirthere
survey, mostare talented
signs executives
that the and generation
latest employees.of While there is from
companies likely sample bias because most
effective tool to attract, incentivise and retain talent. However, looking at Shareworks’ latest employee
founders
Europe are now properly who participate
rewarding their most intalented
the survey are likely to a)employees.
executives understandWhile the issue more and b) be better at
ownership survey, there are signs that the latestand generation of companies there is likely
from Europe are now properly
sample bias becauseremunerating
most
rewarding founders
European tech their
their
who employees,
participate
most talented
companies
it in
is the
a positive
executives
have historically survey sign.
are
and employees.
lagged behind
Theretoisa)still
likely
those from theWhile
work to do,
understand
there
US in their use is thebut thanks to important efforts to
issue
likelyoptions
of stock sample bias because most
as an
more and b) be betterbuild
at
founders
awareness
remunerating
effective who
tool
around
their
to participate
attract,
the issue,
employees,
in the
incentivise
such
andsurvey
retain
as
it talent.
isare NotOptional,
a positive
likely tosign.
However,
more
There
a) understand
looking
founders
is still
thework
at Shareworks’
areto
latest
starting
do, but
issueemployee
more
to take this issue seriously,
and b) be better at
and theto
ownership rest willawareness
survey, hopefully
there are signsfollow suit.
that the latestEuropean
generation governments
of companies need to paynow attention
properly and ensure that the
thanks to important efforts
remunerating build their employees, aroundit is the issue,
a positive such
sign. as
There isfrom
NotOptional,
still Europe
work are
more
to do,founders
but thanks to important efforts to
implementation
rewarding their most oftalented
progressive
executivespolicies aroundWhile
and employees. use thereof stock options
is likely do not
sample bias becauselag most
behind this evolved attitude
are starting to take this
buildissue seriously,
awareness and
around the
the rest
issue,will hopefully
such as follow
NotOptional, suit.
moreEuropean
founders
founders who participate in the survey are likely to a) understand the issue more and b) be better at governments
are starting to take this issue seriously,
among European founders.
need to pay attentionand
and ensure
the
remunerating thathopefully
rest their
will the implementation
employees, itfollow suit.sign.
is a positive of There
progressive
European workpolicies
governments
is still around
to do, butneed
thanks use
totopay of stock
attention
important effortsand
to ensure that the
build awareness around
implementation the issue, suchpolicies
ofattitude
progressive as NotOptional,
around more
usefounders are starting
of stock options to take this lag
do not issuebehind
seriously,
this evolved attitude
options do not lag behind this evolved among European founders.
and the rest will hopefully follow suit. European governments need to pay attention and ensure that the
among European
Employee ownership
implementation founders.
by funding
of progressive
20
policies around use of stock options do not lag behind this evolved attitude
round in
among the 50thfounders.
European percentile by
region
20
Employee ownership by funding 20
15
Employee ownership by funding
round
LEGEND in the 50th percentile by
round in the 50th percentile by
% of ownership
region
region
Executives (Europe)
15 15
Executives (US) 10
LEGEND
LEGEND
% of ownership
Staff + other (Europe)
% of ownership
Executives (Europe)
Executives
Executives
(Europe)
(US)(US)
Staff + other 10
Executives (US)
Staff + other (Europe) 10
Unissued (Europe) 5
Staff + other (US)
Staff + other (Europe)
Unissued (US)
Unissued (Europe) 5
Staff + other (US)
Unissued (US)
Unissued (Europe) 5
0
0
Unissued (US) Europe United States Europe United States Europe United States
Europe United States Europe United States Europe United States Europe United States
Seed Seed Series A Series

SeriesAB Series C Series B
0
NOTE:
NOTE:
This details equity held by employees and S O U R C E : Shareworks Seed Series A Series B
This details
unissued equity
options held founders
excluding by employees
shares. and SOURCE: Shareworks
Equity not related to salary nor incentives.
unissued options excluding founders shares.
NOTE:
This details equity held by employees and SOURCE: Shareworks

unissued options excluding founders shares.
To be clear, there are more andthere
To be clear, lessarefavourable
more and lessenvironments for theforuse
favourable environments the of
usestock
of stockoptions inin different
To be clear, there are morecontext
and lesslook
favourable environments foroptions
the use different
of stock European
options in different European
European countries. It's interesting
countries. in that
It's interesting context totolook
in that atat differences
differences by geography
by geography in how
in how founders and tech startup
countries.
To be clear,
employees It's interesting
there
perceive the more inuse
areeffective that
and context
ofless to look
stockfavourable
options atcompanies.
differences
environments
in their by the
for
Founders geography
fromuse
theofUK, in
stockhow
which founders
options
has and techEuropean
in different startup
founders and tech startup employees
employees perceive perceive
the the effective
effective usetheof
use
stock of stock in
options options
their in their
morecompanies.
companies.
to believeFounders from theand
UK,tech
which has
countries.
one of the mostIt's interesting
favourable in that context
environments for tooflook
use stockatoptions,
differences
are by geography
likely in how
that stock founders startup
Founders from the UK, which
options
one arehas
of the
employees used
most one
perceive
of the
theineffective
effectively
favourable most
their favourable
company.
environments
use of
environments
This is for
mirrored
stock the use
options
forfrom
by responses
ofinstock
their
the use ofare
employees
options,
companies.
stock
atmore
UK-based
Founders tech
likely to believe
from the that
UK, stock
which has
startups
options, are more likely and scale-ups.
onetoofbelieve
options aremost
the that
used stock options
effectively
favourable arecompany.
in their
environments usedfor effectively
This
the ofinstock
their options,
is mirrored
use company.
by responsesareThis is likely
from
more employees at UK-based
to believe that stocktech
mirrored by responses from are
startups
options employees
andused scale-ups.at UK-based
effectively tech
in their startups
company. and
This isscale-ups.
mirrored by responses from employees at UK-based tech
Founders' and employees' views DATAS E T : FO U ND E R
startups and scale-ups.

on stock options being used
effectively to incentivise
Founders'
employees inand employees' views
my company DATASET: FOUNDER
on stock options being used FOUNDER
Founders'
LEGEND and employees' views DATASET: FOUNDER
effectively
on Agree to incentivise
stock options being used
UK & Ireland
employees
effectively
Disagree in my company
to incentivise CEE
employees in my company
LEGEND DACH
To be clear, there are more and less favourable environments for the use of stock options in different European
UK & Ireland
Agree
countries.
LEGEND It's interesting in that context toSouthern
lookEurope
at differences by geography in how founders and tech startup
UK & Ireland
employees
Disagree
Agree perceive the effective use of stock options in theirCEE companies. Founders from the UK, which has
Nordics
oneNeither
of the most favourable environments for the use of stock options, are more likely to believe that stock
Disagreeagree nor disagree CEE
options are used effectively in their company. This is mirrored
France & Benelux
by responses from employees at UK-based tech
DACH
DACH
Rest of Europe
Southern Europe
Founders' and employees' views DATAS E T : E MP LOYE
0 E AT A T10E C H STA RT
20U P O R S CA30
LE-UP 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Southern Europe
on stock options being used Nordics
% of respondents
employees
NOTE: in my company Nordics
Founder and tech start-up and scale-up EMPLOYEE France
AT A TECH STARTUP OR SCALE-UP
& Benelux
employee respondents from companies with
LEGEND
more than 11 employees only. Numbers may UK & Ireland France & Benelux
notAgree
Rest of Europe
Disagree France & Benelux
Neither agree nor disagree Rest of Europe
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Nordics
% of respondents
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
CEE % of respondents
NOTE:
Rest of Europe
Founder
NOTE: and tech start-up and scale-up
employee respondents from companies with SOURCE: The State Of European Tech Survey
Founder
more and
than tech start-up
11 employees andNumbers
only. scale-upmay Southern Europe
employee
not add to respondents from companies with
100 due to rounding. SOURCE: The State Of European Tech Survey
more than 11 employees only. Numbers may DACH
not add to 100 due to rounding.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
% of respondents
NOTE:
Founder and tech start-up and scale-up

employee respondents from companies with S O U R C E : The State Of European Tech Survey
more than 11 employees only. Numbers may

It's also interesting to observe how founders of companies that have raised external capital compare in their
It's also interesting toresponses
observe how withfounders
founders of of companies
bootstrapped that have raised
companies. We found that founders who have taken external funding
external capital compare in their responses with founders of bootstrapped
are more likely than founders of bootstrapped companies to agree that they are using stock options effectively
companies. We found that
within
It'sIt's founders
alsotheir
also interesting
who
companies
interesting tohave
to observe
taken
tohow
incentivise
observe how external
founders
funding
ofemployees.
founders of that
companies
are moreexternal
companies
have raisedthat have raised
capital external
compare capital compare in their
in their
likely than founders of bootstrapped
responses with companies
founders of to agree
responses with founders of bootstrapped companies.
bootstrapped that
companies.they
We are
found using
thatWe found
founders whothat
havefounders whofunding
taken external have taken external funding
stock options effectively are more
withinlikely than companies
their founders of bootstrapped companies to agree that they are using stock options effectively
are more
within
likely
theirview
than
companies
founders to
to options
of incentivise
bootstrapped
incentivise employees.
employees.
companies to agree that they are using stock options effectively
Founder's on stock
within
being their companies
used effectively to to incentivise employees.
60 59%
incentivise employees
Founder's view in their
on stock options
59%
company
being used effectively to 60
Founder's
incentivise employees in theiroptions
view on stock
60 59%
being used effectively to
company 42%
% of respondents
LEGEND 40
incentivise employees in their 42%
% of respondents
40%
Agree
LEGEND
company 40
Agree
Disagree
Disagree 42%
% of respondents
Neither
LEGEND agree nor disagree 24%
Neither agree nor disagree 40 24%
Agree 20 20 19% 19%

17% 17%
Disagree
Neither agree nor disagree 24%
0 20 19%
Raised external capital 17% Bootstrapped
0
Raised external capital Bootstrapped
NOTE:
Founder respondents from companies with S O U R C E : The State Of European Tech Survey
NOTE:
not add to 100 due to rounding. 0
Founder respondents from companies with SOURCE: The State Of European Tech
Raised external capital
Survey Bootstrapped
NOTE:
Founder respondents from companies with SOURCE: The State Of European Tech Survey
#Not Optional — Europe must attract more talent to startups.
Policy wheels are turning slowly, but they Startup associations across Europe, from
are turning. Deutsche Startups to France Digitale and
Scale Ireland have held meetings at the most
Last year at Slush, 30 CEOs and founders senior levels and secured commitments to
of some of the most well-known European make rewarding startup talent a priority.
Martin Mignot
companies including BlaBlaCar, Klarna, At the World Economic Forum in Davos,
Revolut, Supercell and TransferWise signed a ineffective employee ownership policies Index Ventures
letter calling on legislators 'to fix the patchy, were singled out as a major bottleneck to the Partner
inconsistent and often punitive rules that growth of Digital Europe.
govern employee ownership — the practice of
giving staff options to acquire a slice of the A change is afoot in Europe. Finland is
company they're working for.' currently in the process of drafting its new
policy, France has made changes to its
They argued that stock options is one of the scheme for startups and we expect to see
main levers startups have to recruit the talent more, Ireland just broadened the scope of
they need. They wrote: 'If we don’t eliminate its employee ownership scheme and has
the talent bottleneck, we risk squandering a full-scale review planned for next year,
the incredible momentum that European tech and Germany, one of the countries with the
has built up in recent years. The next Google, worst policy in Europe, is finally responding
Amazon or Netflix could well come from Europe, to entrepreneurs who've been lobbying for
but for that to happen, reforming the rules of change for years.
employee ownership is definitely not optional.'
Based on our experience working with
Within weeks, 500 more CEOs and founders entrepreneurs around the world, we strongly
added their signature to the letter, which believe that fixing stock option policies will
kicked off #NotOptional, a campaign to have material impact on the ability of startups
bring about change in how stock options are to grow and create tech giants on par with
governed across Europe. those emerging from the US and China.
A year on, the European Commission has Everyone who joined us in signing
actively engaged with the campaign and is #NotOptional can be proud that they've helped
looking for ways to tackle the issue in the to put the issue on the agenda in Europe. Now
upcoming 5-year term. we need to turn positive conversations across
the continent into policy.

But there is clearly still work to do to ensure that stock options are used effectively to incentivise
employees at tech startups
But thereand scale-ups.
is clearly The
still work to bigger
do to ensure the company,
that stock theused
options are more likely founders
effectively to incentiviseare to at
employees
agree that they're usingtechstock
options The bigger
effectively theconversely,
but, company, the more
the likely
lessfounders are to agree that
likely employees arethey're
to using
But there is clearly still work to do to ensure that stock options are used effectively
stock options effectively but, conversely, the less likely employees are to agree that this is the case.
to incentivise employees at
agree that this is thetech
case.startups and scale-ups. The bigger the company, the more likely founders are to agree that they're using
stock options effectively but, conversely,
Founders' and employees' views
the
DATAS E T : E MP LOYE E ATless likely
T E C H STA RT U P Oemployees
R S CA L E - U P are to agree that this is the case.
on stock options being used
employees in their companies
EMPLOYEE AT A TECH STARTUP OR SCALE-UP
Founders' and employees' views DATASET: EMPLOYEE AT TECH STARTUP OR SCALE-UP
on
But stock options
there
LEGEND
being
is clearly used
still work to do to ensure that stock options are used effectively to incentivise employees at
tech startups
Agree
and scale-ups. The bigger
≤10 employees the company, the more likely founders are to agree that they're using
employees
Disagree in their companies
LEGEND
Agree 11-100 employeesDATASET: EMPLOYEE AT TECH STARTUP OR SCALE-UP
Founders' and employees' views ≤10 employees
onDisagree
effectively tonor
Neither agree incentivise
disagree
But there is clearly
employees still
in their work to do to ensure that stock options are used effectively to incentivise employees at
companies
tech startups and scale-ups. The bigger the >100company,
employees the more likely founders are to agree that they're using
LEGEND 11-100 employees
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Agree % of respondents
Founders' and employees' views DATAS E T : FO U ND E R
≤10 employees
onDisagree
Neither agree
NOTE: nor disagree
employees in their companies FOUNDER
Founder and employee at a tech start-up or S O U R C E : The State Of European Tech Survey
>100 employees
scale-up respondents only. Numbers may
LEGEND
Agree 11-100 employees
≤10 employees
Disagree
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
% of respondents
11-100 employees
NOTE: >100 employees
Founder and employee at a tech start-up or SOURCE: The State Of European Tech Survey
>100 employees 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
% of respondents
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
% of respondents
NOTE:
Founder and employee at a tech start-up or SOURCE: The State Of European Tech Survey
NOTE:
not add and
Founder to 100 due to
employee at arounding.
tech start-up or S O U R C E : The State Of European Tech Survey

The roleThe role of

of stock stockas
options options asincentivise
a tool to a tool to incentivise talent is particularly
talent is particularly relevant inrelevant in the
the context context of
of increased
increased competition for talent within the European tech ecosystem. Larger companies,
competition for talent within the European tech ecosystem. Larger companies, in particular, are experiencing in
particular, are experiencing increasing competition for talent from both local tech
increasing competition for talent from both local tech startups and global giants. If you're an employee atstartups and
a
company global
with giants.
100+ If you're
employees, an employee
you're more at a
likely company
to be aware with
of 100+
your employees,
stock options;you're more
founders canlikely to be this
leverage aware
The role of stock options as a tool to incentivise talent is particularly relevant in the context of increased
of
insight not your
only stock
to options;
attract but founders
also to can
retain leverage
talent. this insight not only to attract but also to retain
competition for talent within the European tech ecosystem. Larger companies, in particular, are experiencing
talent.
increasing competition for talent from both local tech startups and global giants. If you're an employee at a
Has your company with 100+ employees, you're
company experienced DATAS E Tmore
: < = 1 0 Elikely
MP LOYEtoE Sbe aware of your stock options; founders can leverage this
insight
any changes not
in the only to attract but also to retain talent.
following
talent trends in the last 12
months?
<=10 EMPLOYEES
Has your company experienced DATASET: <=10 EMPLOYEES
L E G E ND any changes in the following
Increase talent trends in the last 12
Decrease months? Competition for talent from local startups
No change
LEGE ND
Increase
The role of stock
Decreaseoptions as a tool to incentivise talentCompetitionis particularly
for talent fromrelevant
local startups in the context of increased
competitionNofor talent within the European

change tech ecosystem.
Competition Larger
for talent from global tech companies companies, in particular, are experiencing
company with 100+ employees, you're more likely to be aware of your stock options; founders can leverage this
insight not only to attract but also to retain talent.Competition for talent from global tech companies
Employee awareness of stock options
Has your company experienced DATAS E T : 1 1 - 1 0 0 E MP LOYE E S

any changes in the following
months? Employee awareness of stock options
11-100 EMPLOYEES
L E G E ND S O U R C E : The State Of European Tech Survey
Increase
Decrease Competition for talent from global tech companies
No change
The role of stock options as a tool to incentivise talent is particularly relevant in the context of increased
competition for talent within the European tech ecosystem. Larger companies, in particular, are experiencing
Competition for talent from local startups
company with 100+ employees, you're more likely to be aware of your stock options; founders can leverage this
insight not only to attract but also to retain talent.
Has your company experienced DATAS E T : 1 0 0 + E MP LOYE E S

any changes in the following
months?
100+ EMPLOYEES
L E G E ND
Increase
Decrease Competition for talent from global tech companies
No change
Competition for talent from local startups

Beyond employees
Beyond financial incentives, nancial incentives,
are employees are increasingly drawn to IN
INCREASE companies
CSR FOCUSwith strong missions. This is
particularly striking
increasingly drawn to companies with strong for larger companies and could be a differentiating factor for unlocking a highly sought-
71%
after talent base.
missions. This is particularly striking for larger of employees of large tech
companies place greater
companies and could be a differentiating factor
emphasis on corporate social
for unlocking a highlyBeyond nancial
sought-after
Number of incentives,
talent
employees base. employees are increasingly drawn to companiesresponsibility
placing with strong missions. This is
71%
particularly
greater nancial
Beyond striking
emphasis foremployees
larger companies
on corporate
incentives, anddrawn
are increasingly couldto be a differentiating
companies factor This
with strong missions. for unlocking
is a highly sought-
social
after responsibility
talent
particularly base.forby
striking company
larger companies and could be a differentiating factor for unlocking a highly sought-
sizetalent base.
after 57%
49%
LEGEND of employees placing
Number 47%
Number of employees placing
71%
greater emphasis
Increase
greater emphasis on corporate
on corporate
71%
38%
social
social responsibility
responsibility
No change
by company
by company
size
size
Decrease
57%
57%
49%
LEGEND 47%
49%
LEGEND
Increase 47%
38%
No change
Increase
Decrease 38% 29%
No change
4% 5%
Decrease
<10 employees 11-100 employees >100
4% 5%
<10 employees 11-100 employees >100 employees

NOTE:
4%
SOURCE: The State Of European Tech Survey 5%
Employee at a tech startup or scale-up
NOTE:
100 due to
Employee at arounding.
tech startup or scale-up <10 employees 11-100 employees >100
NOTE:
Employee at a tech startup or scale-up SOURCE: The State Of European Tech Survey
We've been blown away by the strong talent across Europe; we've hired
key roles from Uber, Apple, Deliveroo, Spotify and iZettle. We're lucky to
have scaled quickly across Europe and now have three offices with local
teams. The best thing we've done is create a remote-friendly culture
where key and senior roles are not bound to our Swedish base. In fact our
new VP of Marketing joined us a few months ago and is based out of our Elsa Bernadotte
London office. Karma
Co-Founder & COO
Photo by: Riikka Vaahtera

Purpose
What is the definition of a purpose-driven tech startup?

The EU competition commissioner Margrethe Vestager has
observed: ‘Some say China has all the data, and the US has all the
money. But in Europe, we have purpose.’ In European tech, purpose
has become a powerful differentiator. European founders aren’t
just aiming for commercial success - they are trying to solve some
of the world’s largest problems. It makes business sense too:
consumers and tech talent alike are demanding companies think
about more than the bottom line.

Finding Purpose
Techlash narrative In the United States the Techlash narrative is driven mostly by
the Tech giants - the Big Tech breakup plan and the Big Tech
backlash account for 26% of the overall narrative. On the other
side of the pond, Europe remains focused on data privacy, but
conversations on antitrust, tech ethics and the gig economy
signal that a bigger Techlash is just around the corner.

07.1 Finding Purpose
80% of VCs say they assess the potential long-term societal and/or environmental impact of an investment, in
either a pre- or post-investment timeframe. The largest share of respondents (47%) stated that the impact
80% of VCs say they assessment happens long-term
assess the potential pre-investment as part
societal of the due diligence process.
and/or
environmental impact of an investment, in either a pre- or post-investment
timeframe. The largest
80% share
When, atof
of ifVCs respondents
say
all, dothey assess
you assess (47%)
the stated that
the potential the impact
long-term
Pre-investment,societal and/or
as part of the due diligence environmental
process impact of an investment, in
potential
assessment happenseither
80% ofaVCslong-term
pre-investment
pre-sayorthey societal
as part
assess the of
post-investment the due
potential diligence
timeframe.
long-term The
societalprocess.
largest
and/or share
environmental of respondents (47%) stated
impact of an investment, in that the impact
Post-investment, on an ad-hoc basis when the need
and/or environmental impact of
either a pre- or post-investment timeframe. The largest share of respondents (47%) stated
etc..) that the impact
18%
assessment
an investment?
assessment
happens pre-investment as part of thearises due diligence
(change
happens pre-investment as part of the due diligence process.
of strategy, process.
pivot,
Post-investment, on an ongoing basis with defined KPIs 15%
When, if
When, if at
atall,
all,dodo
youyou
assess the the
assess Pre-investment, asPre-investment,
part of the due diligence process
as part of the due diligence process 47%
potential long-term societal Never, but this is something we are considering 13%
potential long-term societal
and/or environmental impact of Post-investment, on an ad-hoc basis when the need
18%
arisesPost-investment, on an
(change of strategy, pivot, ad-hoc basis when the need
etc..)
and/or environmental impact of
an investment? arises (change ofNever,
strategy, pivot, etc..)
18%
not meaningful 4%
an investment? Post-investment, on an ongoing basis with defined KPIs 15%
Post-investment, on an ongoing basis with defined KPIs 15%

Never, but this is something we are consideringPrefer not to say
13% 3%
Never, butnot
Never, this is something we4%
meaningful are considering 13%
Other 1%
Never, not meaningful
0 54% 10 15 20 25 30 35
Other 1% % of respondents
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
% of respondents
Other 1%
Venture
NOTE: capitalists only. Numbers may not 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Nearly two-thirds of VC respondents
add to 100 due to rounding. agree that in the last twelve months European investors have % of respondents
demonstrated greater concern about the potential societal or environmental impact of their portfolios.

Nearly two-thirds of VCVenture
respondents
months, capitalists only.agree
do you agree Numbers that
or may notin the last twelve 60 months European 62%
investors have demonstrated
disagreegreater concern about the potential societal or
with the following:
environmental impactNearly
Nearly two-thirds
of their
European two-thirds of respondents
VC respondents
VCs areofdemonstrating
portfolios. VC agree
agree that in thethat in themonths
last twelve last twelve months
European investorsEuropean
have
demonstrated greater concern about the potential societal or environmental impact of their portfolios.
investors have
demonstrated
greater concerngreater
about theconcern about the potential societal or environmental impact of their portfolios.
potential societal and/or
% of respondents
40
environmental impact
Thinking about the past 12 of their
62%
months, do
Thinking
portfolio you agree
about theor
companies. past 12 60
disagree with the following: 62%
months, do you agree or
European VCs are demonstrating 60
disagree with the
greater concern aboutfollowing:
the
European VCs are
potential societal demonstrating
and/or
% of respondents
20
40
environmental impact of their
greater concern about the 13%
portfolio companies.
potential societal and/or
% of respondents
40 25%
environmental impact of their
portfolio companies. 20
0 13%
Agree Disagree Neither
0 20
Agree Disagree Neither agree nor disagree
NOTE: 13%
NOTE:
0
Agree Disagree Neither

We believe that Europe I am more optimistic about the future of European Loubna Bouarfa
technology today than I was 12 months ago although we OKRA Technologies
can take a leading are in uncertain times with big problems facing the planet Founder & CEO
position in development - from climate change to delivering resources such as
and investment in the healthcare, food, and education to a global population
approaching 8 billion. Europe is leading the way in building
ethical use of technology. trustworthy technology by choosing to use its values
to drive the use of technology to the right place. Being
a member of the HLEG-AI group, we published ethical
guidelines for the use of AI, and we believe that Europe can
take a leading position in development and investment in
the ethical use of technology.

One in ve European founders states their company is already measuring its societal and/or environmental
impact. Only 14% of founders don't believe it's relevant for their company. Founders who are women are much
more likely to be advanced in their approach to measuring impact.
One in five European founders states their company is already measuring its
societal and/or environmental impact.measure
Does your company Only 14%its of founders don't believe it's Yes
17%
One in Founders
relevant for their company.
societalve
or European whofounders
environmental are women statesaretheir
much company
more is already measuring its societal and/or environmental
likely
One in
impact. ve European founders states their company is
Not already
yet, measuring
but currently
impact?Only 14% of founders don't believe it's relevant for their its
in the processsocietal and/or
of introducing
company. a environmental
Founders who are
16%
women are much
to be advanced in their approach
impact. toofmeasuring
Only 14% founders don'timpact.
believe it's relevant for their company. Founders measurement
whotool
are women are much 9%
more
morelikely
likely toto
bebe advanced
advanced inapproach
in their their approach to impact.
to measuring measuring impact.
LEGEND No, but this is something we are considering
Women
No, not actively measured 25%
Does your company measure its Yes but impact is taken into
Does
Menyour company measure its Yes
consideration in our work 17%
societal or environmental 17%
societal
impact? or environmental Not yet, but currently in the process of introducing a 16%
8%
Not yet, but measurement
currently intoolthe process of introducing a 9% 16%
impact? No, we don't think it's relevant for our company
measurement tool 16%
9% 24%
LEGEND No, but this is something we are considering
29%
1%
Women
LEGEND No, not actively measuredNo, but this
but impact is something
is taken into wePrefer not to say
are considering 2%
24%
Men consideration in our work 26%
Women 1%
No, not actively measured but impact is taken 8%
into
Other
No, we don't think it's relevant for our company (please specify)
Men consideration in our work 1% 16%
1%
Prefer not to say 0 5 8% 10 15 20
2%
No, we don't think it's relevant for our company
1% % of respondents
16%
1%
1%
Prefer not to say
0 5 10 2% 15 20 25 30
% of respondents
NOTE: 1%
SOURCE: The State Of European
OtherTech Survey
(please specify)
1%
due to rounding.
NOTE: S O U R C E : The State Of European Tech Survey 0 5 10 15 20
Founders only. Numbers may not add to 100 % of respondents
due to rounding.
Where founders aren't yet measuring their company's impact, it's mostly because they are prioritising other
things. Investors can lead the way by prompting founders to think about these issues.
Where founders aren'tNOTE:
yet measuring their company's impact, it's The
SOURCE: mostly
because they are prioritising
Which other things.
of the below statements
due to rounding. Investors can lead the way by are more important right now
Other priorities
prompting founders Where

tobest
think founders
aboutwhy
describes aren't
these
you do yet
notmeasuring their company's impact, it's mostly because they are prioritising other
issues.
things.
Where Investors
founders
measure aren'tcan lead the their
yet measuring
your company’s waycompany's
by prompting
impact,founders
it's mostly to think
because
Our own isabout
they
assessment these issues.
are prioritising
enough other 16%
things.
impact?Investors can lead the way by prompting founders to think about these issues.
There is a lack of accurate measurement tools on the
12%
market
Which
Which ofof the
the below
below statements
statements Other
Other priorities are more priorities
important are more important right now
right now 52%
best describes
best describes whywhy you
you do notdo not It is too time-consuming 6%
measure your company’s
measure your company’s Our own assessment is enough
Our own assessment is enough
16%
16%
impact?
impact? There is a lack of accurate measurement tools on the Other (please specify)
12% 6%
market measurement tools on the
There is a lack of accurate
12%
market
It is too time-consuming 6%
It is not core to our mission 5%
It is too time-consuming 6%
Other (please specify) 6%
It would be too expensive 3%
It is not core to our mission Other
5%(please specify) 6%
0 10 20 30 40
It is not core to our mission % of respondents
5%
0 10 20 30 40 50
% of respondents
NOTE:
0 10 20 30 40
Founders only. Numbers may not add to 100 S O U R C E : The State Of European Tech Survey
% of respondents
due to rounding.
due to rounding.
Founders
NOTE: are most likely to measure their company's impact by tracking CO2 emissions. Engaging with
customers through surveys
add to 100 or conversation is the next most common method.
Founders are most likely torounding.
due to measure their company's impact by tracking CO2
Founders only. Numbers may not
emissions. Engaging with customers through surveys or conversation is the

next most common method.
Stated brie y, what type of Carbon/CO2 measurement
Founders are most likely to measure their company's impact by tracking CO2 emissions. Engaging with
impact measurement techniques
customers
or
Founders
through
tools is are
your company
most
surveys
using,
likely to
or conversation istothe
Talking
measure their company's impact
next
customers (e.g.most
by tracking
common method.
surveys, interviews)
CO2 emissions. Engaging with 44
implementing or considering?
customers through surveys or conversation is the next most common method.
Internal functions (e.g. travelling, recycling) 31
Stated brie y, what type of Carbon/CO2 measurement
Statedmeasurement
impact brie y, what type of
techniques Carbon/CO2 measurement 75
Ongoing KPIs 23
impact measurement techniques
or or
tools
toolsis
is your company
your company using,
using, Talking to customers (e.g. surveys, interviews)
Talking to customers (e.g. surveys, interviews) 44
44
implementing
implementing oror considering?
considering? B-Corporation certification 12
Internal functionsInternal
(e.g. travelling, recycling)
functions (e.g. travelling, recycling) 31 31
Ongoing KPIs Diversity metrics 23 11

Ongoing KPIs 23
B-Corporation certification 12
Sustainable Development Goals 9
B-Corporation certification 12
Diversity metrics 11
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Sustainable Development Goals Diversity

9 metrics 11 # of mentions
NOTE: 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Sustainable Development Goals 9 # of mentions
Founders who answered that they measure
their company's impact, are considering it or
NOTE:
areFounders
implementing a tool. Keyword analysis SOURCE: The State Of European Tech Survey
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
who answered that they measure
performed on open-ended
their company's answers,
impact, are considering similar
it or # of mentions
spellings & keywords
are implementing a tool.aggregated.
Keyword analysis S O U R C E : The State Of European Tech Survey
performed on open-ended answers, similar
NOTE:
spellings & keywords aggregated.
Founders who answered that they measure

their company's impact, are considering it or
are implementing a tool. Keyword analysis SOURCE: The State Of European Tech Survey
performed on open-ended answers, similar
spellings & keywords aggregated.
I see us moving towards One interpretation I have honed in on around 'tech for good' is
the idea of 'humane technology', as I think there's a real need
a potentially unhealthy to think more clearly through the behavioural ramifications
dual internet: a free- of consumer-tech especially - and its impact on debate/
for-all 'poor man's' web politics/addiction/mental health/etc. I think we have some
good thinkers along these lines in the UK, but there remains
versus a premium web, a contradiction in terms when it comes to business models
and I think businesses and the need for rapid returns which still prioritise rapid
Jessica Butcher
growth, eye-balls and the attention economy. I see us moving
need to try harder towards a potentially unhealthy dual internet: a free-for- Tick
to build products for all 'poor man's' web versus a premium web, and I think Co-Founder
broader socio-economic businesses need to try harder to build products for broader
socio-economic segments of society.
segments of society.
Investors are most likely to agree with the statement that European technology entrepreneurs will do
more to address
Investors are mostsocietal
likely tochallenges in the
agree with the next decade
statement than European
that European governments.
technology Policymakers
entrepreneurs will do more to
and the societal
address media are more sceptical…
challenges in the next decade than European governments. Policymakers and the media are
more
Investors sceptical…
are most likely to agree with the statement that European technology entrepreneurs will do more to
Investors are most likely to agree with the statement that European technology entrepreneurs will do more to
address societal challenges in the next decade than European governments. Policymakers and the media are
address societal challenges in the next decade than European governments. Policymakers and the media are
more sceptical…
more sceptical… Angel investor
the following statement?
European technology
Do you agree or disagreewill
entrepreneurs withdo more to Angel investor
Venture capitalist
Do you
the following agree or disagree
statement? with Angel investor
address
the societal
following challenges
statement?
European(pollution,
technology congestion, climate
European
entrepreneurs technology
willfood
do more to Venture capitalist Other
change,
entrepreneurs sustainability,
will do more to Venture capitalist
address societal
health, challenges
etc.) in the next decade
(pollution,address
than
societal
congestion,
European
challenges
climate
governments.
(pollution, congestion,
change, food sustainability, climate Other
LP investing in private equity & venture capital
Other
change,
health, etc.) in the food
next sustainability,
decade
LEGE ND etc.) in the next decade
health,
than European governments.
than European governments.
Agree LP investing in private equity & venture capitalOther investor
Disagree
LEGEND
LEGE ND agree nor disagree
Neither
Agree Employee Other investor
at a tech startup or scale-up
Agree Other investor
Disagree
Disagree
Neither agree nor disagree EmployeeConsultant/M&A
at a tech startupadvisor/investment
or scale-up banker
Neither agree nor disagree Employee at a tech startup or scale-up
Consultant/M&A advisor/investment banker Founder

Consultant/M&A advisor/investment banker
Founder Student
Founder
Student
Employee at a company not a tech startup or scale-up
Student

Academic/researcher
Academic/researcher
Media/journalist
Academic/researcher
Media/journalist
Employee in the public sector
Media/journalist

Policymaker/regulator
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
% of respondents
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
% of respondents
rounding.
rounding. Numbers may not add to 100 due to
rounding.

I'm excited to see a 'Social innovation' or 'tech for good' is a different approach
to entrepreneurship. One that's in contrast with the
new generation of average MBA-grad, who crunched some numbers and,
entrepreneurs in Europe driven by a search for monetisation, decided to fill a given
who oppose the 'move market niche. I'm excited to see a new generation of
entrepreneurs in Europe who oppose the 'move fast and
fast and break things' break things' dogma in favour of a more thoughtful, more
dogma in favour of a resilient, truly long-term approach to business. I see more Valentina Milanova
of my entrepreneur friends in Europe looking to build
more thoughtful, more companies that last 100 years, and more of my friends in
Daye
resilient, truly long-term SV looking for a quick exit. Both approaches to founding Founder & CEO
approach to business. companies are valid; I just find the first one to be much
more enjoyable.
European founders are trying to solve some of world’s most endemic

challenges, achieving transformative impact on climate change, smart
cities, economic inclusion and other imperatives of our generation. At
the same time, there is an estimated $502B of assets under management
focused on impact investment – and greater focus than ever before from
investors and consumers alike on sustainability. It’s a very good moment Perry Teicher
for the purpose-driven entrepreneur. Orrick
Impact Finance
Lawyer

Purpose-driven Investment
Measuring purpose-driven 2019 saw a huge spike in investment into European tech
companies that are seeking to solve some of humanity's most
investment in European tech pressing problems.
We partnered with Dealroom to try to quantify this trend and

identify the growing universe of purpose-driven venture-backed
European tech companies.
To do so, Dealroom created a framework to assess venture-

backed European tech companies based on their alignment
with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals.
In this first iteration, the analysis focused on a subset of seven

of the seventeen Sustainable Development Goals, selecting
only those where Dealroom.co has observed greater levels
of European venture-backed startup activity. For each of the
selected SDGs, Dealroom manually assigned keywords used to
tag companies in its platform to search for and identify a firs
set of potential companies for review.
The initial results set was then manually reviewed by Dealroom

analysts to evaluate the companies for fit against one or more
of the SDGs and assign them to those SDGs accordingly.
Additionally, Dealroom's team also manually differentiated all

companies in the dataset based on whether the purpose-driven
impact of the company was ‘core’ to the business model, or a
‘peripheral’ or indirect component of the business model.
Only companies where the purpose-driven impact was

considered core to the business model were included in the final
dataset and analysis. In total, the analysis identified 528 unique
venture-backed, purpose-driven tech companies. The full list can
be accessed on Dealroom's platform here.
We understand the methodology has limitations and see this as a

first attempt to seek to build a more robust analysis of European
purpose-driven tech companies. We welcome feedback and
will update this work both in terms of scope and methodology in
future iterations.

07.2 Purpose-driven Investment
The analysis has an initial focus on identifying companies

that are addressing a subset of seven of the seventeen
United Nations Sustainable Development Goals.
The analysis has an initial focus on identifying companies that are addressing a subset of seven of the
The analysis has an
seventeen initialNations
United focus onSustainable
identifying Development
companies that are addressing a subset of seven of the
Goals.
seventeen United Nations Sustainable Development Goals.
Description Selected Dealroom Keywords
Description Selected Dealroom Keywords
Overview of SDGs included in Innovative food; food waste; sustainable food;
Overview of SDGsand
analysis included in to
mapping SDG 2: Zero Hunger
End hunger, achieve food security and improved
aquaculture;
Innovative food; food waste;alternative
sustainableprotein;
food; agritech;meat
nutrition,
End hunger, achieve andsecurity
food promote sustainable
and improved agriculture
analysiskeywords
and mapping to
on Dealroom platform SDG 2: Zero Hunger
nutrition, and promote sustainable agriculture
substitutesprotein; agritech;meat
aquaculture; alternative
substitutes
keywords on Dealroom platform
Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all Medical devices; health devices; health platforms;
SDG 3: Health and Well-being
Ensure healthy
at lives and promote well-being for all
all ages Medical devices; health-consumer
direct-to devices; health platforms;
health
at all ages direct-to -consumer health
Ensure availability and sustainable management
SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation Ensure availability and sustainable management Water; water saving, water treatment
SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation of water and sanitation for all Water; water saving, water treatment
of water and sanitation for all
Lithium ion batteries; energy; power; carbon;
Lithium ion batteries;
Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable renewableenergy; power;
energies; carbon;
energy storage; green
SDG 7: Affordable and Clean EnergyEnsure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable renewable energies; energy storage; green
SDG 7: Affordable and Clean Energy and modern energy for all technology; solar energy; electric energy; wind
and modern energy for all technology; solar energy;
energy electric energy; wind
energy
Air quality; public transportation; charging solutions;
Make cities and human settlements inclusive,
Air quality; public transportation; charging solutions;
SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities
Make cities and human settlements inclusive, urban mobility, advanced mobility; smart city; vertical
SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities safe, resilient, and sustainable urban mobility,farming
advanced mobility; smart city; vertical
safe, resilient, and sustainable
farming
Ensure sustainable consumption and production Second hand; waste management; recycling;
SDG 12: Consumption and Production
Ensure sustainable consumption and production Second hand;sustainable
waste management; recycling;
SDG 12: Consumption and Production patterns packaging; shar ing economy
patterns sustainable packaging; shar ing economy
Take urgent action to combat climate change and
Take urgent action to combat climate change andand Eco friendly; electric energy; renewable energy;
SDG 13: Climate Action its impacts by regulating emissions Eco friendly; electric energy; renewable energy;
SDG 13: Climate Action its impacts bypromoting
regulatingdevelopments
emissions andin renewable energy sustainability
sustainability
promoting developments in renewable energy
SOURCE: Dealroom
There are more than 500 European tech companies who

received funding since 2005 that are tackling at least
one of the UN's Sustainable Development Goals as a
core part
There of their
are more mission.
than SDG 13 on
500 European Climate
tech Action
companies is received funding since 2005 that are tackling at least
who
by
onefar
There the most
of are more addressed
UN's Sustainable goal.
Development
than 500 European Goals as a core
tech companies part of their
who received mission.
funding sinceSDG 13 that
2005 on Climate Actionatisleast
are tackling by
far
one the most
of the addressed
UN's goal.Development Goals as a core part of their mission. SDG 13 on Climate Action is by
Sustainable
There are more than 500 European tech companies who received funding since 2005 that are tackling at least
far the most addressed goal.
one of the UN's Sustainable Development Goals as a core part of their mission. SDG 13 on Climate Action is by
far the most addressed
Number goal.
of purpose-driven SDG 13: Climate Action 410
European tech companies per
Number of purpose-driven SDG 13: Climate Action 410
Sustainable Development Goal, SDG 7: Affordable and Clean Energy 336
2005-2019
Number of purpose-driven SDG 13: Climate Action 410
European tech companies per SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities 99
2005-2019
SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities 99
2005-2019 SDG 3: Health and Well-being 89
SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities 99
SDG 3: Health and Well-being 89
SDG 2: Zero Hunger 53
SDG 3: Health and Well-being 89
SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation 41
SDG 12: Consumption and Production 40
SDG 12: Consumption and Production 0 40
50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
# of companies
SDG 12: Consumption and Production 40
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
NOTE: # of companies
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
Based on a set of 528 unique companies # of companies
NOTE:
identi ed by Dealroom. The sum of all
companies SOURCE: Dealroom
NOTE: Based on a per SDG
set of is unique
528 greatercompanies
than that
number asby
identi ed some companies
Dealroom. may of
The sum beall
addressing
Based on a set more
of 528 unique
companies thanis one
companies
per SDG goal.than that
greater SOURCE: Dealroom
identi ed by number
Dealroom.
as The
some sum of all
companies may be
companies per SDG is greater
addressing more than that
one goal. S O U R C E : Dealroom
number as some companies may be
addressing more than one goal.

Selected purpose-driven European tech

companies
Germany France Netherlands United Kingdom

SDG 2: Zero Hunger SDG 2: Zero Hunger SDG 2: Zero Hunger SDG 3: Health and Well-being
Netherlands Sweden United Kingdom Sweden

SDG 3: Health and Well-being SDG 3: Health and Well-being SDG 7: Affordable and Clean Energy SDG 7: Affordable and Clean Energy
United Kingdom United Kingdom Sweden Findland

SDG 12: Consumption and Production SDG 12: Consumption and Production SDG 13: Climate Action SDG 13: Climate Action
Investors have supported purpose-driven European tech companies with over $4 billion in capital investment in
2019, up more than 6x over the past ve years and taking the cumulative total invested since 2015 to close to
$10B. purpose-driven European tech companies with over
Investors have supported
$4 billion in capital investment in 2019, up more than 6x over the5.0past five years
Investors
and taking the cumulative total have supported
invested purpose-driven European tech companies with over $4 billion in capital investment in
Capital invested ($B) in since 2015 to more than
purpose- $10 billion.
2019, upEuropean
driven more than
tech 6x over the past ve years and taking the cumulative total invested since 2015 to close to
companies
Investors have supported purpose-driven European tech companies with over $4 billion in capital investment in
$10B.
per year
2019, up more than 6x over the past ve years and taking4.0the cumulative total invested since 2015 to close to
$10B.
5.0
Capital invested ($B) Capital invested ($B)
Capital invested ($B) in purpose- 5.0

3.0
Capital invested
driven European($B) tech
in purpose-
companies $4.4B
driven European tech companies
per year
per year 4.0
4.0
2.0 $1.9B
3.0 $1.5B
3.0 $1.2B
1.0
2.0 $0.7B $1.9B
$1.5B $1.9B
2.0
$1.2B
1.0 0.0 $1.5B
$0.7B 2015 2016 2017 2018
$1.2B
NOTE: 1.0
0.0 $0.7B
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
biotech,
lending capital, grants. SOURCE: Dealroom
All Dealroom.co data excludesPlease also note the
the following: 0.0
data excludes
biotech, Israel.
secondary 2019 annualised
transactions, debt, based 2015 2016 2017 2018
on datacapital,
lending to September 2019.
grants. Please also note the
NOTE:


Purpose-driven European tech companies focused on climate action and clean energy have attracted
Purpose-driven European tech companies focused on climate action and clean energy have attracted the
the highest level of capital investment,
Purpose-driven followedtech
European by those focused
companies on health
focused on and well-being.
climate action and clean energy have attracted the
highest level of capital investment, followed by those focused on health and well-being.
highest level of capital investment, followed by those focused on health and well-being.
3,000
Capital invested ($M) in purpose-
driven European tech companies 3,000
Capital
per invested
Sustainable ($M) in purpose-
Development 2,500
driven
Goal European tech companies
addressed
per Sustainable Development 2,500

2,000
LEGEND
Goal addressed
SDG 2: Zero Hunger
1,500

2,000
LEGEND
SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation
SDGSDG 1,000
2: Zeroand
7: Affordable Hunger
Clean Energy
SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and 1,500
Communities
500
SDGSDG 6: Clean Water
12: Consumption and Sanitation
and Production
SDG 13: Climate Action 1,000
SDG 7: Affordable and Clean Energy 0
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and
NOTE:
Communities
500
Companies addressing more than one
SDG Development
Sustainable 12: Consumption and Production
Goal are counted NOTE:
against each individual SDG they are
SDG
targeting. As13: Climate
a result, Action
the total capital SO U R C E : Dealroom Companies addressing more than one Sustainable Development Goal are counted
invested sums to be greater than the total 0 against each individual SDG they are targeting. As a result, the total capital invested
capital invested presented in previous chart. sums2015
to be greater than the total 2016
capital invested presented in2017
previous chart. 2018
NOTE:
Companies addressing more than one
This also comes across in the Sustainability/Climate change and Cleantech narrative in Europe,
Sustainable Development Goal are counted
against each individual SDG they are
where nearly 50% of alltargeting.
news Asare focused
a result, on tech startups and
the total capital
invested sums to be greater than the total
VC investments.
SOURCE: Dealroom
capital invested presented in previous chart.
This also comes across in the Sustainability/Climate change and Cleantech narrative in Europe,
where nearly 50% of all news are focused on tech startups and VC investments.

This year the number of This year the number of purpose-driven European
founders who have pitched to us has been overwhelming.
purpose-driven European European founders have the most powerful tech toolkit
founders who have in history, and they are stepping up to help solve some of
pitched to us has been the world's most pressing challenges such as the climate
crisis and healthcare. In doing so they will build huge
overwhelming. commercial successes, the global category winners of
tomorrow. I believe companies who are purpose driven Niklas Zennström
will outperform the companies who are not. Being
Atomico
mission-driven makes business sense. Many consumers
- specifically younger consumers - would rather pay more Founding Partner
for something that's sustainable. Younger employees want & CEO
to work for companies with a mission, and they will leave
companies they think are doing things that are negatively
impacting society or the environment.
Purpose-driven European tech companies have raised huge rounds in 2019, topped by a $1B investment into
Sweden's Northvolt, founded in 2016 with the mission to build the world's greenest battery and enable the
European transition to renewable energy.
Purpose-driven European tech companies have raised huge rounds in 2019, Round Size
topped by a $1B
Top 10 largest dealsinvestment
raised by into Sweden's Northvolt,
Company
founded in 2016 with the
Description City Country
($M)
Deal Date
mission to build
purpose-driven techthe world's greenest battery
companies 1 and enableLithium-ion
Northvolt the Europeanbatteries transition Stockholm Sweden 1,000 Jun 2019
Purpose-driven
toinrenewable
2019 European
Purpose-driven European
energy. tech companies
tech companies havehuge
have raised raised huge in
rounds rounds
2019, in 2019, by
topped topped
a $1B by a $1B investment
investment into into
United
Sweden's
Sweden's Northvolt,
Northvolt, foundedfounded
in 2016 in 2016
with thewith the mission
mission to build to
2
thebuild
Babylon Health
thegreenest
world's world's greenest battery
High quality healthcare via mobile phone
battery and andthe
enable enable the Kingdom
London 550 Aug 2019
European transition to renewable

European transition to renewable energy. energy. 3 Doctolib An appointment online to a doctor or dentist Paris France 165 Mar 2019
4 Ynsect Transforms insects into nutrient resource for agriculture Évry France 138Round Size Feb 2019
Company Description City Country
Round Size Deal Date
Company Description City Country ($M) Date
Deal
Top 10deals
Top 10 largest largest deals
raised byraised by 5 Energy Vault Energy storage technology Lugano Switzerland
($M)
110 Aug 2019
purpose-driven tech companies 1 Northvolt Lithium-ion batteries Stockholm Sweden 1,000 Jun 2019
purpose-driven tech companies 1 Northvolt Lithium-ion batteries Stockholm Sweden 1,000 Jun 2019
in 2019 in 2019
6 Infarm An urban farming services company Berlin Germany 100 Jun 2019
United
2 Babylon Health High quality healthcare via mobile phone London
United 550 Aug 2019
2 Babylon Health High quality healthcare via mobile phone London 550
Kingdom Aug 2019
7 docplanner Booking platform for medica l appointments Kingdom
Warsaw Poland 88 May 2019
3 Doctolib An appointment online to a doctor or dentist Paris France 165 Mar 2019
3 Doctolib An appointment online to a doctor or dentist Paris France United165 Mar 2019
8 Healx AI platform for rare diseases Cambridge 56 Oct 2019
Kingdom
4 Ynsect4 Ynsect Transforms insects
Transforms insects resource
into nutrient into nutrient resource for agriculture
for agriculture Évry Évry
France France
138 138 Feb 2019 Feb 2019
Designs, manufactures and distributes solar power United
9 BBOXX London 50 Aug 2019
5 Energy5 VaultEnergy Vault Energy
systems
Energy storage storage technology
technology Lugano Lugano Switzerland
Switzerland Kingdom
110 110 Aug 2019
6 Infarm6 Infarm An urban farming

Dental An urban farming
services services company
company Berlin Berlin
Germany Germany
100 100 Jun 2019 Jun 2019
10 Application designed for self-monitoring dental treatment Paris France 50 Mar 2019
Monitoring
7 7
docplanner docplanner Booking
Booking platform platformappointments
for medical for medical appointments Warsaw Warsaw
Poland Poland
88 88 May 2019 May 2019
United United
8 Healx 8 Healx AIrare
AI platform for platform for rare diseases
diseases Cambridge Cambridge 56
Kingdom
56 Oct 2019 Oct 2019
Kingdom
NOTE:
SOURCE: Dealroom Designs, manufactures and distributes solar power United
Based on deals announced between 1 9 BBOXX9 BBOXX Designs, manufactures and distributes solar power London
United
London 50 50 Aug 2019 Aug 2019
systems systems Kingdom Kingdom
January 2019 and 30 September 2019 only.
Dental10 Dental
10 Application
Application designed designed for self-monitoring
for self-monitoring dental treatment
dental treatment Paris Paris
Fr ance Fr ance
50 50 Mar 2019 Mar 2019
Monitoring Monitoring
NOTE: NOTE:
SOURCE: Dealroom
Based
Based on deals on deals announced
announced between 1 between 1
January
January 2019 and 302019 and 30 September
September 2019 only. 2019 only.
For the team here, there's At Healx we believe every rare disease patient deserves
a treatment. It's this belief which drives us to achieve
no bigger motivator than our mission of taking 100 new treatments towards the
knowing you’re applying clinic by 2025. Having such a clear mission also helps with
your skills to improving recruiting and retaining the best and brightest talent. For
the team here, there's no bigger motivator than knowing
the lives of patients, their you're applying your skills to improving the lives of
carers and their families. patients, their carers and their families. This is especially Kate Hilyard
the case for the many team members who count either
Healx
themselves or a relative amongst the 400 million people
worldwide living with a rare disease. COO

'Tech for good' generally Ÿnsect is a mission-driven company from Day 1. It is

right in our DNA, as we came from an activist non-
addresses humankind's profit association. We see more and more projects
most important needs, and entrepreneurs looking to have an impact, to have
which means the largest a purpose, with great ideas showing that profits and
impacts can be compatible. Amazing companies like Olio,
markets. NorthVolt, OpenClassRooms or Doctolib demonstrate that
Impact Unicorns won’t be a myth! Europe could become Antoine Hubert
the best place for 'tech for good' companies, which
Ÿnsect
will have tremendous positive economical and social
impacts in Europe and beyond, as 'tech for good' generally CEO
addresses humankind's most important needs, which
means the largest markets.
As a result of the large funding rounds raised by some of the leading players, capital invested into purpose-
As a result of the large funding rounds raised by
driven companies accounted for more than 12% of total capital invested into European tech in 2019, more than
some of the leading players,
double any capital invested
previous year.into
purpose-driven companies accounted for more
than 12% of total capital invested into European
tech in 2019, more thanAsCapital
adoubleinvested
result in purpose-
of the
any large funding
previous year. rounds raised13 by some of the leading players, capital invested into purpose-
driven European tech companies
driven
As companies accounted for more than 12% of total capital invested into European tech in 2019, more than
pera year
result
asofathe large
share offunding
total rounds raised by some of the leading players, capital invested into purpose-
double any previous
driven companies
capital invested (%) year.
accounted for more than 12% of total capital invested into European tech in 2019, more than
double any previous year.
% of total capital invested
10
Capital invested
Capital invested in purpose-
in purpose- 12%
13 13
driven European
driven European techtech companies
companies
per year
per year asasa share of total
a share of total 8
capital invested (%)
capital invested (%)
10 6%
6%
10
5%
5
8
3%
6%
8 6%
5%
5 3
2015 2016
6% 2017 6%
2018
3%
5%
NOTE: 5
3
3%
biotech,
biotech, secondary transactions, debt, 3
onlending
data capital,
to September 2019.
grants. Please also note the S O U R C E : Dealroom 2015 2016 2017 2018
NOTE:

A significant part of Consumers are becoming increasingly values-driven in

their lifestyles and this in turn affects how they spend
our own portfolio is their money. Consumers will look for businesses with
in life sciences and values similar to their own, whether that's how a company
digital health and clean improves its environmental impact and treats workers
in their supply chain or the way it works within its local
growth, mobility and community. While much of VC is still focussed on areas
transportation. Not only like Enterprise Software and Fintech, there are significant Christine Hockley
market opportunities in areas that tackle global issues
are there social positives like efficient energy, sustainable consumption and health
British Patient
from investing in these and social care. A significant part of our own portfolio is in Capital
Director of
types of companies, life sciences and digital health and clean growth, mobility
Investments
and transportation. Not only are there social positives
there are also potentially from investing in these types of companies, there are also
very large commercial potentially very large commercial returns available both
returns available both for for VCs and LPs.
VCs and LPs.

The number of deals involving purpose-driven European
tech companies has been increasing steadily over the past
ve years.
The number of dealsThe

involving
Number ofpurpose-driven
number of deals
deals European
involving
involving tech companies
purpose-driven European
171
purpose-driven
has been increasing tech companies
steadily over theEuropean
has
past techincreasing
been
five years. steadily over the past 168
157
Thecompanies per year
venumber of deals
years. involving purpose-driven European
150
tech companies has been increasing steadily over the past
ve years.
Number of deals involving 111
# of deals
Number of deals involving 171
purpose-driven European tech 100 171
168
purpose-driven European tech 168
157
companies per year
companies per year 157
150 150
133
111 50
111
# of deals
# of deals
100
100
50 0
2015 2016 2017 2018
50
NOTE:
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Alldata excludes
Dealroom.co dataIsrael.
excludes2019 annualised based
the following: 0
on data
biotech, to September
secondary 2019.
transactions, debt, 2015 2016 2017 2018
lending capital, grants. Please also note the SO U R C E : Dealroom
Though the absolute number of deals is increasing (when factoring in the reporting lag) and the share of total
onNOTE:
deals has been
All Dealroom.co risingtheconsistently,
data excludes following: investments into purpose-driven European tech companies still only
represented less than 5% of
lending capital, grants. Please also note the all deal activity in 2019.
SOURCE: Dealroom
Though the absolute number of deals is increasing (when factoring in the

reporting lag) and the share of total deals has been rising consistently,
Deals in purpose-driven 4.5
investments into purpose-driven
European techEuropean
Though the absolute companies per tech companies still only
number of deals is increasing (when factoring in the reporting lag) and the share of total
represented less than 5% as
year
Though
deals of
has all
athe deal
share
been
ofactivity
absolute total dealsin
number
rising 2019.
of(%)
deals is increasing
consistently, (when
investments4.0 factoring in the reporting lag)European
into purpose-driven and the share of total
tech companies still only
deals has been rising consistently, investments into purpose-driven European tech companies still only
represented less
represented less than
than 5%
5% of all of
dealall deal in
activity activity
2019. in 2019.
3.5
% of total deals
3.2%
Deals in purpose-driven 4.4%
Deals in purpose-driven 4.5
4.5
3.0
European techofcompanies
year as a share total deals (%)per 2.6%
2.7%
4.0
year as a share of total deals (%)
4.0
2.5
3.5
% of total deals
3.2%
2.0%
3.5
2.0
% of total deals
3.0
2.7%
3.2%
2.6%
2.5 3.0
1.5
2015 2016 2.7%
2017 2018
2.0% 2.6%
2.0
NOTE: 2.5
All Dealroom.co data excludes the following: 1.5
biotech, secondary transactions, debt, 2015 2.0% 2016 2017 2018 2019
lending SOURCE:
2.0 Dealroom
onAll Dealroom.co data excludes the following:
lending capital, grants. Please also note the S O U R C E : Dealroom 1.5
data excludes Israel. 2019 annualised based 2015 2016 2017 2018
NOTE:
Photo by: Julius Konttinen

The UK,The
France
UK,and Germany
France are homeare
and Germany to the
homehighest
to the highest number of purpose-driven
numberThe
of purpose-driven
European techand
UK, France European
companies. tech companies.
Germany are home to the highest
number of purpose-driven European tech companies.
Top 20 countries by share of DATAS E T : TO P 1 0
purpose-driven European tech TOP 10
Top 20 countries by share of DATASET: TOP 10
companies
purpose-driven European tech
L E G E ND
companies
United Kingdom
% of purpose-driven companies
LEGE ND France
United Kingdom
% of all companies
% of purpose-driven companies Germany
France
% of all companies
Netherlands
Germany
Sweden
Netherlands
Finland
Sweden
Spain
Finland
Ireland
The UK, France and Germany are home to the highest Spain
number of purpose-driven European tech companies.

Italy
Ireland
The UK, France and Germany are home to the highest Italy
Switzerland
number of purpose-driven European

tech companies. 0.0
DATASET:
2.5
TOP 10
Switzerland
5.0 7.5 10.0 12.5 15.0 17.5 20.0 22.5 25.0
% of companies
purpose-driven European tech 0.0 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 12.5 15.0 17.5 20.0 22.5 25.0
NOTE: companies DATAS E T : R A N K 1 1 - 2 0 % of companies
purpose-driven Europeandebt,
NOTE: transactions,
biotech, secondary tech
LEGE ND SRANK
OURCE11-20
: Dealroom
United Kingdom
companies
data excludes Israel. 2019 annualisedcompanies
% of purpose-driven based
biotech,
on data to September secondary
2019. transactions, debt, France
% of all companies
L E G E ND data excludes Israel. 2019 annualised based Belgium
Germany
% of purpose-driven companies2019.
Denmark
Netherlands
% of all companies
Norway
Sweden
Austria
Finland
Poland
Spain
Portugal
Ireland
Russia
Italy
Estonia
Switzerland
Hungary
0.0 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 12.5 15.0 17.5 20.0 22.5 25.0
Lithuania % of companies
NOTE: 0.0 0.2 0.5 0.7 1.0 1.2 1.5 1.7 2.0 2.2 2.5 2.7 3.0
All Dealroom.co data excludes the following: % of companies
We’re beginning to see the industry pay attention to other intersections

beyond gender, such as race, class, ability and more. This intersectional
approach supports and celebrates individuals who have multiple
identities, such as black women. Over the past couple of months, there
have been a number of initiatives supporting these underrepresented
groups, such as EITFood Change Makers Programme; a two-day Osnat Michaeli
hackathon for women and people of colour in the agricultural sector and Infarm
Included VC; a 12-month venture capital fellowship group for marginalised Co-Founder
communities, such as veterans and refugees.

But looking on a relative basis, it's clear that some countries are much more overweight towards purpose-
driven tech companies when benchmarked against their overall share of all European tech companies. Sweden,
07.2 Purpose-drivenfor example, is home to nearly 10% of purpose-driven tech companies, but accounts for only 4.3% of all
Investment
European tech companies, a difference of 5.1% points.
But looking on a relative basis, it's clear that some countries are much
Rank of countries by %-point Sweden
more
overweight towards purpose-driven tech companies
difference in relative share of when benchmarked against
But looking on European
a relativetechbasis, it's clear that some Finland countries are much more overweight towards purpose-
their overall share of allpurpose-driven
European tech companies. Sweden, for example, is home 0.8
driven techversus
companies companies
all when benchmarked against their overall share of all European tech companies. Sweden,
European
to nearly 10% of purpose-driven
But looking tech companies,
on a relative basis, but
it's clear10%accounts
thatof
some for
countries only 4.3%
are much of all
fortech
example,
companiesis home to nearly purpose-driven
Austria techmore overweight
companies, towards
but purpose-
accounts for only 4.3%0.4of all
European tech companies,
driven techacompanies
European difference when
tech companies,of 5.1% apoints.
benchmarked against their overall share of all European tech companies. Sweden,
difference of 5.1% points.
for example, is home to nearly 10% of purpose-driven tech
United companies, but accounts for only 4.3% of all
Kingdom 0.1
LEGEND
European tech companies, a difference of 5.1% points.
%-point difference Netherlands 0.0
Rank of countries by %-point Sweden
difference
Rank in by
of countries relative
%-pointshare of Sweden
Hungary 0.0
4.5
difference in relative share

purpose-driven of
European tech Finland 0.8
purpose-driven European tech Finland 0.8
companies versus all European France -0.1
companies versus all European Austria 0.4
tech
tech companies
companies Austria 0.4
Belgium -0.1
United Kingdom United Kingdom 0.1 0.1
LEGEND
LEGEND
%-point difference
%-point difference Netherlands
Norway -0.3
Netherlands 0.0
0.0
Hungary Switzerland 0.0 -0.6

Hungary 0.0
France -0.1
Portugal -0.9
France -0.1
Belgium -0.1
Italy -1.0
Belgium -0.1
Norway -0.3
Denmark -1.1
Switzerland Norway -0.6 -0.3
Russia -1.2
Portugal -0.9
Switzerland -0.6
Italy Estonia -1.0 -1.2

Portugal -0.9
Denmark -1.1
Ireland -1.5
Italy -1.0
Russia -1.2
Lithuania -1.7
Denmark -1.1
Estonia -1.2
Poland -2.0
Ireland Russia -1.5 -1.2
Germany -4.2
Lithuania Estonia -1.7 -1.2
Poland Spain -5.1 -2.0

Ireland -1.5
Germany -6.0
-4.2 -5.0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0
Lithuania -1.7 %-point difference
Spain -5.1
NOTE:
Poland -2.0
-6.0 -5.0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
All Dealroom.co data excludes the following: %-point difference
Germany
SOURCE: Dealroom -4.2
NOTE:
on data
biotech, to September
secondary 2019.
transactions, debt, Spain -5.1
In absolute terms, London is the capital of purpose-driven European tech companies; it is home to nearly one
-6.0 -5.0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0
in 10 companies with a purpose-driven mission. But on a relative basis, Stockholm is by far
thedifference
%-point number one city,
with
In absolute terms, London the heaviest weighting towards purpose-driven tech companies compared to its share of all European
NOTE: is the capital of purpose-driven European tech
tech companies.
companies; it is home to nearly one in 10 companies with a purpose-driven
Inlending
absolute
mission. But on a relative basis, terms,
Stockholm
capital, grants. London
Please is by
also note is far
the thethe
capital of
number purpose-driven
SOURCE: one city, with European tech companies; it is home to nearly one
Dealroom
indata
the heaviest weighting 10data
Top
on
companies
10toEuropean
absolute terms,
September
withbyaisshare
cities
London
2019.
purpose-driven
Intowards purpose-driven the capital
mission.
techofcompanies London But on a relative basis, Stockholm is by far the number one city,
purpose-driven compared tocompanies;
European tech its it is home to nearly one
share of all Europeanwith
of
tech the heaviest
purpose-driven
in 10 companies.
companies with weighting
European techtowards
a purpose-driven purpose-driven
mission. But Stockholm techStockholm
on a relative basis, companiesis by compared
far the numbertoone
itscity,
share of all European
companies
tech
withcompanies.
the heaviest weighting towards purpose-driven tech companies compared to its share of all European
Paris
tech companies.
LEGEND Amsterdam
London
Top% 10
Top European
of10purpose-drivencities
tech
European cities by share
by companies
share London Berlin
ofof%
purpose-driven
purpose-driven European
European
of all European tech tech tech
companies Stockholm Stockholm
companies Helsinki
companies Paris
Paris
Dublin
LEGEND Amsterdam
LEGEND
% of purpose-driven tech companies Amsterdam
Berlin Zurich
%%ofofpurpose-driven
all European tech companies
tech companies Helsinki Berlin
Espoo
% of all European tech companies Dublin
Helsinki
Delft
Zurich
Dublin
Espoo 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0
Delft Zurich % of companies
NOTE: 0.0 1.0Espoo2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.0 15.0
% of companies
Delft
biotech,
lending capital,data
All Dealroom.co grants. Please
excludes also note the
the following:
SOURCE: Dealroom
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0
data excludes
biotech, Israel.
secondary 2019 annualised
transactions, debt, based
onlending
data to capital, grants. Please
September 2019.also note the % of companies
NOTE:

Places
What are the best hubs for European tech?

Cluj-Napoca, Romania, Delft, the Netherlands, Minsk, Belarus.
European tech is no longer driven by a handful of cities and a handful
of countries. More European countries can say they have created
a billion-dollar tech company. Universities across the region are
creating more spinoffs. And founders are choosing even more to
found where they are, further fueling local tech communities and
setting the stage for the global category winners of tomorrow.

Picking Places
Getting started
In the People chapter (06.2), we explored a number of the business-related
motivations behind why founders set up their companies where they did. We also
wanted to explore the personal side of this decision. In a European tech ecosystem
where there are so many emerging tech hubs and where people mobility is so
PICKING PL ACES
significant, whatThe
areanswer
the personal factors
from founders that shape
is interesting; thesigni
for the decision
cant to start a
60%+
company in one city versus
majority theregardless
(60%+), next? of the level of experience,
there is no place like home.
PICKING PL ACESchose to start where they live.
of all founders
The answer from founders is interesting; for the signi cant
60%+
The answer from founders
majorityis (60%+),
interesting; for theofsignificant
regardless PICKING
the level of experience,PICKING PLACES
PL ACES
The answer from founders is interesting; for the signi cant
majority (60%+), regardless
there is of the
no levelimportant
place of experience,
like home.
60%+
60%+
What were the most
majority (60%+), regardless of the level of experience, Already living there
there is no place like home.
personal
there is noconsiderations
place like home.for you of all founders chose to start
of all founders chose
when choosing where to locate where they to start where they
live. 36%
live.
of all
Strong founders
personal chose to start where they live.
network 32%
your company when you founded 42%
it? 32%
What
What were the
were the most
most important
important Strong and supportive local
Already living there
tech community
65%37%
64%
37%
personal considerations
LEGEND for you
for you 59%
when choosing
choosing where to locate 36% 29%
whenFirst-time where
founder to locate Strong personal network
Close to friends and family 32% 29% 32%
36%
your company when you founded Strong personal network
your
it?
company when you founded 42%
24% 42%
Repeat founder with limited experience in 32%
it?scaling company Strong and supportive local tech community 37% 22% 32%
Better 37% 25%
LEGEND Strong and supportive local techquality of life
community 37%
Repeat founder with signi cant 29% 33% 37%
First-time founder
experience in scaling company Close to friends and family
LEGEND 29%
3%
24% 29%
First-time founder
scaling company Visa restrictions
Close to friends and family 1%
22% 29%
Better quality of life 1% 25% 24%
Repeat founder
Repeat founder with signilimited
with cant experience in 33%
scaling company 3% 0 10 20 22% 30 40 50
Visa restrictions Better
1% quality of life 25% % of respondents
Repeat founder with signi cant 1%
33%
experience in scaling company 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
3%
% of respondents
Visa restrictions 1%
NOTE: 1%
InFounders
this
NOTE:
context, it's interesting to look at how
only. Numbers do not add to 100 as SOURCE: the Thepersonal considerations
State Of European Tech Survey vary for local founders who have
0 10 20 30 40 50
started
respondentstheir
Founders only.
could companies
do not add to 100 as in their home
choose
Numbers
multiple country
S O U R C E : The versus
State Of European migrant founders who have started in a country
Tech Survey other
% of respondents
responses.
than their country of origin. What is clear is that migrant founders are often already in situ prior to having
respondents could choose multiple
responses.
started their company, perhaps because they had already moved earlier in their career. This is an important
NOTE:
In this context, it's interesting
point thatto look at how
reinforces thethe needpersonal
for countries considerationsnot only tovary focus foron
local founders
attracting who from overseas, but also to
founders
Inrespondents
this context,
have started their companies
attract in
talent their
could it's
before
choose homeinteresting
they
multiple country
embark toversus
look
on their atmigrant
how thefounders
entrepreneurial who
journey. have started vary infor
a local founders who have
country other than theirstarted
responses.
countrytheirof companies
origin. What in their
is home
clear is country
that migrant versus migrantare
founders founders
often who have
already in started in a country other
In this context, it's interesting to look at how the personal considerations vary for local founders who have
than
situ prior to having started their country of origin. What is clear is that migrant founders are often their otherin situ prior to having
already
What their
started theirthecompany,
companies inperhaps
their home because
country versus they had already
migrant founders moved
who earlierinin
have started a country 55
were most important
started
career. This is an important their
point company,
that reinforces perhaps because they had already moved earlier
in their career. This is an important
than their
personal country
considerationsof origin. for you the need for countries not only to focus on attracting
What is clear is that migrant founders are often already in situ prior to having
point
startedthattheir reinforces
company, perhaps the need for they
because countrieshad already notmoved
only earlier
to focus oncareer.
in their attracting
This is founders
an importantfrom overseas, but also to
founders from overseas, when
pointbut also
choosing
that to attract
reinforces
where to
the they talent
locate
need for before
countries they embark on their entrepreneurial journey. 36%
attract talent
your company before
when you founded embark onnot onlyStrong
their to focus onnetwork
entrepreneurial
personal attracting founders
contacts) from overseas, but also to
journey.
(mentors,
36%
attract talent before they embark on their entrepreneurial journey.
it? 43%
Strong and supportive local tech community
55% 32% 55
What
What were
LEGEND were thethe most
most important
important Already living there Already living there
67%
personal considerations for you
personal
Founder
considerations
(migrant)
for you Close to friends and family
19%
when choosing where to locate 36%
when
your choosing
company where to locate Strong personal network (mentors, contacts) 31% 36%
Founder (local)when you founded Strong personal network (mentors, contacts) 36%
your
it? company when you founded 43% 33% 36%
it? Strong and supportive local tech community Better quality of life
32%
22% 43%
LEGEND
Strong and supportive local tech community 19%
Founder (migrant) Close to friends and family 4% 32%
LEGEND Visa restrictions 31%
Founder (local)
1% 19%
33%
Founder (migrant) Better quality of Close
life to friends and family
22% 31%
Founder (local) 0 10 20 30 40 50
4% % of respondents
Visa restrictions 33%
Better quality of life
1%
22%
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
NOTE: 4% % of respondents
Visa restrictions
Founders only. Numbers do not add to 100 as SOURCE: The State Of European Tech Survey 1%
respondents
NOTE: could choose multiple
responses. S O U R C E : The State Of European Tech Survey
0 10 20 30 40 50
respondents could choose multiple % of respondents
responses.
NOTE:
www.stateofeuropeantech.com SOURCE:
178 The State Of European Tech Survey In Partnership with &
responses.
08.1 Picking Places
Most founders also shared

Most that they
Most founders
founders are
also
also unlikely
shared to change
that they
shared their
are unlikely
that theytheare original
to change
unlikely
theirdecision. Given
original decision.
tomajority
change thethe
Given choice
choiceto
tostart
start over
and to found and build their company again, overwhelming of their original
founders, decision.
both rst-timers Given the choice to start over
and
over and to found andMost
build
and their
repeat,foundcompany
tofounders andalso
would choose
again,
shared
build
eithertheir the
that overwhelming
theywhere
company
to stay exactly are
again, majority
unlikely
they the to
tochange
of
are oroverwhelming
founders,
theirmajority
stay in Europe, but
both
original first-timers
decision.
of city. Given
founders,
in a different boththerst-timers
choice to start
and over
and repeat, would choose
and either
to
repeat, found
wouldtoand
stay
chooseexactly
build theirwhere
either companythey
to stay are orwhere
again,
exactly to stay
the in Europe,
overwhelming
they are or tobut in aindifferent
majority
stay city.
of founders,
Europe, but inboth rst-timers
a different city. and
repeat, would
If you were to startchoose
over, whereeither to stay
DATASexactly
E T : FO U ND E Rwhere
T YP E they are or to stay in Europe, but in a different city.
would you choose to found and
FOUNDER TYPE
Ifbuild
youyour
were company?
to start over, where DATASET: FOUNDER TYPE
If you
would were
you to starttoover,
choose found whereand 80 DATASET: FOUNDER TYPE
LEGEND
would
build youfounder
your
First-time choose to found and
company? 71%
67%
build your
Repeat company?
founder with limited experience in
scaling company 60%
80
60
LEGEND
Repeat founder with signi cant previous 80
LEGEND
experience in
First-time scaling company
founder 71%
% of respondents
67% 71%
First-time founder
Repeat founder with limited experience in 40 67% 60%
scaling
Repeat company
founder with limited experience in 60
scaling
Repeat company
founder with signi cant previous 60%
60
Most founders
experience also
with shared
in scaling company that they are unlikely to change their original decision. Given the choice to start over
of respondents
21%
Repeat founder signi cant previous 20
20%
andexperience
to foundinand build
scaling their company again, the overwhelming majority of founders,
company both rst-timers and
% of%respondents
14%
repeat, would choose either to stay exactly where they are 40 or to stay in Europe, but in6%
a different
8% 8%city.
6% 5%
4% 4% 3% 3%
0
40
In the same city In a different European city In a Silicon Valley/Bay Area In a different US city (not Silicon Somewhere else (e.g. Asia)
If you were to start over, where DATAS E T : C O MPA N Y S I Z E Valley/Bay Area)
would you choose to found and 20% 21%
build your company? COMPANY SIZE20 20% 21%
NOTE: 14%
20
Founders only. Numbers do not add to 100 as S O U R C E : The State Of European Tech Survey
LEGEND 14% 8% 8%
respondents could choose multiple 80 6% 6%
<11 employees
responses. 74%
8% 8% 4% 4%
68% 6% 6%
11-100 employees 0 4% 4%
64%
In the same city In a different European city In a Silicon Valley/Bay Area In a different US city (not Silicon
100+ employees 60 0 Valley/Bay Area)
In the same city In a different European city In a Silicon Valley/Bay Area In a different US city (not Silicon
% of respondents
Valley/Bay Area)
NOTE: 40
NOTE:
Founders only. Numbers do not add to 100 as SOURCE: The State Of European Tech Survey
26%
respondents could
Founders only. choose
Numbers domultiple
not add to 100 as SOURCE: The State20%
Of European Tech Survey
responses.
20 17%
responses.
STARTING OVER
Still, there are some differences by region worth noting. 7% 7%
5% 4% 4%
30%
2%
0% 0% 0%
The interest for the US and other international 0
In the same cityhubsIn a different European city In a Silicon Valley/Bay Area In a different US city (not Silicon Somewhere else (e.g. Asia)
Valley/Bay Area)
remains low, but European tech founders from CEE and
DACH are more likely to pick a location different from STARTING OVER STARTING OVER
Still,
NOTE:
there are some differences byworth
region worth noting. of founders from CEE would pick a different European ci
where
Still, they
there started.
are some differences by region noting.
30% 30%
SOUR C E : The State Of European Tech Survey
STARTING OVER
Still, there are some The
differences
interest
respondents
The
responses.
by
for
could choose
interest for region
the
multiple
the US US
and worth
and
other noting.
other The
international
international hubs interest hubs
for the US and other remains
international
remains low, low,but hubs
but remains
European
European low,founders
tech
tech founders but
fromEuropean
CEE from and CEE and
30%
DACH are more likelyover,
to pick a location different from
tech founders from CEEDACH
If and
you are
wereDACHmore
to are more likely to pick a locationfrom of founders from CEE would pickofa different
startlikely to pick
where a location different founders from city.
European CEE would pick
where they
would they started.to found and
you choose of founders from CEEEuropean
a different would pick a different European ci
city.
where
different from where they started. started.
build your company?
If you were to start over, where
would you choose to found and
LEGEND
If build
you your
were to start over, where
company?
would
CEE you choose to found and
build
LEGEND
DACH your company?
CEE
France & Benelux
DACH
LEGEND
Nordics
France & Benelux
CEE
Nordics
Rest of Europe
DACH
Rest of Europe
Southern Europe
Southern Europe
France
UK & Benelux
& Ireland
UK & Ireland
Nordics
In the same city
Rest of Europe In the In a different European city
same city Silicon Valley/Bay Area
In a different European city In a different US city (not Silicon
Silicon Valley/Bay Area Somewhere else (e.g. Asia)
In a different US city (not Silicon
Valley/Bay Area)
Valley/Bay Area)
Southern Europe
UK & Ireland
NOTE:
NOTE:
Founders only. Numbers do not add to 100 as S O U R C E : The State Of European Tech Survey
responses.only. Numbers do not add to 100 as
Founders SOURCE:InThe
theState
same Of
cityEuropean Tech
In a Survey
different European city Silicon Valley/Bay Area In a different US city (not Silicon
respondents could choose multiple Valley/Bay Area)
responses.
NOTE:
Founders only. Numbers do not add to 100 as SOURCE: The State Of European Tech Survey
responses.
Clearly there is way more Clearly there is way more international talent in French
startups than a few years ago. This is for two reasons.
international talent in First, President Macron has clearly projected a very
French startups than a pro-business image of France, which wasn't necessarily
few years ago. the case before. It's not just political blabla; the quality of
the startups here is also attracting this talent. But part of
it is also that entrepreneurs and startup employees are
looking for new locations different from some of the other, Roxanne Varza
more traditionally sought-after ecosystems. For example,
Station F
I don't hear as many entrepreneurs getting hyped up to
move to Silicon Valley. Director

08.1 Picking Places
Where next?
But staying in Europe does not mean settling for proximity.
European tech founders have international ambition and build
companies with this mindset.
In fact, European scale-ups, i.e. those that have reached $1B+ valuations or more, are more likely to have
internationalised than those in the US. 83% of European tech scale-ups established an international o ce
versus 70% of tech scale-ups in the United States. So how do founders chose where to go next?
In fact, European scale-ups, i.e. those that have reached $1B+ valuations or
more, are more likely to have internationalised than those in the US. 83% of
InShare
European tech scale-ups fact,of leading VC-backed
established
European an international
scale-ups, office
i.e. those thatversus 70% of tech
have reached $1B+ valuations or more, are more likely to have
European and Bay Area tech
internationalised
scale-ups in the United States. So how than
do those in the
founders US. 83%
chose whereof to
European
go tech scale-ups established an international o ce
next?
companies (%) with an
In fact, European scale-ups, i.e. those that have reached $1B+ valuations
versus 70% of
international o tech
internationalised
scale-ups in the United States.
ce footprint
than
European techSo howordo
companies
more, are more likely to have
founders chose where to83%go next?
those in the US. 83% of European tech scale-ups established an international o ce
versus 70% of tech scale-ups in the United States. So how do founders chose where to go next?
LEGEND
Share of leading VC-backed
International
Share o ce location
of leading
European and VC-backed
Bay Area tech
European and BayoArea
No international tech
ce location
companies (%)
companies (%) with with
an an European tech companies 83%
international o ce footprint
international o ce footprint
European tech companies 83% 17%
United States tech companies 70% 30%

LEGEND
LEGEND
International o ce location
International
No international o celocation
o ce location
No international o ce location
United States tech companies 0 10
70% 20 30 40 30%50 60 70 80
% of companies
United States tech companies 70% 30%
NOTE:
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Based on a sample of 80 European tech
% of companies
companies and 182 Bay Area tech companies
that have reached $1B+ milestone and/or
NOTE:
SOURCE:
raised more than $50M in venture capital, 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
excluding
companiesBiotech.
and 182 Bay Area tech companies % of companies
that have reached $1B+ milestone and/or SOURCE:
raised more than $50M in venture capital,
NOTE:
excluding Biotech.

companies and 182 Bay Area tech companies
that have reached $1B+ milestone and/or SOURCE:
raised more than $50M in venture capital,
excluding Biotech.
The Top 10 most popular countries
The Top 10 mostfor international
popular countriesoffice locations of
for international o ce locations of European tech scale-ups is dominated
by other
European tech scale-ups European countries,
is dominated most frequently
by other European countries, the UK and Germany, and then France. But the huge prize of
most
frequently the UK and Germany, and then France. But the huge prize of making means that the US comes in as the second
making a dent in the giant North American market unsurprisingly
mostAmerican
a dent in the giant North popular location
market forunsurprisingly
international omeans
ces for European
that the UStech scale-ups.
comes in as the second most popular location for international offices for
The Top 10 most popular countries for international o ce locations of European tech scale-ups is dominated
European tech scale-ups.
Top 10 most
by other popular countries
European
United Kingdom
countries, most frequently the UK and Germany, and then France. But the huge prize of
for international o ce locations
The Top 10 most popular countries for international oUnited
ce States
locations of European tech scale-ups is dominated
making
of other
by
aEuropean
European
dent incountries,
the giant
tech scale-ups
North American market
that
unsurprisingly means that the US comes in as the second
most frequently the UK and Germany, and then France. But the huge prize of
most
havepopular
making a dent inlocation
the giant
internationalised for international
North
their American marketo unsurprisingly
cesGermany
for European
means thattech scale-ups.
the US comes in as the second
58%
most
o cepopular location for international o ces for European
footprint tech scale-ups.
France 43%
UnitedSingapore
Kingdom 38%
Top 10 most popular countries United Kingdom 73%
Top 10 most popular countries
for
forinternational
international o oce locations
ce locations United States United States
Australia 36% 66%
ofofEuropean tech
European tech scale-ups
scale-ups that that
Germany Netherlands
Germany 34%
58% 58%
haveinternationalised
have internationalised theirtheir
o ce footprint France 43%
o ce footprint Spain
France 31% 43%
Singapore 38%
Singapore
Japan 28% 38%
Australia 36%
Netherlands Sweden
Australia 34% 25% 36%
Spain 31%
Netherlands 0 10 20 30 34% 40 50 60
Japan 28% % of internationalised companies with o ce in country
Spain 31%
Sweden 25%
NOTE: 0 Japan
10 20 30 40 5028% 60 70 80
% of internationalised companies with o ce in country
Based on a sample of 80 European tech Sweden 25%
companies that have reached $B+ milestone SOURCE:
NOTE:raised more than $50M in venture
and/or 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
capital, excluding
Based on a sample ofBiotech.
80 European tech
companies that have reached $B+ milestone SOURCE: % of internationalised companies with o ce in country
and/or raised more than $50M in venture
capital, excluding Biotech.
NOTE:
companies that have reached $B+ milestone SOURCE:
and/or raised more than $50M in venture
capital, excluding Biotech.

08.1 Picking Places
When you go to market Being a European company is one thing, being a Belgian
company is another. Personally I believe that the biggest
in your own local market, challenge for scaling in Europe is Europe's fragmented
you have a different scale marketplace. When you go to market with a product in
that you are working Europe, you aren't going to market in Europe as much
as you are going to market country by country. Every
against, which translates country has their own identities, languages, cultures,
into the availability laws, channels,… which means that - all else being Stijn Christiaens
equal - a dollar (or euro) spent in a US go-to-market
(or lack thereof) of goes a lot further than one distributed over the different
Collibra
experienced talent you geographies in Europe. If you then look at orders of Co-Founder & CTO
can find when you need magnitude, Belgium has 10M+ people, Germany 80M+,
France 65M+, the UK 66M+, ... whereas the US has 330M+
to scale up. people. This means that when you go to market in your
own local market you have a different scale that you are
working against, which translates into the availability (or
lack thereof) of experienced talent you can find when you
need to scale up.
London is an obvious choice as a location to start. It has attracted the most capital investment of any European
tech city, and
European it has
tech produced
continues the mosta$1B+
to undergo strong companies. It also has diversification,
level of geographic the highest density of startups,
meaning that talent and
investors. But it all comes at a cost. In terms of the cost of prime rent for o ce space, it's the most expensive
tech activity is growing in more cities in more countries than ever before. This trend also includes
ondon is anEuropean
London
city by some
obviousischoice
geographic obvious
distance.toOstart.
as achoice
andiversificationlocation
within
ce space
Ittohas
countries
as a location
inattracted
and
start.
Barcelona,the
away
It hasfrom
by most
contrast,
the main
attracted the
is about
capital
hubs. There
most capital
75% cheaper.
investment
are of anyofEuropean
potential
investment any European
ch city, andtech
it has produced
city, and it has the most
produced $1B+
the companies.
most $1B+ It also
companies. hasIt the
also highest
has the
downsides, of course, but there are also material benefits from the lower cost to operate density
highest of startups,
density of talenttalent
startups,
outside and and
vestors. But it all
investors. comes
But
of the main hubs.
Cost of prime rentat
it a
all
($ cost.
comes
per In
at
square terms
a cost.of
Inthe
termscostof of
the
London prime
cost rent
of for
prime o
rentce
forspace,
o ce it's
space,the most
it's the expensive
most expensive $1,470
uropean city European

metre
by some city
per year) by
for some
distance.o ceO distance.
space
ce spaceO inceBarcelona,
spaceParisin Barcelona, by contrast,
by contrast, is aboutis75%
about 75% cheaper.
cheaper. $966
by city, 2Q 2019
Geneva $870
Cost($ofper
prime rent ($ per square London $1,470
Cost of prime rent square London $1,470
Stockholm $850
metre per year)metre
for o perceyear)
spacefor o ce space Paris $966
by city, 2Q 2019 Paris
Dublin $796 $966
by city, 2Q 2019
Geneva $870
Geneva Zurich $870
$793
Stockholm $850
Stockholm Luxembourg $682$850
Dublin $796
Dublin Moscow $649
$796
Zurich $793
Zurich Oslo $644
$793
Luxembourg $682
Frankfurt $573
Luxembourg $682
Moscow $649
Helsinki $546
Moscow $649
Oslo $644
Munich $525
Oslo Frankfurt
$644 $573
Amsterdam $500
Frankfurt Helsinki $573 $546
Rome $489
Helsinki Munich $546 $525
Berlin $477
Munich Amsterdam $525 $500
Madrid $477
Amsterdam Rome $489
$500
Barcelona $361
Berlin $477
Rome $489
Brussels $358
Madrid $477
Berlin Budapest $477
$355
Barcelona $361
Madrid Vienna $477
$348
Brussels $358
Barcelona Athens $361 $341
Budapest $355
Brussels Warsaw $358 $327
Vienna $348
Budapest Lisbon $314
$355
Athens $341
0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600
Vienna $348
Warsaw $327 $ per square metre per year
Athens $341
Lisbon $314
NOTE: Warsaw 0 $327

200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600
SOURCE:
$ per square metre per year
EUR to USD (1 EUR = 1.1367 USD) conversion
Lisbon $314
taken from 30 June 2019 from Bloomberg.
0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600

NOTE: $ per square metre per year
SOURCE:
NOTE:
SOURCE:
08.1 Picking Places
European tech continues to undergo

European a strong
tech continues levelaof
to undergo geographic
strong diversification,
level of geographic meaning
diversi cation, that
meaning that tech activity is
growing in tech
European more cities in more to
continues countries thanaever
undergo strongbefore. This trend
level also includesdiversi
of geographic geographic diversi meaning
cation, cation that tech activity is
tech activity is growing in more cities in more countries than ever before. This trend also includes
within countries and away from the main hubs. There are potential downsides, of course, but there are also
growing
geographic diversification in
within
material more cities
bene countries in
ts from the lower more
andcost countries
away from outside
to operate than
the main ever before.
hubs.
of the This trend also
There are potential
main hubs. includes geographic diversi cation
downsides, of course, within countries
but there are alsoand material
away from the main
benefits from hubs. theThere
lowerarecostpotential downsides,
to operate outsideof course, but there are also
material bene ts from the lower cost to operate outside of the main hubs.
of the main hubs. Cost of prime rent ($ per square DATAS E T : F R A N C E
metre per year) for o ce space
by city in selected countries, 2Q
2019 FRANCE DATASET: FR ANCE
Cost of prime rent ($ per square
Paris $966
2019
Marseille $364
Lyon $341
Paris
Nice $261
European tech continues to undergo a strong level ofMarseille

geographic diversi cation, meaning that tech activity is
$364
growing in more cities in more countries thanLille

ever before. This trend also
$261 includes geographic diversi cation
within countries and away from the main hubs. There are potential downsides, of course, but there
Lyon $341
are also
material bene ts from the lower cost to operate
Bordeaux outside of the main $239
hubs.
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 1,100
Nice $261
Prime Rent ($ per square metre per year)
Cost of prime rent ($ per square DATAS E T : G E R M A N Y
byNOTE:
city in selected countries, 2Q Lille $261
2019
Based on data for 2Q 2019. EUR to USD (1 EUR
GERMANY
SOURCE:
= 1.1367 USD) conversion taken from 30 June
2019 from Bloomberg.
Frankfurt Bordeaux $239 $573
Munich 0 100 200 300 400 500 600

$525 700 800 9
Berlin $477
NOTE: Hamburg $409

European
Based on datatech continues
for 2Q 2019. EUR totoUSD
undergo
(1 EUR a strong levelSOURCE:
of geographic diversi cation, meaning that tech activity is
growing in more
= 1.1367 USD) cities
conversion in from
taken more 30countries
June than ever before. This trend also includes geographic diversi
Dusseldorf $382 cation
2019 from
within Bloomberg.and away from the main hubs. There are potential downsides, of course, but there are also
countries
material bene ts from the lower cost to operate Cologne outside of the main hubs. $327
European tech continues to undergo

Cost of prime rent ($ per square
a0strong
DATAS E T : S PA I N
50
level
100
of150geographic
200 250
diversi
300
cation,
350 400
meaning
450 500
that550tech600activity
650
is
growing
metre perin more
year) for o cities
ce spacein more countries than ever before. This trend also includes geographic diversi cation
within
NOTE: countries and away from the main hubs. There are potential downsides, of course, but there are also
2019
SPAIN
material
Based on databene tstofrom
for 2Q 2019. EUR USD (1 EURthe lowerS cost
OURCE:
to operate outside of the main hubs.
Madrid $477
Cost of prime rent ($ per square DATASET: FR ANCE

Barcelona $361

by city in selected countries, 2Q Valencia $177
2019
Malaga $171
Zaragoza Paris $164
Palma de Mallorca $143

Marseille $364
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Lyon $341
NOTE:
Based on data for 2Q 2019. EUR to USD (1 EUR SUNITED

O U R C E : KINGDOM
Nice $261
Lille $261
Bordeaux $239
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 9

NOTE:
Based on data for 2Q 2019. EUR to USD (1 EUR SOURCE:

08.1 Picking Places
As consumers are more and more aware that tech is changing

their lives, this conversation between governments and tech is only
going to become more crucial.
For a European tech company, the challenge The latter is something I think will only
is always around paths to expansion. As a become more important. Fintech is a good
continent, we are made up of many different example of this already in action — London Simon Cook
markets, with separate cultures and became the world leader because the Draper Esprit
languages. For a startup in China or the US, regulators have been engaging with the CEO
their initial markets are much, much larger. technology, not because it has been left
European startups, on the other hand, have alone to do its own thing. As consumers are
to think global from day one. This can be their more and more aware that tech is changing
strength, of course, but to succeed they their lives, this conversation between
have to be absolutely ruthless about product governments and tech is only going to
market fit. The flip side is that we are much become more crucial.
more diverse as a continent, have some of the
best universities in the world (especially for
deep tech) and are more open to regulation.
The material increase in the cost of prime rent in certain cities over the past five years is certainly a
consideration for founders. In Stockholm, for example, office space rental costs are up 76% since
2013, while in Berlin they are up 56%.
TOP TEN
The material increase in the cost of prime rent in certain cities over the past �ve years is certainly a
consideration for founders. In Stockholm, for example, o�ce space rental costs are up 76% since 2013, while in
Berlin they are up 56%.
Top 20 cities by change in prime DATASE T : R ANK 1 1- 20

rent per square metre, 2Q 2019 RANK 11-20
versus 2Q 2014
Malmo 35%
Budapest 30%
Amsterdam 28%
Bristol 27%
Gothenburg 26%
Hamburg 25%
Jersey 25%
Lisbon 24%
Valencia 24%
Riga 23%
0 3 5 8 10 13 15 18 20 23 25 28 30 33 35 38 40
% change in prime rent per square metre per annum
SO U R C E :

08.1 Picking Places
The cost of office space is perhaps not at the top of the list of considerations for founders when
thinking
The about
cost of o ce where
spacetoisstart and build
perhaps not atathe
company, butlist
top of the theofdata certainly helps'
considerations to understand
for founders the
when thinking about
relative
where tocost
startof different
and cities, particularly
build a company, as companies
but the data choose
certainly helps' to scale and
to understand thebuild office
relative presence
cost of different
cities,
acrossparticularly as companies
multiple locations as theychoose to scale
grow and seekand buildeither
access o ce topresence across multiple
new customers or newlocations as they
talent pools.
grow and seek access either to new customers or new talent pools.
UK & IRELAND
Prime rent ($ per square metre DATASET: UK & IREL AND
per year) by city in selected
countries, Q2 2018 vs Q2 2019
LEGE ND $1,491
London
Q2 2018 $1,470
Q2 2019
$816
Dublin
$796
$532
Jersey
$547
NOTE: $554
Q2 2018 EUR to USD conversion rate taken South East
at 1 to 1.1663 from 30 June 2018; Q2 2019 $533
taken at 1 to 1.1367 from 30 June 2019.
$511
Manchester
$492
$461
Bristol
FRANCE & BENELUX CEE
$479
$483
Edinburgh
$479
$468
Birmingham
$465
$461
Glasgow
$444
$461
Aberdeen
$444
$426
Leeds
$410
The cost
ce is perhaps not at the top of the list of considerations for founders when thinking of o ce space is perhaps not at the top of the list of considerations for founders when thinking about
about
d a company, but the data certainly helps' to understand the relative cost ofwhere $298
to start and build a company, but the
different data certainly helps' to understand the relative cost of different
Liverpool
ompanies choose to scale and build o ce presence across multiple locations cities, particularly as companies choose to scale
as they $328 and build o ce presence across multiple locations as they
either to new customers or new talent pools. grow and seek access either to new customers or new talent pools.
$298
Belfast
metre DATASET: NORDICS Prime rent ($ per square metre DATAS E T : DAC H
$301
ed NORDICS per year) by city in selected DACH
019 countries, Q2 2018 vs Q2 2019
$298
Southampton
LEGEND $849 $855
Stockholm $287
Geneva
$870
Q2 2018 $850
$755
Zurich
Oslo Q2 2019$637 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 $793
1,400 1,600
$644 $560
Frankfurt
$560 Prime Rent ($ per square metre per year)$573
Helsinki $518
$546 Munich
$525
$357 $441
Gothenburg Berlin
$371 $477
NOTE: $313 Hamburg
$378
Malmo $409
Q2 2018 EUR to USD conversion rate taken at

$338
SOURCE: Dusseldorf
$378
$297 $382
1 to 1.1663 from 30 June 2018; Q2 2019$289
Copenhagen taken $357
Vienna
at 1 to 1.1367 from 30 June 2019.
$227
$348
Aarhus $308
$221 Cologne
$327
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000
e is perhaps not at the top of the list of considerations for founders when
Prime Rent ($ per thinking
The
square metre cost
per year) about
of o ce space is perhaps not at the top of the list of considerations forPrime
founders when
Rent ($ per square thinking
metre per year) about
d a company, but the data certainly helps' to understand the relative cost of different where to start and build a company, but the data certainly helps' to understand the relative cost of different
ompanies choose to scale and build o ce presence across multiple locations cities,
as they
NOTE: particularly as companies choose to scale and build o ce presence across multiple locations as they
either
e taken atto new customers
SOURCE: or new talent pools. grow
Q2 2018and seek
EUR to access
USD conversion rateeither
taken at to new customers
S O U R C E : or new talent pools.
019 taken 1 to 1.1663 from 30 June 2018; Q2 2019 taken
at 1 to 1.1367 from 30 June 2019.
etre DATASET: SOUTHERN EUROPE Prime rent ($ per square metre DATAS E T : R E ST O F E U R O P E
d
SOUTHERN EUROPE per year) by city in selected
REST OF EUROPE
019 countries, Q2 2018 vs Q2 2019
LEGEND $490
Rome
$489 $726
Q2 2018 $451 Moscow
Madrid
$477 $649
Q2 2019
$343
Barcelona
$361
$350 $478
Athens
$341 St Petersburg
Lisbon $287 $475
$314
$217
Porto
$246 $503
$151 Istanbul
Valencia
$177 $419
$168
Malaga
$171
$157 $276
Zaragoza
$164 Kiev
Palma de Mallorca $140 $299
$143
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Prime Rent ($ per square metre per year) Prime Rent ($ per square metre per year)
NOTE:
taken at SOURCE: Q2 2018 EUR to USD conversion rate taken at SOURCE:
9 taken 1 to 1.1663 from 30 June 2018; Q2 2019 taken
at 1 to 1.1367 from 30 June 2019.

08.1 Picking Places
Amsterdam has builtAmsterdam has built a growing

a growing reputation as an reputation as an attractive location choice for international tech companies to
set upfor
attractive location choice overseas o cestech
international - and it's not hard to see why. It is home to one of Europe's largest developer talent
companies to set up clusters
overseas and also offers
offices reasonable costs in terms of o ce space.
- and it's
not hard to see why. It is home to one of Europe's
largest developer talent clusters
Number and also offers
of professional
reasonable costs in terms of office
Amsterdam
developers hasspace.
versusbuilt
primearent
growing
($ reputation as1,500
an attractive location choice for international tech companies to
year)($ per square metre per year)

perup
set square
Amsterdam metre
overseas
has per
built year)
oa growing
ces - and it's not
reputation hard
as an to seelocation
attractive why. It is home
choice to one oftech
for international Europe's largest
companies to developer talent
versus
set up capital invested
overseas o ces ($M)it's
- and bynot hard to see why. It is home to one of Europe's largest developer talent
clusters and also
city (bubble size)
offers reasonable costs in terms of o ce space.
clusters and also offers reasonable costs in terms of o ce space.
1,000
Number
Number ofof professional
professional
developers versus prime rent ($
developers versus prime rent ($ 1,500
Prime rent ($ per square metre per year)

per square metre per year) 1,500
per square
capitalmetre per year)
perrent
versus invested ($M) by
versus capital
city (bubble size) invested ($M) by 500
Prime
city (bubble size)
Prime rent ($ per square metre

1,000
1,000
0
500
0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 400,000 4
500
0
0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 400,000 450,000 500,000 550,…
NOTE:
Bubble size represents the capital invested SOURCE: Dealroom
amount annualised based on data to
0
September
NOTE: 2019.
SOURCE:
0Dealroom 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 400,000 4
Bubble size represents the capital invested
amount annualised based on data to # of professional developers
September 2019.
NOTE:
Bubble size represents the capital invested SOURCE: Dealroom

amount annualised based on data to
September 2019.
The average capital invested ($) per professional developer has increased by 23% year-over-year. Berlin, and
The average capital invested ($) per professional
now also Munich and Bucharest, rank in the top 10 cities, asserting Germany's position as the technical
developer has increased by 23% year-over-year.
powerhouse of Europe.
Berlin, and now also Munich and Bucharest, rank
in the top 10 cities, asserting Germany's position
Topaverage
The
as the technical powerhouse 10 European cities invested
capital
of Europe. for capital ($) per professional developer has increased by 23% year-over-year. Berlin, and
invested ($) per professional
now also Munich and Bucharest, rank indeveloper
the top 10 cities, asserting Germany'sBerlin,
position
and as the technical
($) per professional developer
The average
developer capital invested ($) per professional has
100,000 increased by 23% year-over-year.
powerhouse
now also Munichofand
Europe.
Bucharest, rank in the top 10 cities, asserting Germany's position as the technical
powerhouse of Europe.
LEGEND
75,000
Capital invested per professional
Top
Top 10European
10 European
developer cities
($) cities for capital
for capital
invested ($)
invested ($) perper professional
professional
European average ($)
developer
100,000
Capital invested ($) per professional developer
100,000
developer
developer 50,000
Capital invested
LEGEND
Capital invested ($) per professional
LEGEND
Capital invested per professional
75,000
developer ($) 75,000

Capital invested per professional 25,000
European average
developer ($) ($)
50,000
European average ($)
50,000
25,000 0
Berlin Stockholm London Barcelona Dublin Paris Helsinki Hamburg
NOTE:
0
25,000
Investment amounts are based on capital Berlin Stockholm London Barcelona Dublin Paris Helsinki Hamburg Munich Bucharest
invested in the cities in aggregate between
NOTE:
2015 and 2019 9M divided by the total number
ofInvestment amounts
professional are based onincapital
developers the city. Only SOURCE: Dealroom
invested in the cities in aggregate between 0
cities with
2015 and 2019at9Mleast 50,000
divided professional
by the total number Berlin Stockholm London Barcelona Dublin Paris Helsinki Hamburg
developers indevelopers
of professional 2019 areinincluded.
the city. Only SOURCE: Dealroom
cities with at least 50,000 professional
NOTE:
developers in 2019 are included.
Investment amounts are based on capital

invested in the cities in aggregate between
2015 and 2019 9M divided by the total number
of professional developers in the city. Only SOURCE: Dealroom
cities with at least 50,000 professional
developers in 2019 are included.

08.1 Picking Places
ty of certain countries to mobilise their talent pool effectively and look

ased onItthe size
is also of the
interesting local the
to assess professional developer
capacity of certain countries totalent
mobilise base.
their
e lead, but it is also important to note that countries in Central &
talent pool effectively and look at how much capital has been invested based
on the size of the local professional developer talent base. Finland and the
nia and United
Estonia areare
Kingdom starting
in the lead,to butemerge
It is also interesting though
to assess being
the capacity
it is also important to note that under
countriesthe
of certain
in radar
countries to mobilise their talent pool effectively and look
at how much capital has been invested based on the size of the local professional developer talent base.
Central & Eastern Europe
Finland such as Romania, Lithuania and Estonia are
but starting
is also to
It is alsoand the United
interesting Kingdom
to assess theare in the
capacity lead, it countries
of certain important to note
to mobilise that
their countries
talent in Centraland
pool effectively & look
emerge though beingEastern
under the radar the year before.
Europe such as Romania, Lithuania and Estonia are starting to emerge though being under the radar
at how much capital has been invested based on the size of the local professional developer talent base.
the yearand
Finland before.
the United Kingdom are in the lead, but it is also important to note that countries in Central &
Eastern Europe such as Romania, Lithuania and Estonia are starting to emerge though being under the radar
the yearinvested
Capital before.($) per
professional developer by
country
Capital invested ($) per
professional
LEGEND
developer by
country
up to 50,000
40,000 to 45,000
LEGEND
35,000 to 40,000
up to 50,000
30,000 to 35,000
40,000 to 45,000
25,000 to 30,000
35,000 to 40,000
20,000 to 25,000
30,000 to 35,000
15,000 to 20,000
25,000 to 30,000
10,000 to 15,000
20,000 to 25,000
5,000 to 10,000
15,000 to 20,000
up to 5,000
10,000 to 15,000
5,000 to 10,000
up to 5,000
NOTE:
Investment amounts are based on capital

invested in the country in aggregate
between 2015 and 2019 9M divided by the
NOTE:
total number of professional developers in SOURCE: Dealroom
Investment
the country.amounts are based
Only countries withon
at capital
least 1
invested in the country
million inhabitants in aggregate
included.
between 2015 and 2019 9M divided by the
total number of professional developers in SOURCE: Dealroom
the country. Only countries with at least 1
million inhabitants included.
European tech can grow faster by tapping into hidden talent pools. The number of professional developers
compared with the amount of capital invested in countries across the region suggests that countries such as
European tech can grow faster by tapping
the Netherlands, Spaininto
andhidden
Poland talent pools.
still have the The number
potential to exceed expectations in the European tech
of professional developers compared with the amount of capital invested in
ecosystem.
countries across the region suggests that countries such as the Netherlands,
SO U RCE: European tech can grow faster by tapping into hidden talent pools. The number of professional developers
Spain and PolandDealroom
still have the potential to exceed expectations in the European
compared with
Professional
European tech canthe
growamount
developer of capital
talentby tapping
faster invested
into hidden talentinpools.
countries across
The number the region
of professional suggests that countries such as
developers
tech ecosystem. the compared with the
Netherlands,
pool vs capital amount
Spain
invested ofand
($M) capital invested
by Poland in countries
still theacross
have 1,000,000 the region
potential suggests expectations
to exceed that countries such
in as
the European tech
the Netherlands,
country, Spain and Poland still have the potential to exceed expectations in the European tech
2015-2019 Germany
ecosystem.
ecosystem.
750,000
Professional developer
Professional talenttalent
developer
pool vs capital invested ($M) by 1,000,000
pool vs capital
country, 2015-2019 invested ($M) by 1,000,000 Germany
France
500,000 Germany United Kingdom
country, 2015-2019
Russia
750,000
ItalyNetherlands
Spain
750,000 Poland
250,000 France
500,000 Ukraine Sweden
Russia
Turkey Switzerland
Belgium
Romania
Austria
Czech Republic
Denmark
Portugal
Hungary
NorwayFinland
Ireland France
Italy Spain Greece
Netherlands Belarus
Bulgaria
Serbia
Poland
500,000
250,000 Russia
Ukraine
Turkey
0 Sweden
Switzerland
Belgium
Romania
Austria
Czech Republic
Denmark
Portugal
Finland
0 5,000
Netherlands
Spain 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000
PolandItaly
Hungary
Norway
Greece Ireland
Belarus
Bulgaria
Serbia
0 250,000
0 Ukraine
5,000 10,000 Sweden
15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000
NOTE: Turkey Switzerland
Belgium
Romania
Austria
Czech Republic Capital invested ($M)
Denmark
Portugal
Hungary
NorwayFinland
Ireland
Capital invested is based on amount invested Greece
Belarus
Bulgaria
Serbia
NOTE:
in respective countries in aggregate
Capital invested is based on amount invested
between 2015 and 2019 9M. Only countries SOURCE: 0 Dealroom
in respective countries in aggregate 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000
with at least
between 50,000
2015 and professional
2019 9M. Only countriesdevelopers SOURCE: Dealroom
inwith
2019 are 50,000
at least included.
professional developers Capital invested ($M)
in 2019 are included.
NOTE:
Capital invested is based on amount invested

in respective countries in aggregate
between 2015 and 2019 9M. Only countries SOURCE: Dealroom
with at least 50,000 professional developers
in 2019 are included.

08.1 Picking Places
There are a number There are a number of challenges facing the tech
ecosystem in Spain. However, the biggest issue by far
of challenges facing is a lack of real support for the tech companies here,
the tech ecosystem in especially when compared with France or Portugal.
Spain. However, the While it's fair to say that policymakers around the world
biggest issue by far is are wrestling with how to effectively regulate disruptive
a lack of real support technologies, the vast majority are trying to do so without
Oscar Pierre
reigning in or stifling innovation. In Spain, the impact of
for the tech companies regulators so far suggests a determination to hold back Glovo
here, especially when new technologies and new ways of working in favour of Co-Founder & CEO
compared with France or maintaining the traditional industries' status quo. From
our point of view, Spain is the only country (out of the 26 in
Portugal. which we operate globally) where we haven't been able to
open a constructive dialogue with local regulators around
the labour market rules for startup workers. When you
couple this with rising taxes, and a tax system not adapted
to providing share-based incentives to employees, it can
be difficult for tech companies to gain a foothold in the
Spanish market without quickly becoming embattled.
In terms of its strengths, Spain has so much to offer the

global tech community. It's easy to attract top talent,
especially to Barcelona, and there are many good
universities here. The high quality of life and low living
cost also make it much more affordable than other big
European tech hubs, such as London, to set up and launch
a business. And the country's geographical position
makes expansion in Europe easy and gives it a distinct
advantage in Latin America, due to the cultural ties with
that region.

Budgeting for your (Series) A Team
'Cheat sheet'
How much does it cost to start and build a team in different European cities?
It should be an easy question to answer. Of course, it really isn’t.
We don’t have a perfect answer, but to help we’ve put together an

illustrative org chart for a Series A stage software-as-a-service
(SaaS) company. No two teams are the same, but we think it
provides a reasonable benchmark on what a team might look like
for this type of business at that stage.
We then enriched our ‘dream team’ dataset with data from Aon's
rewards data (covering base salary and actual incentives) and
CBRE’s dataset on the prime rent cost of office space. We then
built this out to give cost benchmarks for ten key European tech
hubs, as well as providing a comparison with the equivalent cost
to build the team from the Bay Area.
No methodology is ever perfect, but this should help founders
(and others) to understand what it costs to set up and build in
different European tech hubs.

08.2 Budgeting for your (Series) A Team
Assembling your Series A dream team

role / number of headcounts
Engineering Product Sales & Marketing Operations Finance

Senior Software 1-3 Product Managers 1 Sales Director/VP Sales Operation Manager/ 1 Finance Manager
2 1
Engineers Chief Operations Officer
1-2 Account Executive
2-5 Software Engineers 1 Office Manager
2-4 SDRs
1 UX Designer 1 HR Manager/Recruiter
2-4 Customer Success
1 Data Analyst
1 VP/Marketing Director
2-3 Marketing Managers
Budgeting for your team of 20-30 people

$M per year
SAL ARY COST ($M) OFFICE SPACE COST ($M) TOTAL COST BASE ($M)
# CITY
20PPL AVG. 30PPL 20PPL AVG. 30PPL 20PPL AVG. 30PPL
Bay Area 2.81 3.48 4.15 0.29 0.37 0.44 3.11 3.85 4.59
1 London 1.79 2.21 2.62 0.47 0.59 0.71 2.26 2.80 3.33
2 Copenhagen 2.11 2.62 3.12 0.09 0.12 0.14 2.20 2.73 3.26
3 Munich 1.97 2.43 2.90 0.17 0.21 0.25 2.14 2.64 3.15
4 Dublin 1.68 2.08 2.47 0.25 0.32 0.38 1.93 2.39 2.85
5 Paris 1.60 1.96 2.33 0.31 0.39 0.46 1.91 2.35 2.79
6 Amsterdam 1.71 2.10 2.50 0.16 0.20 0.24 1.87 2.30 2.74
7 Berlin 1.67 2.07 2.47 0.15 0.19 0.23 1.82 2.26 2.70
8 Stockholm 1.49 1.85 2.22 0.27 0.34 0.41 1.76 2.19 2.62
9 Barcelona 1.42 1.71 2.00 0.12 0.14 0.17 1.53 1.85 2.17
10 Madrid 1.32 1.61 1.89 0.15 0.19 0.23 1.47 1.80 2.12
NOTES: ‘Series A team’ composition is for illustrative purpose. The headcounts are based on a proprietary dataset of Series A SOURCE:
Software-as-a-Service Series A companies compiled by Atomico. ‘Salaries cost’ is based on Radford’s salary surveys
for technology and sales functions. The data accounts only for base salary and actual incentives ( average 50th
percentile) across a number of job titles best representative of those referred to in the Series A team. For the ‘office
space cost’, the data is based on CBRE estimates ($/sqm) per city and an average of 8 sqm per headcount. For a team
of 20-30 people we estimated that the space required needed to be based on a total headcount of 40-60 people
(respectively) to accommodate for further growth. Radford data is as of July 2019 and CBRE data as of June 2019.

Explorethe
Explore thebreakdown
breakdownbybycity
cityand
andbyby function
function forfor the overall cost base:
the
Explore the breakdown by city and by function for the
overall cost base: overall cost base:
Annual cost base ($k) for 20-30 MADRID

DATAS E T : M A D R I D
Annual cost base ($k) for 20-30 NOTE: peopleDATASET:

Series A MADRID
team per city
people Series A team per city 'Salary cost' based on rewards data from
LEGEND
Aon. 'Office space cost' based on CBRE $346k
Engineering team salary
estimates per city and an estimated 8 $81k
Product team salary
LEGE ND sqm/headcount. We estimated a total $120k
Operations team salary
headcount of 40-60 people for space
20 people $346k
$700k
Engineering team salary Sales & Marketing team salary
required to accommodate for growth. $81k $71k
Finance team salary
Product team salary $153k
O ce space cost $120k
Operations team salary 20 people
$456k
$700k
Sales & Marketing team salary $244k
$71k $120k
Finance team salary 30 people
$1,001k
$153k
O ce space cost $71k
$229k
by city and by function for the Explore the breakdown by city and by function for the
overall cost base: $456k
NOTE:
'Salary cost' based on rewards data from $244k
Aon. 'O ce space cost' based on CBRE
0-30 DATASET: BARCELONA Annual cost
per citybase
and an($k) for 20-30 $120k
DATAS E T : STO C K H O L M
ty BARCELONA estimates
people Series
sqm/headcount.
30 people
estimated
WeAestimated
team per
8
city
a total STOCKHOLM
SOURCE:
required to accommodate for growth. $1,001k
LEGEND
$416k $391k
$71k
$69k $81k
Product team salary $229k
$132k $157k
20 people Operations team salary 20 people
$723k $783k
Sales & Marketing team salary
$76k $77k
NOTE: Finance team salary
$116k $272k
O ce space cost
'Salary cost' based on rewards data from
Aon. 'O ce space cost' based on CBRE $559k $552k
estimates per city and$206k

an estimated 8 $243k
sqm/headcount.$132k
We estimated a total SOURCE: $157k
30 people 30 people
headcount of 40-60 people for space $1,027k $1,188k
required to accommodate
$76k
for growth. $77k
$174k $408k
NOTE:
overall cost base:
om 'Salary cost' based on rewards data from
E Aon. 'O ce space cost' based on CBRE
8 estimates per city and an estimated 8
SOURCE: SOURCE:
l
0-30 BERLIN
DATASET: BERLIN sqm/headcount. We estimated a total
Annual cost base ($k) for 20-30
headcount of 40-60 people for space AMSTERDAM
DATAS E T : A M ST E R DA M
.ty people
required toSeries A team
accommodate for per city
growth.
LEGEND
$497k $468k
$91k $93k
Product team salary
$173k $175k
$805k $874k
$102k $100k
Finance team salary
$153k $160k
O ce space cost
$701k $636k
$274k $280k
$173k $175k
30 people 30 people
$1,219k $1,308k
$102k $100k
$229k $240k
overall cost base:
NOTE:
0-30 DATASET: PARIS Annual cost baseand ($k) for 20-30 DATAS E T : D U B L I N
8
lty PARIS
SOURCE:
estimates
people
per city
SeriesWe
sqm/headcount.
an estimated
A team
8
pera total
estimated city DUBLIN
SOURCE:
. required to accommodate for growth.
LEGEND
$434k $494k
$88k $105k
Product team salary
$157k $183k
$835k $807k
$84k $91k
Finance team salary
$309k $255k
O ce space cost
$590k $680k
$265k $314k
$157k $183k
30 people 30 people
$1,233k $1,204k
$84k $91k
$464k $382k
overall
NOTE: cost base:

0-30 DATASET: PARIS Annual cost base ($k) for 20-30 DATAS E T : D U B L I N
SOURCE:
l
ty MUNICH
SOURCE: sqm/headcount. We estimated a total
people
headcountSeries
of 40-60Apeople
teamforper city
space
COPENHAGEN
LEGEND
$434k $494k
$88k $105k
Product team salary
$157k $183k
$835k $807k
$84k $91k
Finance team salary
$309k $255k
O ce space cost
$590k $680k
$265k $314k
$157k $183k
30 people 30 people
$1,233k $1,204k
$84k $91k
$464k $382k
NOTE:

SOURCE: sqm/headcount. We estimated a total SOURCE:
l

ANNUAL
by city and by function COST BASE ($K) FOR 20-30 PEOPLE SERIES
for the A TEAM
Explore thePER CITY by city and by function for the
breakdown
overall cost base:
0-30 LONDON
DATASET: LONDON Annual cost base ($k) for 20-30 BAY AREA
DATAS E T : BAY A R E A
ty people Series A team per city
LEGEND
$529k $941k
$105k $175k
Product team salary
$168k $297k
$896k $1,247k
$93k $150k
Finance team salary
$470k $295k
O ce space cost
$699k $1,316k
$314k $526k
$168k $297k
30 people 30 people
$1,351k $1,861k
$93k $150k
$706k $442k
NOTE:
l SOURCE: sqm/headcount. We estimated a total SOURCE:
Although London is the most expansive European city overall when taking into account both office
space and talent, Copenhagen and Munich come first when accounting for talent alone.
Although LondonLondon
Although is the most
is theexpansive European
most expansive city overall
European city when
overalltaking
wheninto account
taking both o�ce
into account bothspace
o�ceand
space and
talent, Copenhagen and Munich
talent, Copenhagen come �rst
and Munich when
come �rstaccounting for talent
when accounting foralone.
talent alone.
Annual salary cost ($k)cost

for 20-30 20 PEOPLE
DATAS ET: 20 PEOPLE
Annual salary ($k) for 20-30 DATASET: 20 PEOPLE
people Series
peopleA Series
team per city per city
A team
L E G E ND Madrid
LEGE ND Madrid
Engineering team salary Barcelona
Barcelona
Product team salary
Product team salary
Stockholm
Operations team salary Stockholm
Sales & Marketing team salary Paris
Finance team salary Berlin
Finance team salary Berlin
Dublin
Dublin
Amsterdam
Amsterdam
Although London is the most expansive European city overall when taking into account both o�ce space and
London
London
talent, Copenhagen and Munich come �rst when accounting for talent alone.
Munich
Munich
Although London is the most expansive EuropeanCopenhagen

city overall when taking into account both o�ce space and
Copenhagen
Annual salary cost ($k) for 20-30 DATASET: 20 PEOPLE
talent, Copenhagen and Munich come �rst when
Bay Area accounting for talent alone.
people Series A team per city Bay Area
LEGE ND DATAS E T : 3 0 P EMadrid

OPLE
Annual salary cost ($k) for 20-30
NOTE: Engineering team salary 30 PEOPLE
people Series
NOTE: A team per city SOURCE: Barcelona
SOURCE:
Product
'Salary cost' based team salary
on rewards data from
Aon. 'Salary cost' based on rewards data from Stockholm
L E G E ND Aon. Operations team salary Madrid
EngineeringSales
team&salary
Marketing team salary Paris
Barcelona
Product team salary team salary
Finance Berlin
Stockholm
Dublin
Finance team salary Amsterdam

Berlin
London
Dublin
Munich
Amsterdam
Copenhagen
London
Bay Area
Munich
Copenhagen
Bay Area
NOTE: SOURCE:
Aon.
NOTE: SOURCE:
Aon.

Research & Technology Hubs
Europe enjoys a broad technical talent base composed of professionals with a scientific
Europe enjoys
or technical a broadbackground.
training technical talent
Thebase composed
UK and Germany ofare
professionals
the region'swith a scienti c or
powerhouses, technical training
followed
background. The UK and
by France, Spain and Poland. Germany are the region's powerhouses, followed by France, Spain and Poland.
Europe enjoys a broad technical talent base composed of professionals with a scienti c or technical training
Europe enjoys a broad technical talent base composed of professionals with a scienti c or technical training
background. The UK
background.
Number and
TheGermany
UKand
of scientists are the region's
and Germany are thepowerhouses, followedfollowed
region's powerhouses, by France,
by Spain
France,and Poland.
Spain and Poland.
engineers by country
France Spain Poland Italy
Number of scientists
Number ofand
scientists and United Kingdom
engineers by country by country
engineers
France France Spain Spain Poland Poland Italy Italy
United KingdomUnited Kingdom
Sweden Romania Belgium Switzerland Austria

Turkey
Sweden Sweden
Romania Romania
Belgium Belgium
Switzerland Switzerland
Austria Austria
Turkey Turkey Portugal Norway Denmark Finland Hungary Greece
Germany
Netherlands
Bulgaria Serbia SlovakiaLithuaniaCroatia
Luxembourg
Germany Portugal Czech Republic
Portugal
Norway Ireland
Norway
Denmark Denmark
Finland Finland
Hungary Hungary
Greece Greece
Germany
Slovenia Malta Latvia Estonia Macedonia
Cyprus
Iceland
Netherlands Netherlands
NOTE: Bulgaria BulgariaSlovakia
Serbia Serbia Slovakia
Lithuania LithuaniaCroatia
Croatia
Luxembourg Luxembourg
Czech RepublicCzechIreland
Republic Ireland
'Scientists' and 'engineers' refer to people Slovenia SloveniaLatviaMalta
Malta Latvia Cyprus
Estonia Estonia
Macedonia Macedonia
Iceland Cyprus
Iceland
who are engaged in professional work on
science and technology. Data is sourced SOURCE: Eurostat
NOTE: NOTE:
from Eurostat and gathered by CERN. Latest
data
'Scientists' and 'e is 2018.
'Scientists'
ngineers' and 'eto
refer ngineers'
people refer to people
who are engaged who are engaged work
in professional in professional
on work on
SOURCE: Eurostat
science and technology. Data is sourcedData is sourced
science and technology. S O U R C E : Eurostat
from Eurostat and gathered
from Eurostat and gathered by CERN. Latest by CERN. Latest
data is 2018. data is 2018.
On a population-adjusted basis, the Nordic region is home to countries with the densest research and
developer basis, the
talent bases. Finland, inNordic region
particular, hasisbeen
homeable
to countries with on
to capitalise theadensest researchtalent
dense technical and
developer talent bases. Finland, in particular, has been able to capitalise on a dense technical talent base to
base to support a proportionately higher number of deep tech deals given its population size. In this
On a population-adjusted basis, thehigher
support a proportionately Nordicnumber
region of
is home to countries
deep tech withits
deals given the densest research
population andgraph, the size of
size. In this
graph,
On the size of the bubbles
abubbles
population-adjusted indicate
basis, the theregion
Nordic number of deep tech deals.
developer talent
the bases. Finland,
indicate theinnumber
particular, has tech
of deep ableistohome
beendeals. to countries
capitalise withtechnical
on a dense the densest research
talent base toand
support a proportionately higher number of deep tech deals given its population size. In this graph, the talent
developer talent bases. Finland, in particular, has been able to capitalise on a dense technical size ofbase to
support a proportionately higher number
the bubbles indicate the number of deep tech deals. of deep tech deals given its population size. In this graph, the size of
the bubbles
Density indicate and
of researchers the number of deep tech deals.
professional developers by
Denmark
Density of country versus deep tech deals
per million people
7,500 Sweden
researchers and
per
professional million
Density people
of researchers
developers by and Finland
Denmark
professional
country versus deep techdevelopers
deals by
Researchers in R&D per million people
7,500 SwedenDenmark
per millioncountry
people versus deep tech deals
people
7,500 Sweden
Switzerland
5,000 Germany Austria Finland Netherlands
Belgium
per million people
in R&D
France Portugal Finland

United Kingdom
R&D per million
Ireland
Switzerland
Researchers
5,000 Germany Austria Netherlands

Belgium
Austria Switzerland
5,000 France Spain
Portugal Germany
Belgium
United Kingdom Netherlands
2,500 Poland Ireland
Italy France Portugal United Kingdom
Ireland
Researchers in
Spain
2,500 Poland
RomaniaSpain
Italy
2,500 Poland
Italy
0
0 2,500 Romania5,000 7,500 10,000 12,500 15,000 17,500 20,000
Romania Professional developers per million people

0
NOTE: 0 0 2,500 5,000 7,500 10,000 12,500 15,000 17,500 20,000
0 2,500 5,000Professional developers
7,500 10,000
per million people 12,500 15,000 17,500 20,000
Only countries with 10,000+ developers and
10+ deep tech rounds included. Funding data Professional developers per million people
NOTE:
from Dealroom, developer data from Stack
NOTE:ow. Research data from Eurostat, SOURCE: Eurostat Dealroom
Only countriesOver
with 10,000+ developers and
10+ deep tech gathered
rounds
Only
by CERN.
included.
countries
Numbers
Funding
with 10,000+
adjusted per
data
developers and
from Dealroom, capita for clarity. from Stack
10+developer
deep techdata
rounds included. Funding data
Over ow. Research data from developer
Eurostat, data from Stack S O U R C E : Eurostat Dealroom
from Dealroom,
gathered by CERN.
Over Numbers adjusted
ow. Research dataper
from Eurostat, SOURCE: Eurostat Dealroom
capita for clarity.
gathered by CERN. Numbers adjusted per
capita for clarity.

08.3 Research & Technology Hubs
A profound and exciting European Universities are simply among the very best in the
world for research and IP contributions, especially in deep
wind of change is blowing tech. Yet, until a few years ago, they were also quite modest
through Europe. in their commercial aspirations, certainly compared to the
United States. But a profound and exciting wind of change
is blowing through Europe. A new generation of European
entrepreneurs and academics are setting their sights at
building world class global companies. Many are not willing
Patrick Pichette
to expat to the US to find success anymore. And they
can count on a growing support ecosystem that is taking Inovia Capital
root here, e.g. the launch of CDL in the UK in 2019 (and in General Partner
Paris next year), or new funds such as OSI (Oxford) and CIC
(Cambridge) willing to support founders with the patient
capital necessary for deep tech startups. And the world has
taken notice, with many of the large North American and
Asian funds now turning their attention to Europe, opening
offices and/or announcing growth funds specific to Europe.
The large research community inVery exciting.
Europe continues to be a
proli c source of ideas and a knowledge factory globally,
on par with the US.
Number
The largeofresearch
publications in
community in Europe continues to be a
The large research community in and
Europe, China Europe
the UScontinues to be a prolific source of ideas and a knowledge
proli large
c source ofcommunity
ideas andinaEurope
knowledge factory a globally,
factory globally, on parThe
with theresearch
US. continues to be
United States
onLEGEND
par with the US.
proli c source of ideas and a knowledge factory globally,
on par with the US.
2018
2017
Number
Numberof publications
of publications in in 16,583
20,116
Europe,
Europe,China and
China and thethe
US US
Europe
United States
United States
LEGEND 19,859 16,298
LEGEND
2018
2018
2017
16,583
2017 Europe 12,340
16,583
China 16,298
Europe
9,229
16,298
12,340
China
NOTE: 9,229
12,340
'Count' refers to a fractional count that takes
into account the percentage of authors from China
NOTE:
that institution/country and the number of
a 'Count'
liatedrefers to a fractional
institutions percount thatData
paper. takes SOURCE: Eurostat 9,229
into account the percentage of authors from
sourced via Nature Index
that institution/country and
and the gathered
number of by
CERN.
a liated institutions per paper. Data S O U R C E : Eurostat
sourced via Nature Index and gathered by
NOTE:
CERN.
'Count' refers to a fractional count that takes

into account the percentage of authors from
a liated institutions per paper. Data SOURCE: Eurostat
Europe doesn't only stand out by the size of its talent pool; the quality of the research originating
Europe
from Europe doesn't only
is world-class,
Europe stand
with
CERN.
4 of outstand
the by the
top 10outsize
global of its talent
research pool; thebased
institutions quality of the
in Germany,research originating from Europe
Europe doesn't
doesn't only
only stand out by
by the
the size
size of
of its
its talent
talent pool;
pool; the
the quality
quality of
of the
the research
research originating
originating from
from Europe
Europe
is world-class,
France and the United
is with 4 of
Kingdom. with
is world-class,
world-class, the top
with 44 of10
of theglobal
the top
top 10 research
10 global institutions
global research based
research institutions in
institutions based Germany,
based in
in Germany,France
Germany, France and
France and the
and the United
the United
United
Kingdom. Kingdom.
Kingdom.
Research
Research
Research institution
institution
institution Country
Country
Country Count
Count
Count
Top 10 global Top 10
10 global
research
Top global research
research 1 11
Chinese Chinese
Chinese Academy
Academy of
of Science
of Science
Academy Science China
China
China 1,698
1,698
1,698
institutions
institutions by
by contributors
contributors to
to
institutions by contributors to 2 Harvard University United States 875
research
research papers,
papers, 2019
2019 2 2
Harvard Harvard University
University UnitedStates
United States 875
875
research papers, 2019
3
3 Max
Max Planck
Planck Society
Society Germany
Germany 757
757
3 Max Planck Society Germany 757
4
4 National Centre for
National Centre for Scientific
Scientific Research
Research France
France 690
690
4 National Centre for Scientific Research France 690
55 Stanford University
Stanford University United States
United States 622
622
5 Stanford University United States 622
66 Massachusetts Institute
Massachusetts Institute of
of Technology
Technology United States
United States 560
560
6 Massachusetts
7 Institute
Helmholtz of Technology
Association of German Research Centres United States
Germany 560
483
7 Helmholtz Association of German Research Centres Germany 483
7 Helmholtz
88 Association
University
University of German Research Centres
of Cambridge
of Cambridge Germany
United Kingdom
United Kingdom 483
438
438
8 99
UniversityUniversity of Tokyo
of Cambridge
University of Tokyo JapanKingdom
United
Japan 431
438
431
10 10 Peking University
Peking University China
China 412
412
9 University of Tokyo Japan 431
NOTE:
NOTE: 10 Peking University China 412
'Count'
'Count' refers
refers to
to a
a fractional
fractional count
count that
that takes
takes
into
into account
account the
the percentage
percentage ofof authors
authors from
from
NOTE: that institution/country
institution/country andand the
the number
number of of
that SOURCE:
a liated
liated institutions
institutions per
per paper.
paper. Data
Data SOURCE:
'Count' refers to a afractional count that takes
sourced via Nature
sourced via Nature Index and
Indexfrom gathered
and gathered byby
into account the percentage
CERN. of authors
CERN.
a liated institutions per paper. Data SOURCE:
CERN.

Historically, US research has often been more application-driven than

European research, which could be a clue to understanding the US' success in
commercialising research. I think the bridges between different communities
are stronger in the US, especially between investors and the startup community.
However, the European tech ecosystem has a lot to offer for deep tech. For
example, Europe publishes more research papers related to artificial intelligence
than either China or the US. At CERN, we are looking for investors interested in our Giovanni Anelli
AI solutions, so we invite them to look for opportunities on this side of the pond. CERN
Head of Knowledge
Transfer Group
On the global scene, China continues to grow its research capabilities at an impressive rate and,
while the number ofOn patents
the globalfor scene,
both Europe and the US
China continues is mostly
to grow stagnant
its research year on year,
capabilities their
at an impressive rate and, while the
On the global scene, China continues to grow its research capabilities at an impressive rate and, while the
share is in decline. number
number ofof patents
patents for Europe
for both both Europe and
and the US the US
is mostly is mostly
stagnant stagnant
year on year, theiryear
shareon
is inyear, their share is in decline.
decline.
100
100
Share of patents (%) led by
Share oforigin
region of patents (%)years
over the led by
region of origin over the years
75
LEGEND
China 75
LEGEND
Europe
% of patents
China
United States 50
Europe
% of patents
Rest of world
United States 50
Rest of world 25
0 25
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
S O U R C E : Wipo
0
But Europe is particularly well positioned to win in a number of technology 2008 fields,
2009 often
2010 tied to 2011 the 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
But
strength of traditional Europe
industries is particularly
and the well
presence positioned
of large to win in a number
incumbents in certain of technology
regions. For elds, often tied to the strength of
But Europe is particularly well positioned to win in a number of technology elds, often tied to the strength of
traditional industries and the presence of large incumbents in certain regions. For example, Europe is in the
example, Europe istraditional
in the lead for both
industries andthe
themobility and
presence of robotics
large space.
incumbents Meanwhile,
in certain Europe
regions. For example,is still
Europe is in the
lead
lead forfor
bothboth the mobility
the mobility and robotics
and robotics space.
space. Meanwhile, Meanwhile,
SOURCE: Europe is stillEurope is stillinlagging
lagging behind softwarebehind in software & computer
& computer
lagging behind in software &
technology.
computer technology. Wipo
technology.
Engines, pumps, turbines

Share of patents (%) per Engines, pumps, turbines
Share of patents (%) per Mechanical elements
technology eld per region, Mechanical elements
technology eld per region,
2014-2018 Transport
2014-2018 Transport
Organic fine chemistry
LEGEND Organic fine chemistry

Analysis of biological materials
LEGEND
Europe Analysis of biological materials
Biotechnology
China
Europe Micro-structural and nano-technology
Biotechnology
United States Pharmaceuticals
China Micro-structural and nano-technology
Rest of world Medical technology
United States Pharmaceuticals
Other consumer goods
Rest of world Handling Medical technology

Civil engineering
Measurement Handling
Thermal processes and apparatus
Civil engineering
Other special machines
Measurement
Chemical engineering
Thermal
Basic communication processes and apparatus
processes

Macromolecular chemistry, polymers
Textile and paper machinesChemical engineering

Surface technology, coating
Basic communication processes
Basic materials chemistry
Macromolecular chemistry, polymers
Electrical machinery, apparatus, energy
Environmental technology
Textile and paper machines
Surface technology, coating
Materials, metallurgy
Furniture, games
Basic materials chemistry
Machine tools
Food chemistry
Control
Digital communication
Telecommunications Furniture, games

Optics Machine tools
Semiconductors
Food chemistry
Audio-visual technology
Control
Computer technology
Digital communication
IT methods for management
Telecommunications
Optics
S O U R C E : Wipo Semiconductors
www.stateofeuropeantech.com 194 Computer technology In Partnership with &

IT methods for management
Europe is trying to catch up though, with the "IT methods for management" category being one of the fastest-
growing patent technology elds in Europe. This is the category that is the closest approximation to 'software',
Europe is trying
according to the to
decatch up though,
nitions withWorld
used by the the "ITIntellectual
methods for management"
Property category being one of the
Organisation.
fastest-growing patent technology fields in Europe. This is the category that is the closest approximation
to 'software'
urope is trying to catch
Europe , according
upto
is trying catchto
though, upthe
with definitions
the "IT
though, with used
methods
the "ITby themanagement"
for
ITmethods
methods World forIntellectual Property
category
management"
for management Organisation.
being
category one ofone
being theoffastest-
the fastest- 27%
Fastest-growing patent
growing
owing patent patent
technology technology
elds in
technology elds in Europe, elds
Europe. in Europe.
This is This
the is
category the category
that is
Transport that
the is the
closest closest approximation
approximation to to 'software',
'software', 20%
ccording toaccording
the to
de nitions
2009-2013 the de
used
vs 2014-2018nitions
by theused by the
World World Intellectual
Intellectual Property Property Organisation.
Organisation.
Digital communications 17%
Mechanical elements 17%
Electrical machinery, apparatus, energy 17%

IT methods for management 27%
Fastest-growing patent IT methods for management 27%
Fastest-growing patent Control
Transport 16%
20%
technology elds in Europe, Transport 20%
technology elds in Europe, Other special machines
Digital communications 16%
2009-2013 vs 2014-2018 Digital communications
17%
2009-2013 vs 2014-2018 Micro-structural and nano-technology
Mechanical elements
17%
15%
17%
Mechanical elementsMedical technology 17%
14%
Electrical machinery, apparatus, energy 17%
Electrical machinery, apparatus, energy Biotechnology 17%
14%
Control 16%
Control Measurement
Other special machines 11%16% 16%
Micro-structural and nano-technology 11%16%
15%
Micro-structural and nano-technology Handling 8% 15% 14%
Medical technology
Engines, pumps, turbines
Medical technology 7% 14%
Biotechnology 14%
Optics 7%
Biotechnology Measurement 14%
11%
Macromolecular chemistry, polymers 5%
Measurement 11% 11%
Environmental technology 5%
Other consumer goods Handling 8%
11%
Computer technology 5%
Engines, pumps, turbines 7%
Handling 8%
Materials, metallurgy 4%
Optics 7%
Engines, pumps, turbines 7%
Chemical engineering 3%
Optics 7%
Basic materials chemistry 2%
Environmental technology 5%
Analysis of biological materials 2%
Computer technology 5%
Furniture, games 5%
1%
Materials, metallurgy 4%
Computer technology
Civil engineering 5%
1%
Chemical engineering 3%
Materials,Surface
metallurgy
technology, coating
Basic materials chemistry 4%
0%
2%
Chemical engineering
Analysis
Food chemistry
of biological materials -1%3%
2%
Basic materials chemistry Machine tools -3% 2%
Furniture, games 1%
Semiconductors
Analysis of biological materials -5% 2%
Civil engineering 1%
Textile and paper machines -6%
Surface
Furniture, technology, coating
games 1% 0%
Basic communication processes -6%
Civil engineeringFood chemistry -1%
1%
Thermal processes and apparatus -7%
Surface technology, coating Machine tools -3%
0%
Pharmaceuticals -8%
Food chemistrySemiconductors -1%-5%
Audio-visual technology -13%
Machine tools -3%
Organic fine chemistry -14%
Semiconductors -5%
Telecommunications -19%
Thermal processes and apparatus -7%
Pharmaceuticals -8%
Audio-visual technology -13%
NOTE: Thermal processes and apparatus -7%
SOURCE: Wipo Organic fine chemistry -14%
WIPO statistics database. Data last updated Pharmaceuticals
Telecommunications -8%
-19%
October 2019. Audio-visual technology -13%
Organic fine chemistry -14%
NOTE: Telecommunications -19%

SOURCE: Wipo
WIPO statistics database. Data last updated
October 2019.
NOTE:
SOURCE: Wipo
WIPO statistics database. Data last updated
October 2019.
The growth of Europe's most dynamic tech hubs - London, Berlin,

Amsterdam, Stockholm, Helsinki, Dublin and others - along with the
accompanying inflow of investment, is driving a steady reorientation
of talent, not only from Europe but from countries outside of Europe -
including my native Israel - to help meet demand. Our business, which
requires highly trained individuals in plant biology and plant science, also Osnat Michaeli
benefits from the pool of master’s and Ph.D candidates so plentiful in Infarm
European markets. Co-Founder

Mobility
Mobility has
has been consistently
been consistentlyin
inthe
thelead
leadininEurope
Europeover
over
Mobility has
thebeen
Mobility consistently
pasthas in as
beenasconsistently
5 years well Europe
the Europe overthe past 5 years as well as Health/Pharmaceuticals.
theHealth/Pharmaceuticals.
lead
inin lead inover
the past 5the past
years as5well
years
asas well as Health/Pharmaceuticals.
Health/Pharmaceuticals.
Transport
Number of patents per Electrical
Electrical machinery,
Transport
machinery,
apparatus, energy
Transport
Medical technology
apparatus, energy
Measurement
Number
Number of patents of patents
per
technology eld perper
year, 2014- Medical technologyMedical technology
Pharmaceuticals
Measurement Measurement
Mechanical elements
technology technology
eld per year,eld
2018 per year, 2014-
2014- Pharmaceuticals Pharmaceuticals
Other special
Mechanical
Mechanical elements
machines
elements
Civil engineering
2018 Other special
Other special machines pumps,machines
2018 Engines,
Civil engineering
turbines
Civil engineering
Computer technology
Engines, pumps,Engines,
turbinespumps,Handling
turbines
LEGE ND Computer technologyComputer
Digital technology
communication
Handling Handling
LEGEND LEGE ND Digital communication
Digital communication Biotechnology
up to 45,000 Organic
Basic fine chemistry
materials chemistry
Biotechnology
ChemicalBiotechnology
engineering
up to 45,000 up to 45,000 Basic
Basic materials chemistrymaterials
Other consumerchemistry
goods
35,000 to 40,000 Chemical
Chemical engineering engineering
Machine tools
35,000 to 40,000
35,000 to 40,000 Other consumerOther consumergames
goodsFurniture, goods
30,000 to 35,000 Machine tools Machine tools
Furniture, gamesFurniture,Control
games
30,000 to 35,000
30,000 to 35,000 Materials, Materials,
metallurgy
Macromolecular metallurgy
chemistry, polymers
25,000 to 30,000 Control Control
Optics
25,000 to 30,000 Macromolecular Macromolecular chemistry,
chemistry, polymers polymers
Semiconductors
25,000 to 30,000
20,000 to 25,000 Thermal processes Optics
Optics and apparatus
Semiconductors Semiconductors
20,000 to 25,000
20,000 to 25,000 Thermal processes and apparatus
Thermal processes and apparatus Food chemistry
15,000 to 20,000 Audio-visual
Audio-visual technology technology
FoodSurface
chemistry Food chemistry
technology, coating
15,000 to 20,00015,000 to 20,000
10,000 to 15,000
Environmental
Textile
Environmental technology and papertechnology
machines
Surface
Surface technology, technology, coating
coating
Telecommunications
Textile and paper Textile
ofand
machines
Analysis paper machines
biological materials
10,000 to 15,00010,000 to 15,000
5,000 to 10,000 Telecommunications
IT methods
Telecommunications for management
Analysis
Basic
Analysis of biological of biologicalprocesses
communication
materials materials
5,000 to 10,000 5,000 to 10,000 IT methods IT methods
for management
Micro-structural for management
and nano-technology
2,500 to 5,000 Basic processes
Basic communication communication processes
Micro-structuralMicro-structural and nano-technology
and nano-technology 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
2,500 to 5,000 2,500 to 5,000
1,000 to 2,500 2014 2014 2015 2015 2016 2016 2017 2017 2018 2018
1,000 to 2,500 1,000 to 2,500
up to 1,000
up to 1,000 up to 1,000
NOTE: SOURCE: Wipo
NOTE: NOTE:
WIPO statistics database. Data last updated SOURCE: Wipo
SOURCE: Wipo
in
WIPO statisticsWIPO October 2019.database.
statistics
database. Data Data last updated
last updated
in October 2019.in October 2019.
It should not come as a surprise that Germany leads by a long way on the number of patents in Europe and is
It should
home to anot come
strong andasdynamic
a surprise that
base of Germany
traditionalleads by a long way on
transport/mobility the number of patents in Europe
corporations.
Itand
should
is not come
home to a as a surprise
strong and that Germany
dynamic base of leads by a long
traditional way on the number
transport/mobility of patents in Europe and is
corporations.
It should not come as a surprise that Germany leads by a long way on the number of patents in Europe and is
home to a strong and dynamic base of traditional transport/mobility corporations.
home to a strong and dynamic base of traditional transport/mobility
Germany
corporations.
Cumulative number of patents
led by country of origin France
Germany
Cumulative number of patents
Cumulative(thousands)
number of patents Germany
led by country of origin United Kingdom
France
led by country of origin France
(thousands) Switzerland
(thousands) United Kingdom
United Kingdom
Netherlands
Switzerland
Switzerland
Russia
Netherlands
Netherlands
Italy
Russia
Russia
Sweden
Italy
Italy
Finland
Sweden
Sweden
Austria
Finland
Finland
0 250 500 750 1,000 1,250 1,500 1,750 2,000
Austria
Austria # of patents led (thousands)
0 250 500 750 1,000 1,250 1,500 1,750 2,000
0 250 500 750 1,000 1,250 1,500 1,750 2,000
# of patents led (thousands)
# of patents led (thousands)
NOTE:
SOURCE: Wipo
Cumulative number of patents between 2008
NOTE:
and 2018. SOURCE: Wipo
NOTE: S O U R C E : Wipo
and 2018.
and 2018.

COMPUTER SCIENCE
Europe
Research & Technology is
consistently recognised as one of the most
Hubs
25%
promising sources of talent in computer science globally.
Indeed, Europe is home to 25% of the Top 50 universities in COMPUTER
Europe is consistentlytherecognised as one ofscience,
world for recognised
computer the most promising
including 4 of the top 10 COMPUTER SCIENCESCIENCE
Europe is consistently
sources of talent in computer science globally. as one of the most COMPUTER SCIENCE
of the top 50 universities in the world for computer scien
Europe
and the is consistently
overall number one Indeed,
recognised asEurope
institution,one is
theofUniversity
the most of
25%
25%
promising sources of talent in computer science globally. Europe.
25%
home to 25% of the Top 50 universities
promising
Oxford. sources of in the world
talent for computer
in computer science globally. of the top 50 universities in the
Indeed, Europe
science, including 4 of is home
the top
Indeed, to 25%
10 andisthe
Europe home of the
overall
to 25% Top
number 50 universities
of theone in
Top 50 universities in world for computer science are
thethe
institution, world forthe
computer
University of Oxford.
world science, science,
for computer including 4 of the
including top
4 of the10top 10 University based in Europe. Country
European universities among of the
of thetoptop
5050universities
universities in
in theKingdom
the worldforfor
world computer
computer s
scien
and the overall
and number
the overallone institution,
number the University
one institution, of of
the University
1 University of Oxford United
global top 50 in computer Europe.
Europe.
Oxford. Oxford.
science and their global rank 3 ETH Zurich Switzerland
5 University of Cambridge United Kingdom

University Country
University Country
European universities among 71 Imperial College
University London
of Oxford United
United Kingdom
Kingdom
European universities among
global top 50 in computer 1 University of Oxford United Kingdom
global top 50 in computer
science and their global rank
18
3 Technical
ETH ZurichUniversity of Munich Germany
Switzerland
3 ETH Zurich Switzerland
science and their global rank 19
5 UCL
University of Cambridge United
United Kingdom
Kingdom
5 University
20 of Cambridge
École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne United Kingdom
Switzerland
7 Imperial College London United Kingdom
7 Imperial
24
18 College London
University
Technical of Edinburgh
University of Munich United
United
Germany Kingdom
Kingdom
18 34
Technical
19 Paris Sciences
University
UCL ofet Lettres - PSL Research University Paris
Munich France
Germany
United Kingdom
46
20 RWTH Aachen University
École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne German y
Switzerland
19 UCL United Kingdom
47
24 Delft University
University of Technology
of Edinburgh Netherlands
United Kingdom
20 École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne Switzerland
50
34 Karlsruhe
Paris Institute
Sciences of Technology
et Lettres - PSL Research University Paris Germany
France
24 University of Edinburgh United Kingdom
NOTE: 46 RWTH Aachen University Germany
Yet, despite Europe's long-standing 34 strengths in research,
Paris Sciences et Lettres - PSLtheResearch
majority of the
University European tech
Paris community does
France
'Rank' refers to position in global list of top 50
not agreeforthat
institutions European
computer science universities are effectively
47
commercialising intellectual property Netherlands
De lft University of Technology
developed by
SOURCE: Times Higher Education World University Ranking
academic research. Most notably, 46
quali cations. Compiled by the Times Higher
Education Supplement and includes 749
RWTH
academics,
50
Aachen University
researchers
Karlsruhe Institute of and policymakers were most likely
Technology
Germany
to disagree that
Germany
European universities
universities across the world. are effective.47 De lft University of Technology Netherlands
NOTE:
'Rank' refers to position in global list of top 50 50 Karlsruhe Institute of Technology Germany
institutions for computer science
Do
qualiyou agree
cations. or disagree
Compiled with
by the Times Higher SOURCE: Times Higher Education World University Ranking
Founder
NOTE: the following
Education statement?
Supplement and includes 749
universities across the world.
European
'Rank' refers to position universities
in global list of top 50 effectively
commercialise
institutions for computer science intellectual Policymaker/regulator
S O U R C E : Times Higher Education World University Ranking
Yet, despite
qualiEurope's long-standing
cations. Compiled by the(knowledge,
property strengths
Times Higher
Education Supplement and includes 749
in research, the majority of the European tech
technology, etc.) developed by
community does not
universities acrossagree
Yet, that European
thedespite
world. universities are
Europe's long-standing effectively
strengths commercialising
in research, the majority
Academic/researcherintellectual
of the European tech community does
academic research
property developed bynotacademic
agree
Yet, that
despite research.
European
Europe's Most
long-standingnotably,
universities academics,
strengthsare
in effectively
research, researchers
commercialising
the majority and policymakers
of the European intellectual property
tech community does developed by
academic
were most likely to disagree
not agree
LEGEND research.
that
thatEuropean
European Most notably,
universities
universities academics, researchers
are effective.
are effectively commercialising andAngel
policymakers
intellectual were
property developed
investor
by most likely to disagree that
academic research. Most notably, academics, researchers and policymakers were most likely to disagree that
European
Agree universities are effective.
European universities are effective.
Disagree
Other investor
Do Do
you you agree or
agree ordisagree
disagree withwith Founder
Founder
theEuropean
following statement?
universities effectively
Venture capitalist
commercialise effectively
intellectual Policymaker/regulator
property (knowledge,
commercialise intellectual Policymaker/regulator
technology, etc.) developed by
property (knowledge,
academic research EmployeeAcademic/researcher
at a company that is not a tech startup or
technology, etc.) developed by scale-up
Academic/researcher
academic
L E G E ND research
Angel investor
Agree
Disagree
LEGEND Other investor
Neither agree nor disagree Angel investor
Agree
Disagree Venture capitalist
Other investor
Employee at a company that is not a tech startup or
scale-up Other (please specify)
Venture capitalist

scale-up
Consultant/M&A advisor/investment banker Media/journalist

Student
Media/journalist Other (please specify)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
% of respondents
Student
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
% of respondents
NOTE: SOURCE: The State Of European
LP investing in private equity &Tech Survey
venture capital
rounding.
rounding. Media/journalist
Student
www.stateofeuropeantech.com 197 0 In Partnership

10 20 with 30 40& 50 60 70
% of respondents
When asked directly how to better support the research community to start companies and help
When asked directly how to better support the research community to start companies and help them
them succeed, respondents who are academics/researchers pointed to changing the terms of
succeed, respondents who are academics/researchers pointed to changing the terms of research funding
research
When funding
asked
awaydirectly
from
away
directly
publicationhow from publication
andtosupport
better
towards support and
thetowards commercialisation,
researchas
commercialisation, community
well
as well as educating
to start universities
as educating companies and help them
to change their
When asked
universities how
to to better
change their the
mindset researchbeing
towards community
able toencourage
to start companies
and and help
better them
support spinoffs.
succeed,
mindset respondents
towards being who
able are
to academics/researchers
encourage and better pointed
support to changing the
spinoffs. terms of research funding
succeed, respondents who are academics/researchers pointed to changing the terms of research funding
away from publication and towards commercialisation, as well as educating universities to change their
away from publication and towards commercialisation, as well as educating universities to change their
mindsetmindset
towards towards being
being able able to encourage
to encourage
If you were to pick one action
and
and better better support
support spinoffs.spinoffs. Increased research funding aimed at idea
26%
commercialisation vs. publications
from the list below that would
better
If support
you were the one action
to pick Increased research funding aimed at idea
26%
If you wereacademic/research
to pick one action community Increased research funding
Universities aimedand
encouraging at idea
supporting
commercialisation spinoffs
vs. publications 20%
26%
from the list below that would commercialisation vs. publications
from the list
to below that wouldand help
startsupport
companies
better the
better support the
them succeed, whatcommunity
would it be? Universities
Improved encouraging
collaborationand
withsupporting spinoffs
large corporations 18% 20%
academic/research Universities encouraging and supporting spinoffs 20%
academic/research community
to start companies and help
to start companies and help
them succeed, what would it be? Improved
Increased collaboration
pre-seed with large
venture capital corporations
(<$250k) available 17%18%
them succeed, what would it be? Improved collaboration with large corporations 18%
Increased
Increased access to
pre-seed startup
venture support
capital organisation
(<$250k) or
available 17%
Increased pre-seed venture capital (<$250k) available 13%
17%
program
Increased access to startup support organisation or

Increased access toBetter
startup support
terms organisation
offered or
by universities forprogram
spinoffs 6% 13%
13%
program
0 5 10 15 20 25
Better terms offered by universities for spinoffs 6%
Better terms offered by universities for spinoffs 6% % of respondents
0 5 10 15 20 25
0 5 10 15 20 25
% of respondents
% of respondents
Academics/researchers only. Numbers may
NOTE:
Although there is likely a sample bias in the responses to the survey, it's noteworthy that three-
quarters of respondents who work in academia or research shared that they have seen an increase
Although there
in the level is likely of
of interest a sample
peoplebias in the
in their responses
networks to the survey,
in starting it's noteworthy
or joining that three-quarters of
tech startups.
respondents
Although there who work ainsample
is likely academiabiasorinresearch sharedtothat
the responses thethey haveit's
survey, seen an increase
noteworthy thatinthree-quarters
the level of interest
of
Although
of there isinlikely
people
respondents whoanetworks
their sample
work bias in theor
in starting
in academia responses
or joining to
research thestartups.
tech
shared survey, it's have
that they noteworthy
seen anthat three-quarters
increase ofof interest
in the level
respondents whoinwork
of people theirinnetworks
academiain or research
starting sharedtech
or joining that startups.
they have seen an increase in the level of interest
of people in their networks in starting or joining tech startups.
Thinking about your academic or
research network
Thinking about (i.e.
your other or
academic
academics,
Thinkingresearch
about your researchers,
academic
network or
(i.e. other
researchstudents,
network etc.),
academics, (i.e. have you
other
researchers,
observed
academics, any
researchers,
students, etc.),change
have youin the level
students,of interest
etc.),
observed haveinyou
any starting
change in or the
joining
level
observed tech
ofany startups
change
interest inthe
in thelevel
in starting last
or 12
joining % of respondents
months?
of interest
techin startups
starting or in joining
the last 12 % of respondents
tech startups
months? in the last 12 % of respondents
months?
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
% change in level of interest over the last 12 months
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
0 10 20 30 40 50change in level
% 60 of interest70over the last
8012 months90 100 110
% change in level of interest over the last 12 months
NOTE:
Academics/researchers
NOTE: only. Numbers may
not add to 100 due to rounding. SOURCE: The State Of European Tech Survey
NOTE:
Academics/researchers only. Numbers may S O U R C E : The State Of European Tech Survey
not add to 100only.
Academics/researchers due to rounding.
Numbers may

I believe the academic I believe the academic and business sectors are currently Loubna Bouarfa
fragmented and stuck in tunnel vision. We need to align
and business sectors are both sectors to drive the development of our technology OKRA Technologies
currently fragmented and in the right direction and achieve global scale for our tech. Founder & CEO
Academia needs the freedom to do research; however,
stuck in tunnel vision. We it needs to align training, researcher upskilling, and the
need to align both sectors ideas of innovation towards meeting future goals that
to drive the development are aligned with big competitive ambitions for Europe.
Ideas that come out of academia need to be feasible
of our technology in for implementation in an industry setting, therefore
the right direction and we need to see each other as partners not as rivals. In
achieve global scale for many instances academia sees business as funders or
as processors, not as partners to reshape the world.
our tech. Simultaneously, businesses see academia as long-term
vision R&D partners, and business goals are not aligned
with academic collaboration. I believe the two should
create a real partnership, through an agile work mindset
with clear short- and long-term goals.
Though the interest levels in starting or joining startups is increasing, there remain barriers to this happening.
When asked about the main reservations they have, lack of funding was given as the most frequently cited
reservation by academics and researchers when considering whether to start or join a startup. Risk appetite
and fear of failure also appear to be a continuing factor given the strength of consideration regarding future
Though the interest levels in starting or joining
career/reconversion startups is increasing, there remain barriers to this
prospects.
happening. When asked about the main reservations they have, lack of funding was given as the most
frequently cited reservation by academics and researchers when considering whether to start or join
Though the
What are theinterest levels in starting or joining startups is increasing, there remain barriers to this happening.
main reservations
a startup. Risk appetite and fear of failure also appear to be a continuing factorLack given the strength of
of funding
When asked
you would about
have whenthe main reservations they have, lack of funding was given as the most frequently cited
consideration regarding
Though future
considering career/reconversion
the interest levels
whether to in starting
start or prospects.
or joining startups is increasing, there remain barriers to this happening.
reservation by academics and researchers when considering whether to start or join a startup. Risk appetite
When asked
join about the main reservations they have, lack of funding was given as the most frequently cited
a startup?
and fear
reservation of academics
by failure also
andappear to bewhen
researchers a continuing
considering factor
whether
Future given the
to start
career/reconversion orstrength of consideration
join a startup.
prospects Risk appetite regarding future29%
career/reconversion
and prospects.
fear of failure also appear to be a continuing factor given the strength of consideration regarding future
career/reconversion prospects.
Lack of certain skills (e.g. coding, sales, product) 24%
What are the main reservations
What are the main reservations Lack of funding
you would have when
you would have when
Lack of funding 44%
considering
considering whether
whether to startto
orstart or Inability to find a co-founder 24%
joinjoin a startup?
a startup?
Future prospects
Future career/reconversion career/reconversion prospects 29% 29%
Unattractive lifestyle 18%

Lack of knowledge on how to get started

Inability to find a co-founder 15%
24%
Unattractive lifestyle Lack of ideas 18% 13%

Lack of knowledge on how to get started 15%
Lack of mental support 12%
Lack of knowledge on how to get started 15%

Lack of ideas 13%
Lack of support from incubators/accelerators 11%
Lack of mental support Lack of ideas 12% 13%
Lack of support from family/friends 9%

Lack of successful role models in Europe 6%

Lack of successful role models

Lackin Europe
of support from universities
6% 6%
Lack of support from universities 6%

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
% of respondents
Lack of successful role

0 models
5 in Europe
10 15 20
6% 25 30 35 40 45 50
% of respondents
NOTE:
Academics/researchers only. Numbers do SOURCE: The State Of European Tech Survey

NOTE:
not add to 100 as respondents could select Lack of support from universities 6%
multiples choices.only. Numbers do
Academics/researchers S O U R C E : The State Of European Tech Survey
not add to 100 as respondents could select
multiples choices.
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
% of respondents
NOTE:
Academics/researchers only. Numbers do SOURCE: The State Of European Tech Survey
not add to 100 as respondents could select
multiples choices.
Given those concerns, it shouldn't be surprising that students themselves cite increased access to startup
support organisations or programs as the number one action that could better support them. These offer the
promise for students to access groups to share knowledge, experiences and connections in a way that can
have a meaningful impact at the beginning of the startup journey.
Given those concerns, it shouldn't be surprising that students themselves cite increased access
to startup support organisations or programs as the number one action that could better support
Givenyouthose toconcerns, it shouldn't be surprising thattostudents
Increased access startup supportthemselves
organisation or cite increased access to startup
them. These offer the promise
If were for students
pick one actionto access groups to share knowledge, experiences
program and
support
Giventhe
from organisations
those
listconcerns, or programs
it shouldn't
below that would as the
be surprising thatnumber one action
students themselves citethat couldaccess
increased better support them. These offer the
to startup
connections in a way that can have
supportsupport a meaningful
organisations or programs impact at the beginning
to start as the number oneUniversities
action that of the
could and startup
better support journey.
them. These offer the
promise for students to access groups to share knowledge, experiences and connections in a way that can
better students encouraging supporting spinoffs 2
promise for and
companies students to access groups to share knowledge, experiences and connections in a way that can
help them
have
haveaa meaningful impact
meaningful impact at theat the beginning
beginning of the
of the startup startup journey.
journey.
succeed, what would it be? Improved collaboration with large corporations 17%
Increased access to startup support organisation or

Increasedpre-seed
access to startup support organisation or
If Ifyou
you were to pick one action
were to pick one action Increased venture
program capital (<$250k) available
program
26% 17%
from the list below that would
from the
better list below
support that
students would
to start Universities encouraging andIncreased
supporting spinoffs 21%
research funding aimed at idea
better support
companies students
and help them to start Universities encouraging and supporting
commercialisation spinoffs
vs. publications
10% 2
succeed, what
companies would
and it be?
help them Improved collaboration with large corporations 17%
succeed, what would it be? Better terms

Improved offered by universities
collaboration for spinoffs
with large corporations
Increased pre-seed venture capital (<$250k) available
6%
17%
17%
Increased research funding aimed at idea Other

Increased pre-seed venture capital (<$250k) available 10% 2% 17%
commercialisation vs. publications
Better terms offered by universities for spinoffs

idea 0
Increased research funding aimed at6% 5 10 15 20
10%
commercialisation vs. publications % of respondents
Other 2%
Better terms offered by universities for spinoffs 6%

0 5 10 15 20 25
% of respondents
Other 2%
Studens only. Numbers may not add to 100
due to rounding.
NOTE:
S O U R C E : The State Of European Tech Survey 0 5 10 15 20
Studens only. Numbers may not add to 100 % of respondents
due to rounding.

Studens only. Numbers may not add to 100
due to rounding.
Hubs that combine mature ecosystems to provide initial support as well as world-
class laboratory and research space are best equipped to produce high quality
companies. In that respect Oxford, Cambridge, London, Paris and Berlin still lead
the pack…There, talent investors like EF, programs like the Creative Destruction
Lab in Oxford (and soon in Paris), or dedicated funds like OSI or the PSL
Innovation Fund, continue to grow the top of the funnel. That said, some research
ecosystems are very strong on specific themes and remain completely under Alex Terrien
the radar – Cork University in the microbiome, EPFL and ETH in construction, Future Positive
Capital
Montpellier in ecology, the University of Wageningen in Food Science & Co-Founder
Technology or the University of Delft in biotech are examples that stand out.
Countries where universities help students materialise their entrepreneurial calling are also likely
to benefit in the long term as we see a high proportion of founders starting their companies in the
countries where theyCountries
studied. where universities help students materialise their entrepreneurial calling are also likely to bene t in
the long where
Countries term universities
as we seehelp a high proportion
students oftheir
materialise founders starting
entrepreneurial their
calling arecompanies in the
also likely to bene t incountries where they
the long term as we see a high proportion of founders starting their companies in the countries where they
studied.
studied.
Share
Share ofof founders
founders (%) who
(%) who University
University of Oxford, United of Oxford, United Kingdom
Kingdom
founded their
founded companies
their in the in the
companies HEC Paris, France
countries they studied HEC Paris, France
countries they studied
KTH, Sweden
LEGEND
KTH, Sweden
LEGEND
Stayed in country Imperial College, United Kingdom
UK
Stayed in country University of Cambridge, UnitedImperial
Kingdom College, United Kingdom
Germany
UK
France ESCP Europe, of
University France
Cambridge, United Kingdom
Germany
Switzerland
LSE, United Kingdom
Rest of Europe
France ESCP Europe, France
INSEAD, France
Switzerland
LSE, United Kingdom
Rest of Europe 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
% of founders
INSEAD, France
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
% of founders
SOURCE: Dealroom

Lack of ideas 29%
08.3 Research & Technology Hubs Future career/reconversion prospects 23%

Lookingtobeyond
Looking beyond the faculty the faculty
the students to the students
themselves, themselves,
it is interesting it is interesting
to explore their coretoreservations
explore their core reservations
about
about starting or joining startingFor
a startup. or joining a startup.
students, Forconfidence
a lack of students, ainlack
howof con
to get dence
started inishow
theto get started is the most
most
frequently
frequently cited reservation. cited
This reservation.
is followed This is followed
by concerns by concerns
about funding, having aboutthefunding, having
right skillset andthe right skillset and also
also
obtaining
obtaining the necessary the necessary
knowledge on how toknowledge
get going.on how to get going. Unattractive lifestyle 10%
What are the main reservations confidencerole

Lack of successful on how to get
models started
in Europe 7%
you would have when
considering whether to start or
Lackuniversities
of funding
join a startup? Lack of support from 7%
Lack of certain
Lack skills
of support (e.g.incubators/accelerators
from coding, sales, product) 6%
Lack Lack
of knowledge onfrom
of support how family/friends
to get started 4% 32%
OpportunityOther
cost 2% 32%
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Lack of ideas 29%
% of respondents
NOTE:
Students only. Numbers do not add to 100 as Inability to find a co-founder 20%
respondents could select multiples choices.
There is now positive momentum in the level of deals and
capital invested into spinoffs from European universities.

Number of deals and capital 327
5,000
invested in Europe-based
There is now positive momentum in
university spinoffsthe level of deals and capital investedinto
Lack spinoffs
of successful role models in Europe 7%
There
from European universities. isnow
There is now positive
positive momentum
momentum in of
in the level the level
deals andof deals and
4,000
capital
capital invested
LEGENDinvested intointo spinoffs
spinoffs from European
from European universities.universities.
Lack of support from universities 7%
$3,317M
# of deals $3,190M
335 350
Number
Capital of deals and
invested ($M)capital 3,000 327
Number
invested inof deals and capital
Europe-based
5,000
$4,889M
327
university spinoffs 5,000 201
invested in Europe-based 300
university
LEGEND
spinoffs 4,000 2,000 179
$1,698M
Lack of support from family/friends $1,593M 4%
$3,317M
# of deals 4,000 154 $3,190M
250
# of deals
LEGEND
Capital invested ($M) 3,000
1,000 $3,317M
# of deals Other 201 2% $3,190M
200
2,000 179
3,000
Capital invested ($M) $1,593M
$1,698M
154 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
0 201
1,000 2015 2016 2017 % of respondents
150 2018
2,000 179
$1,698M
$1,593M
0 154 100
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
NOTE:
NOTE: 1,000Global
SOURCE: University Venturing
Students
2019 only. Numbers
annualised based ondo nottoadd
data to 100 as
September
respondents
2019.
NOTE: could select multiples choices.
S O U R C E : Global University Venturing
Although
2019 annualisedGermany and Switzerland are respectively
based on data to September 0 leading on the overall number of patents and the number of
patents
2019.
per capita, universities in the United Kingdom 2015 accounted for the largest share of2017European university
2016 2018
Although Germany andspinoff activity.

Switzerland areand respectively leading on the overall number of overall
patentsnumber
and theof patents and the number of
Although Germany Switzerland are respectively leading on the
number of patents per capita,
patents
NOTE: peruniversities
capita, universities in the United
in theKingdom
United accounted
Kingdom for
accounted the
SOURCE: Global University Venturing
largest
for the share
largestof
share of European university
European university spinoff
spinoff
Although
Number
2019 activity.
Germany
activity.
of deals
annualised based onand
in dataSwitzerland
to Septemberare respectively leading on the overall number of patents and the number of
Europe-
patents
2019. per capita, universities in the United Kingdom accounted for the largest share of European university
based university spinoffs by
spinoff activity.
country 300
Number of deals in Europe-
based
Numberuniversity
LEGEND spinoffs by
of deals in Europe-
based university spinoffs by
country
UK 300
country 300
# of deals
Germany 200
LEGEND
LEGEND
Switzerland
UK
UK
# of deals
France
# of deals
Germany 200
Germany 200
Switzerland
Ireland
Switzerland 100
France
Belgium
Ireland
France 100
Netherlands
Belgium
Ireland
Rest of Europe
Netherlands 100
Belgium
Rest of Europe 0
Netherlands 0 2015 2016 2017 2018
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Rest of Europe
0
NOTE: 2015 2016 2017 2018
NOTE: S O U R C E : Global University Venturing
Based on data from September 2018 to
Based on data
September 2019. from September 2018 to
September 2019.
NOTE: SOURCE: Global University Venturing
September 2019.

Looking across Europe at the volume of capital raised by spinoffs from top European universities over the past
12 months, it's clear that it is a very mixed bag. There are positive signs from the United Kingdom and
Switzerland,
08.3 but beyond
Research those
& Technology Hubs places the level of spinoff activity from universities from elsewhere in Europe is
limited.
Lookingacross
Looking acrossEurope
Europeatatthe thevolume
volumeofof capital
capital raised
raised byby spinouts
spinoffs fromfrom
toptop European
universities over the past
Top European universities by
Looking12 over
acrossthe
months, past
it's
Europe 12 months,
clear
at($M)
thethat it's clear
it is aof
volume very that
mixed
capital it is a very
bag. by
raised mixed
ThereUniversity bag.
are positive
spinoffs There
from top
of Cambridge
signsare positive
from the
European signs from
overthe
United Kingdom
universities United
theand
past $337.2M
total capital raised by
12 months,Kingdom
Switzerland, and
it's clear
spinoffs Switzerland,
but
that beyond those
it is a very butplaces
mixed beyond
bag.the those
Therelevel places
ofpositive
are spinofftheactivity
level from
signs offrom
spinoff activity
universities
the United from
from universities
Kingdom elsewhere
and infrom
Europe is
elsewhere
limited.
Switzerland, in Europe is limited.
but beyond those places the level of spinoff activity from universities from elsewhere in Europe is
University College London $123.5M
limited.
Top European universities by
University of Cambridge
University of Oxford $87.2M $337.2M
totaluniversities
Top European capital raised
by($M) by
spinoffs
total capital raised ($M) by
University of Cambridge $337.2M
spinoffs University College London

École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne $56.0M $123.5M
University College London $123.5M
University
ETHof Oxford
Zurich $37.8M $87.2M
University of Oxford $87.2M
École PolytechniqueUniversity
Fédérale de Lausanne
of Innsbruck $11.1M $56.0M
École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne $56.0M
ETHLondon
Imperial College Zurich $8.9M $37.8M
ETH Zurich $37.8M
University of Innsbruck
University of Turin $11.1M
$6.3M
University of Innsbruck $11.1M
Imperial
TrinityCollege
CollegeLondon
Dublin $8.9M
$1.7M
Imperial College London $8.9M
University
Nottingham of Turin
University $6.3M
$1.7M
University of Turin $6.3M
TechnicalTrinity College
University Dublin
of Munich $1.7M
$1.5M
Trinity College Dublin $1.7M
NottinghamKU
University
Leuven $1.7M
$1.2M
Nottingham University $1.7M
0.0 50.0 100.0 150.0 200.0 250.0 300.0 350.0

Technical University of Munich $1.5M Total capital raised ($M)
Technical University of Munich $1.5M
KU Leuven $1.2M
NOTE:
KU Leuven $1.2M
September 2019. 0.0 50.0 100.0 150.0 200.0 250.0 300.0 350.0
Total capital raised ($M)
0.0 50.0 100.0 150.0 200.0 250.0 300.0 350.0
Total capital raised ($M)
NOTE: SOURCE: Global University Venturing

NOTE: Based on data from September 2018 to
September 2019.
September 2019.
The days of the ivory tower are rapidly receding as European universities
and the tech industry learn to dance together.
European universities and the tech industry yet it is entirely focused on the university’s
are cooperating more and more. 'Deep spinoffs. And at the Creative Destruction
tech' is not just a cool label, it is a viable Lab (CDL-Oxford), we are bringing together
investment model with its own logic: identify business mentors, scientists and students, Thomas Hellmann
game-changing technologies, assemble all with a common goal of accelerating Saïd Business
diverse teams, build viable business exceptional AI ventures that come from School
models, and have lots of patience! This anywhere in the UK and beyond. The appetite University of Oxford
kind of entrepreneurship happens not only for joint academic-industry initiatives is DP World Professor
at the technical universities, such as Aalto enormous, especially among young students of Entrepreneurship
University or TU Munich, but also at the and tech executives. Academics and policy and Innovation
traditional research universities in Paris or makers are waking up to the opportunities
London. At Oxford, we are spinning off more too. There is still a lot to do, including
than two new tech ventures every month, and reforming IP and tech transfer policies,
we also have countless student-led startups, rethinking incentives in academia, and even
supported by university programmes such reimagining the role of universities within
as at the Oxford Foundry. The boundaries their local ecosystems. Yet the days of the
between universities and the commercial ivory tower are rapidly receding as European
world are increasingly blurred. Oxford universities and the tech industry learn to
Science Innovation is a private venture firm, dance together.

Trending Hubs & Communities
Strong and supportive

Founders picked the presence of a strong personal network and
a supportive local tech community as two of the top three most
important personal considerations for choosing where to start.
Europe continues to ourish and to experience growth rates in the number of cities hosting over 100 tech-
EuropeMeetup
related continues to flourish
events. 2019 inand to experience
particular growth
registered rates50%
an almost in the number
increase of over year.
year
cities hosting
Europe continues over 100
to ourish andtech-related
to experienceMeetup
growthevents.
rates in2019 in particular
the number registered
of cities hosting over 100 tech-
an almost
related Meetup 50%
Europe events.
continues increase
2019 year
toin ourish
particularover year.
andregistered
to experience
an growth50%
almost rates in the number
increase year of year.
over cities hosting over 100 tech-
Number of European cities with
related Meetup events.
100+ tech-related 2019 in particular registered an almost 50% increase year over year.
Meetup events
170
per year
Number of European cities with 150
170
NumberMeetup
100+ tech-related of European cities with
events
170
per year 100+ tech-related Meetup events
# of European cities
117
150 110
per year
150
100
90
117
110
70 117
100 110
90
100
50 90
70
70
50
50
0
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
0
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
0
NOTE:
SOURCE: 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
2019 annualised based on data to end of
September 2019.
NOTE: SOURCE:
NOTE:
2019 annualised based on data to end of SOURCE:
September 2019.
2019 annualised based on data to end of
September 2019.

08.4 Trending Hubs & Communities
Europe's largest and most mature tech communities continue to see a slow yet steady increase in the
level of participation in tech-related Meetup events. Level of participation outside the top 5 hubs is
growing even faster yearEurope's largest
on year, and most
especially mature
in cities tech
such communities
as Hamburg, continue
Istanbul to seetoa name
or Zurich, slow yet steady increase in the level of
a few.
Europe's largest and most mature tech communities continue to see a slow yet steady increase in the level of
participation in tech-related Meetup events. Level of participation outside the top 5 hubs is growing even faster
participation
year on year, in tech-related
especially Meetup events.
in cities Level Istanbul
of participation outside theatop 5 hubs is growing even faster
Europe's largest and most mature tech such as Hamburg,
communities continue to see a sloworyet
Zurich, to name
steady increase in thefew.
level of
year on year, especially in cities such as Hamburg, Istanbul or Zurich, to name a few.
Top 20 hubs by level of tech- DATASET: HUBS 6-10
Top 20 hubs
related by level
Meetup of tech-
activity in 2019, DATASET: TOP 5 HUBS
Top 20 hubs by level of tech- DATAS E T : TO P 5 H U B S
related
ranked Meetup
by number activity
of in 2019,
attendees
related Meetup activity in 2019,
ranked bynumber
ranked by number of attendees
of attendees
LEGEND TOP 5 HUBS
LEGEND
LEGEND
Istanbul 80,000
London
London
Madrid
Berlin 300,000
Berlin
Warsaw
Paris 300,000
Amsterdam
Paris
# of Meetup attendees
Barcelona 60,000
attendees
Munich
Amsterdam
attendees
Hamburg 200,000
Europe's
Munich largest and most mature tech communities continue to see a slow yet steady increase in the level of
of Meetup
participation in tech-related Meetup events.200,000 Level of participation outside the top 5 hubs is growing even faster
40,000
# of#Meetup
year on year,
Europe's especially
largest in cities
and most mature tech such as Hamburg,
communities
100,000 Istanbul
continue to see a sloworyet
Zurich, to name
steady increase a few.
in the level of
20,000
100,000
Top 20 hubs by level of tech- 0
DATASET: HUBS 6-10
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
related Meetup activity
Top 20 hubs by level of tech-in 2019, DATAS E T : H U B S 6 - 1 0
ranked
related by number
Meetup ofinattendees
activity 2019,
ranked
NOTE:
by number of attendees 0
SOURCE: 2015 2016 2017 2018
LEGEND
2019 annualised based on RSVPs to end of
HUBS 6-10 0
LEGEND 2015 2016 2017 2018
September 2019.
Istanbul
Istanbul 80,000 80,000
Madrid
Madrid
NOTE:
Warsaw SOURCE:
Warsaw
NOTE:
2019 Barcelona
annualised based on RSVPs to end of 60,000 SOURCE:
September
Barcelona 2019.based on RSVPs to end of 60,000
2019 annualised
Hamburg
September 2019.
Europe's
Hamburglargest and most mature tech communities continue to see a slow yet steady increase in the level of
40,000
year on year,
Europe's especially
largest in cities
communities
40,000
Istanbul
continue to see a sloworyet
Zurich, to name
in the level of
20,000
Top 20 hubs by level of tech- DATASET: 20,000HUBS 1 1-15
0
related Meetup activity in 2019, DATAS E T : H U B S 1 1 - 1 5
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Top 20 hubs by level of tech-
ranked
related by number
Meetup ofinattendees
activity 2019,
ranked
NOTE:
SOURCE:
LEGEND
HUBS 11-15 2015 2016 2017 2018
LEGEND
September 2019.
Dublin 50,000
Dublin 50,000
Though
Zürich
Zürich
there is a near absence of women in technical leadership positions within European venture-backed
tech companies, there is not an absence
NOTE:
Stockholm
Stockholm 40,000 of developer
SOURCE:
40,000
talent with signi cant experience in either gender.
Manchester

Manchester
September
Oslo 2019.
Oslo 30,000
Europe's largest
Experience and most mature tech communities
and gender continue to see a slow yet steady increase in the level of
DATASET: NON-BINARY
30,000
participation in tech-related Meetup20,000
events. Level of participation outside the top 5 hubs is growing even faster
year on year,
Europe's especially
largest in cities
communities continue
20,000
Istanbul
to see a sloworyet
Zurich, to name
in the level of
participation in tech-related Meetup events.10,000
Level of participation outside the top 5 hubs is growing even faster
< 5 years
Top 20 hubs by level of tech- DATASET: HUBS 16-20
0 10,000
related Meetup activity in 2019, 2015
DATAS E T : H U B S 1 6 - 2 0
2016 2017 2018 2019
Top 20 hubs by level of tech-
ranked by number of attendees
related Meetup activity in 2019, 5 to 9 years
ranked
NOTE:
SOURCE: 2015 2016 2017 2018
LEGEND
HUBS 16-20
LEGEND
September 2019. 40,000
Budapest 40,000 10 to 14 years 21%
Budapest
Lisbon
Lisbon
NOTE: SOURCE:
Wroclaw
Wroclaw 30,000
2019 Frankfurt
annualised based on RSVPs to end of 15 to30,000
19 years 11%
Frankfurt
September
Vienna
2019.
Vienna
20,000
20+ years 10%
20,000
10,000
0 3 5 8 10 13 15 18 20 23 25 2
% of respondents
10,000
0
NOTE: 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

NOTE: 0
code. SOURCE: 2015 2016 2017 2018
September 2019.
NOTE: SOURCE:
September 2019.

European tech communities are also expanding

beyond the largest hubs. The share of tech-
related Meetup events outside the top 20 hubs
has consistently increased over
European thecommunities
tech years. are also expanding beyond the largest hubs. The share of tech-related Meetup
European tech communities are also expanding beyond the largest hubs. The share of tech-related Meetup
events outside the top 20 hubs has consistently increased over the years.
events outside the top 20 hubs has consistently increased over the years.
100 100
Distribution
Distribution of tech-related
of tech-related
Meetup events in and outside top
Meetup events in and outside top
20 hubs in Europe
20 hubs in Europe 75 48% 49% 52% 54% 55%
75 48% 49%
% of tech-related Meetups
LEGEND 52% 54%
% of tech-related Meetups
% in top 20 hubs
LEGEND
% outside top 20 hubs 50
% in top 20 hubs
% outside top 20 hubs 50
25 52% 51% 48% 46% 45%
25 52% 51% 48% 46%

0
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
SO U R C E : 0
In fact, we are seeing a trend of 'decentralisation' as the
2015 2016 2017 2018
share of attendees in tech-related Meetup events

decreases year on year.
In fact, we are seeing a trend of 'decentralisation' SOURCE:
as the share of attendees
InSharein
fact,oftech-related
we Meetup 80
are seeing a trend of 'decentralisation' as the
attendees in tech-
events decreases year on year.
share of attendees in tech-related Meetup events
related
In fact, Meetup
we are events
seeing in of
a trend top'decentralisation' as the
decreases
share yearinon
of attendees
hubs year. Meetup events
tech-related
vs. nationwide 70
decreases year on year.

of attendees in top hubs
LEGEND 80
60
80
Share
Share of attendees
of attendees
London in tech-in tech-
related
related Meetup
Meetup
Berlin
eventsevents
in top in top
70 70
hubs
hubsvs. vs.
nationwide
nationwide 50
Paris
% of attendees in top hubs
LEGEND 60
Stockholm
hubs
LEGEND
London 60
40
% of attendees in top%
Amsterdam
London
Berlin
50
Paris
Berlin
Stockholm 50
30
Paris 40
Amsterdam
Stockholm
30 40
20
Amsterdam 2015 2016 2017 2018
20
2015 30 2016 2017 2018 2019
NOTE:
SOURCE:
NOTE:
2019 annualised based on data to September SO U R C E : 20
2019. 2015 2016 2017 2018
2019.
NOTE: SOURCE:
2019.
This year alone, we've Europe is unique in its model of multiple technology hubs
across the continent, which has meant that no single
invested for the first place has the depth and breadth of a Silicon Valley. But we
time in Prague, Milan and are now seeing unprecedented levels of entrepreneurial
Aarhus. activity across the region, not just in the traditional hubs
of London, Paris and Stockholm. This year alone, we've
invested for the first time in Prague, Milan and Aarhus.
When these markets are taken together, they show a Sonali de Rycker
true diversity in sector and approach - from fintech to
Accel
healthtech and enterprise automation. The fragmentation
also means that talent is dispersed and companies need to Partner
be mindful of location as they scale.

As the number of options keeps growing every year, top tech hubs such as London, Berlin, Barcelona, Paris, and
Copenhagen are losing their popularity amongst founders.
As the number of options keeps growing every year, top tech hubs such as London, Berlin, Barcelona,
As the number of options keeps growing every year, top tech hubs such as London, Berlin, Barcelona, Paris, and
Paris,
As the
Top and
hubs Copenhagen
number
where of options
founders are losing
keeps
would their popularity
growing every year, amongst
London founders.
top tech hubs such as London, Berlin, Barcelona, Paris, and 41%
Copenhagen are losingare
Copenhagen
start a company
their popularity
losing their
tomorrow,
amongst founders.
2018 popularity amongst founders.
37%
40%
vs 2019 Berlin
34%
20% 41%
Top hubs where
LEGE founders
Top hubs
ND wherewould
founders would
London Barcelona
London 18% 37%
41%
37%
start a company
start tomorrow,
a company
% of votes 2018 2018
tomorrow, 2018 20%
Paris 40%
40%
vs 2019 vs %
2019
of votes 2019
Berlin Berlin 15% 34%
34%
12%
Amsterdam 20% 20%
Barcelona Barcelona 15%
L E G E ND LEGE ND 18% 18%
12%
% of votes 2018 % of votes 2018 Lisbon
Paris
20% 20%
Paris 10%
15%
15%
% of votes 2019 % of votes 2019 6%
Munich 12%
Amsterdam 8%
12%
Amsterdam 15%
15%
6%
Milan 12%
Lisbon 7% 12%
Lisbon 10%
5% 10%
Tallinn 6%
Munich 6% 7%
Munich 8%
8% 6%
Stockholm 6%
Milan 6%
6% 7%
Milan
7% 5% 6%
Dublin
Tallinn 5%
5% 7%
Tallinn 4%
Madrid 6%7%
Stockholm 5%
6% 6%
Stockholm 4%
Vienna 6% 6%
Dublin 5%
5%
6%
Dublin 6%
Zurich 5% 4%
Madrid 5%
5%
4% 3%
Madrid Tel Aviv 4%
Vienna 5% 4%
5%
4% 6%
ViennaCopenhagen 6%
Zurich 5% 4%
5%
6%
3%
3%
Zurich Warsaw
Tel Aviv 5% 4%
4%
3% 1%
Oslo 6%
Tel AvivCopenhagen 3%
4% 4%
2%
Edinburgh 6%
3%
Copenhagen Warsaw 3%
4% 4%
1%
Brussels
Oslo 3% 1%
Warsaw 3%
4% 3%
0 2% 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
1%
Edinburgh
Oslo 3% % of votes
3%
1%
Brussels
2%
Edinburgh 3%
NOTE: 3%
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Founders were asked to allocate three votes SOURCE:
1%
Brussels % of votes
in the survey. Percentages indicate the share 3%
of founders that cited each named city.
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
NOTE: % of votes
in the survey. Percentages indicate the share
NOTE:

in the survey. Percentages indicate the share
We need to build up Local ecosystems are still too isolated from each other.
Whenever you visit a European capital, you can always
stronger relationships spot interesting things on the ground: entrepreneurs with
between these local higher ambitions; angel investors with an improving track
ecosystems so as to form record; venture capital firms with more capital to deploy;
and more technical talent willing to join the startup
a pan-European network world. However, every single city in Europe ignores all the
and improve liquidity others —with the one notable exception of London. And I Nicolas Colin
think that's the biggest challenge we need to tackle. We
in the markets for both need to build up stronger relationships between these
The Family
talent and capital. local ecosystems so as to form a pan-European network Co-Founder &
and improve liquidity on the markets for both talent and Director
capital. Also, we're still waiting for the European tech
world to inspire its own culture, one that would make
it possible for people from different countries and
backgrounds to work together. Distributed teams are all
the rage now, including in Silicon Valley. But you can't work
as a distributed team if that team is not cemented by a
common culture. We need that pan-European tech culture
if we want people from various European countries to
work together and build successful tech companies.

Bright future ahead for Central & Eastern Europe

Central and Eastern Europe have come to the limelight in the last 12 months.
Not only because of the record level of capital invested in Romania and the rise
of UiPath to a $1B+ company but also because of their leadership in areas such as
diversity and technical talent pool. So the growth of tech communities across CEE
countries is great news for Europe as a whole.
Europe continues to see geographic diversity amongst the Top 20 fastest-growing tech hubs by year-on-year
growth to tech-related Meetup events. Iasi, a city in Romania where United State's tech giant Amazon set up
Europe continues toosee geographic
Europe continues
ce space, todiversity
rankedsee numberamongst
geographic the
diversity
two as the
Top 20
amongst the fastest-
Top 20 fastest-growing
fastest-growing community tech hubs by year-on-year
overall.
growing tech hubs by year-on-year growth
growth to tech-related to tech-related
Meetup events. Iasi, a cityMeetup
in Romania events. Iasi,State's tech giant Amazon set up
where United
Europe
a city in Romania where continues
o ce space,
United State's to seegiant
ranked number
tech geographic
two diversity
as the fastest-growing
Amazon set up office amongst the Top 20 fastest-growing tech hubs by year-on-year
community overall.
space,
growth to tech-related Meetup events. Iasi,
overall.a city in Romania where United State's tech giant Amazon set up
Top 20fastest-growing
fastest-growing tech DATASET: HUBS 1-10
ranked number two as the community
o hubs
ce in
space,
Europeranked
Top 20 fastest-growing tech number two as the fastest-growing community overall.
by year-on-year DATAS E T : H U B S 1 - 1 0
hubs in Europe by year-on-year
growth of attendees to tech-
Europe
growth continues
related toper
seecity
of attendees to tech-
related Meetup events
Meetup events per city
geographic diversity amongst the Top 20 fastest-growing tech hubs by year-on-year
HUBS 1-10
growth to tech-related
Top 20 fastest-growing Meetup events. Iasi,
tech DATASET: a city in Romania
HUBS 1-10 where United State's tech giant Amazon set up
o hubs
ceinspace,
Europeranked number two as the
by year-on-year fastest-growing
Darmstadt, Germany
community overall.
Darmstadt, Germany
119%
growth of attendees to tech- Iasi, Romania 111%

Iasi, Romania
related Meetup events per city Nürnberg, Germany 82%
Top 20 fastest-growing tech DATASET: HUBS 1-10

Montpellier, France Nürnberg, Germany 74% 82%
hubs in Europe by year-on-year Aarhus, DenmarkDarmstadt, Germany
Montpellier, France 69% 74%
growth of attendees to tech- Basel, Switzerland 69%
Iasi, Romania
related Meetup events
Europe continues to seeper city
geographic diversity amongst the Top
Izmir, Turkey
Aarhus, Denmark
20 fastest-growing tech hubs by year-on-year
67%
69%
growth to tech-related Meetup events. Iasi, a city in Romania where

Nürnberg,
Basel, United State's tech giant Amazon set up
Germany
Switzerland 69%
82%
Bern, Switzerland 67%
o ce space, ranked number two as the fastest-growing community overall.
Darmstadt, Germany
Milton Keynes, United Kingdom Montpellier,
Izmir,France
Turkey 59% 67% 74%
Zaragoza, Spain Iasi,Denmark
Aarhus, Romania 57% 69%
Top 20 fastest-growing tech DATAS E T : H U B S 1 1 - 2 0 Bern, Switzerland 67%
hubs in Europe by year-on-year 0
Nürnberg,
Basel,
20
Germany
Switzerland
40 60 80 100
69%
120 82%
Milton Keynes, United Kingdom YoY growth (%) 59%
growth of attendees to tech-
related Meetup events per city Montpellier, France
Izmir, Turkey 67% 74%
Zaragoza, Spain 57%
HUBS 11-20
NOTE:
Aarhus,
Bern, Denmark
Switzerland 69%
67%
2019 annualised based on RSVPs to end of S O U R C EStuttgart,
: Germany 0 20 40 60 56% 80 100
September 2019. Only hubs with at least YoY growth
Newcastle, United Kingdom
Milton Basel,
Keynes, Switzerland
United Kingdom 59% 69%(%)
55%
1,000 RSVPs in 2018 are included.
A Coruña, Spain 52%
Izmir, Turkey
Zaragoza, Spain 57% 67%
Tallinn, Estonia 51%
NOTE: Bern, Switzerland 0 67%
Gliwice, Poland
20 40 60 50%
80 100
2019 annualised based on RSVPs to end of SOURCE:
YoY growth (%)
September 2019. Only hubs with at least Exeter, UnitedMilton Keynes, United Kingdom
Kingdom 46% 59%
1,000 RSVPs in 2018 are included. Gdansk, Poland 46%57%
Zaragoza, Spain
NOTE: Bonn, Germany 45%
0 20 40 60 80 100
2019 annualised based on RSVPs to end of SOURCE:
Reading, United Kingdom 45%
YoY growth (%)
September 2019. Only hubs with at least Minsk, Belarus 44%
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
Central
NOTE: & Eastern European cities dominate the list of top YoY growth (%)
ten
2019fastest-growing
annualised based on RSVPs hubs by growth of active
to end of members
SOURCE:
September 2019. Only hubs with at least
year-on-year.
NOTE:
1,000 RSVPs in 2018 are included. SOURCE:
September 2019. Only hubs with at least
Kharkiv, Ukraine
Top 10 fastest-growing hubs in
Central & Eastern European cities dominate the
Europe by YoY growth rate of
list of top
Central & Eastern European
ten cities dominate
fastest-growing hubs
active members in tech-related
the
by list of
growth top
of ten
activefastest-growing
Iasi, Romania
members
Central
hubs by growth of active & Eastern European
members cities dominate the list of topIzmir, Turkey
year-on-year.
year-on-year.
Meetups
ten fastest-growing hubs by growth of active members
Gliwice, Poland 79%
year-on-year.
Cologne, Germany 78%
Kharkiv, Ukraine
Top 10 fastest-growing hubs in
Kharkiv, Ukraine 96%
Top 10 fastest-growing
Europe by YoY growth hubsrate
in of Novosibirsk, Russia 73%
Iasi, Romania
Europe by YoY growth rate of Iasi, Romania 90%
active members
active members in tech-related
in tech-related Minsk, Belarus 62%
Izmir, Turkey
Meetups
Meetups
Izmir, Turkey 88%
Gliwice, PolandDarmstadt, Germany

Gliwice, Poland 79% 56%
79%
Stuttgart, Germany 55%
Novosibirsk, Russia 73%
Minsk, Belarus
Novosibirsk, Russia 62%
73%
Darmstadt, Germany Minsk, Belarus 0 10 20 30

56%
40 50 60 62% 70 80
YoY growth (%)
Darmstadt, Germany 56%
NOTE: 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
YoY growth (%)
2019 annualised based on active members to SOURCE:
end of September 2019. Only cities with over
1,000 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
NOTE:active members in 2018 are included.
SOURCE: YoY growth (%)
2019 annualised based on active members to
end of September 2019. Only cities with over
1,000 active members in 2018 are included.
NOTE:
2019 annualised based on active members to SOURCE:

end of September 2019. Only cities with over 207 In Partnership with &
08.4
Central & Eastern Europe also dominates the list of top ten countries by Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR)
Trending Hubs & Communities
of active members since 2015. Albania, the leading country in this category, has seen a CAGR of 267%.
Central & Eastern Europe also dominates the list of top ten countries by Compound 2015 Annual
2016 Growth
2017 2018 2019 CAGR 2015-2019
Rate (CAGR) of active members since

Top 10 countries by 2015.
growthAlbania,
of the leading country
Albania in this58category,
226 has
746 seen a
Central & Eastern Europe also dominates the list of top ten countries by Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR)
1,037 1,064 267%
CAGR ofof267%. Central & Eastern

active members Europe also dominates the list of top ten countries by Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR)
in tech-related
active members since 2015. Albania, the leading
Meetup groups country in this
Macedonia 136 category,
503 543 has 1,036
seen a1,584
CAGR133%
of 267%.
of active members since 2015. Albania, the leading country in this category, has seen a CAGR of 267%.
Belarus 270 637 975 1,687 2,721 102%
2015 20152016 2016 20172017 2018
2018 2019
2019 CAGR2015-2019
CAGR 2015-2019
Turkey 8,020 17,689 36,903 51,145 75,228 88%
Top 10 countries
Topby growth ofby growth of
10 countries Albania Albania 58 58 226 226 746 746 1,037
1,037 1,064
1,064 267%
267%
active membersactive members in tech-related
in tech-related Russia 6,477 13,662 24,067 37,474 52,455 62%
Meetup groups MacedoniaMacedonia 136 136 503 503 543 543 1,036
1,036 1,584
1,584 133%
133%
Meetup groups Bulgaria 1,043 2,972 3,937 6,347 7,913 52%
Belarus 270 637 975 1,687 2,721 102%
Belarus Czech Republic 270 637 7,423 975 11,663
3,267
1,687
15,313
2,721
21,703
102%
33%
Turkey 8,020 17,689 36,903 51,145 75,228 88%
Turkey Ukraine 8,020 5,10117,68911,052 36,903
18,385 51,145
24,437 75,228
30,493 88%
20%
Russia 6,477 13,662 24,067 37,474 52,455 62%
Russia Portugal 6,477 5,54113,66211,320 24,067
16,670 22,665
37,474 32,232
52,455 16%
62%
Bulgaria 1,043 2,972 3,937 6,347 7,913 52%
Bosnia and Herzegovina 337 858 1,451 1,615 1,932 15%
Bulgaria 1,043 2,972 3,937 6,347 7,913 52%
Czech Republic 3,267 7,423 11,663 15,313 21,703 33%
NOTE: Czech Republic

Ukraine 3,267 5,1017,42311,052 11,663
18,385 15,313
24,437 21,703
30,493 33%
20%
CAGR = Compound Annual Growth Rate. 2019 Ukraine SOURCE:

Portugal 5,101 5,54111,05211,320 18,385
16,670 24,437
22,665 30,493
32,232 20%
16%
annualised based on active members to end
of September 2019. Only countries with over
1,000 active members in 2018 are included. Portugal Bosnia and Herzegovina
5,541 337 11,320858 1,451
16,670 1,615
22,665 1 ,932
32,232 15%
16%
NOTE:
Bosnia and Herzegovina 337 858 1,451 1,615 1 ,932 15%
CAGR = Compound Annual Growth Rate. 2019

annualised based on active members to end SOURCE:
NOTE: of September 2019. Only countries with over
CAGR = Compound Annual Growth Rate. 2019
annualised based on active members to end SOURCE:
of September 2019. Only countries with over
A number of successful In Belarus, a drastic difference between the average
compensation in IT and in general in the country drives
acquisitions of Belarusian a lot of people to acquire an education and a job in IT. A
startups started a boom number of successful acquisitions of Belarusian startups
in the Belarusian startup (maps.me acquired by Mail.Ru, MSQRD by Facebook,
AIMATTER by Google, etc.) started a boom in the
ecosystem. Belarusian startup ecosystem. It was further accelerated
when the The Decree on Development of Digital Economy Yury Melnichek
passed in December 2017 and greatly improved the tax and
Bulba Ventures
legal regime of the High Tech Park. It is now relatively easy
for a startup to apply for the HTP regulation and make use Co-Founder &
of tax benefits and simpler legal regulation. Partner

have made
28 thehave
28cities
cities listmade
have of European
made the
thelist
listof citiescities
ofEuropean
European surpassing
citiessurpassing
surpassing 1,000 members of tech groups for the first time.
1,000 members of tech groups for the rst time.
mbers of tech groups for the rst time.
Country 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 YoY growth 2018-2019
European cities surpassing 1,000 Bursa Turkey 60 91 193 396 1,324 234%
members of tech-related Meetup
n cities surpassing
groups for 1,000
the rst time in 2019 Bursa
Würzburg Germany
Turkey
69
60
206 397
91
625
193
1,117 79%
396 1,324 234%
ranked by YoY growth
s of tech-related Meetup Szczecin Poland 180 349 538 880 1,429 62%
Würzburg Germany 69417 206 907 3971,440 625 1,117 79%

or the rst time in 2019 Skopje Macedonia 102 432 59%
y YoY growth SzczecinKazan Russia

Poland 186
180225 439
349 725
5381,140 880
57%
1,429 62%
Lublin Poland 137 470 644 704 1,087 54%
Skopje Macedonia 102 417 432 907 1,440 59%
Coimbra Portugal 228 368 501 690 1,036 50%
Kazan Braga Russia

Portugal 157 186332 225
619 727 4391,085 725
49% 1,140 57%
Bydgoszcz Poland 87 292 507 720 1,068 48%
28 cities have made the list of European
Lublin cities surpassing
Poland 137 470 644 704 1,087 54%
1,000 members of tech groups for the rst time.
Chisinau Moldova 285 572 717 925 1,345 45%
CoimbraAmstelveen Portugal
Netherland s 321 228
553 368
842 941 501 1,365 690
45% 1,036 50%
Tampere Finland 308 491 853 919 1,328 45%
European cities surpassing 1,000 Braga Bursa Portugal
Turkey 60 15791 332
193 396 619 1,324 727
234% 1,085 49%
members of tech-related Meetup Stavanger Norway 555 792 787 759 1,096 44%
Würzburg Germany 69 206 397 625 1,117 79%
groups for the rst time in 2019 Bydgoszcz Poland 87 394 292 5071,164 720 1,068 48%
Augsburg Germany 205 676 815 43%
ranked by YoY growth Szczecin Poland 180 349 538 880 1,429 62%
Bochum
ChisinauSkopje Germany
Moldova 139 266
285417 478
572 744 717 1,055 42%
925 1,345 45%
Macedonia 102 432 907 1,440 59%
Firenze Italy 217 397 593 938 1,319 41%
Kazan Russia 186 225 439 725 1,140 57%
Amstelveen Netherland s 321 553 842 941 1,365 45%
Wiesbaden Germany 177 332 579 919 1,280 39%
Lublin Poland 137 470 644 704 1,087 54%
TampereMainz Finland
Germany 174 308
363 491
620 930 8531,288 919
39% 1,328 45%
Coimbra Portugal 228 368 501 690 1,036 50%
Milton Keynes United Kingdom 307 674 777 909 1,217 34%
Stavanger
Braga Norway
Portugal 157 555332 792
619 727 7871,085 759
49% 1,096 44%
Espoo Finland 492 771 866 840 1,103 31%
Bydgoszcz Poland 87 292 507 720 1,068 48%
Augsburg
Coventry Germany
United Kingdom 454 205
651 394
822 851 6761,115 815
31% 1,164 43%
Chisinau Moldova 285 572 717 925 1,345 45%
BochumEnschede
Amstelveen
Netherlands
Germany
Netherlands
31 5
321
567
139553 681
266
842
834 1,081
941 4781,365
30%
744
45% 1,055 42%
Kaunas Lithuania 108 223 498 932 1,171 26%
Tampere Finland 308 491 853 919 1,328 45%
Firenze Italy 217 397 593 938 1,319 41%
Luzern Switzerland 407 688 814 883 1,087 23%
Stavanger Norway 555 792 787 759 1,096 44%
Wiesbaden
Bournemouth Germany
Augsburg
United Kingdom
Germany
362
205
177394
613 332
996
676
983 5791,152
815 1,164
919
17%
43%
1,280 39%
York United Kingdom 274 499 714 753 1,024 36%
Mainz Bochum Germany
Germany 139 174266 363
478 744 6201,055 930
42% 1,288 39%
Büyükçekmece Turkey 35 112 429 810 1,016 25%
Firenze Italy 217 397 593 938 1,319 41%
Milton Keynes
Eskisehir United
TurkeyKingdom 41 307
90 674
930 947 777 1,004 909
6% 1,217 34%
Wiesbaden Ger many 177 332 579 919 1,280 39%
Espoo Mainz Finland

Germany 174 492363 771
620 930 8661,288 840
39% 1,103 31%
NOTE: Milton Keynes United Kingdom 307 674 777 909 1,217 34%
Coventry
SOURCE: United Kingdom 454 651 822 851 1,115 31%
2019 annualised based on active members to Espoo Finland 492 771 866 840 1,103 31%
end of September 2019.
Enschede
Coventry Netherlands
United Kingdom 454 31 5651 567
822 851 681 1,115 834
31% 1,081 30%
Kaunas Enschede Netherlands

Lithuania 315
108567 681
223 834
4981,081 932
30%
1,171 26%
Kaunas Lithuania 108 223 498 932 1,171 26%
Bournemouth
Bournemouth United
United Kingdom
Kingdom 362 362
613 613
996 983 9961,152 983
17% 1,152 17%
Büyükçekmece Turkey 35 112 429 810 1,016 25%
Büyükçekmece
Eskisehir Turkey
Turkey 41 35 90 112
930 947 4291,004 810
6% 1,016 25%
Eskisehir Turkey 41 90 930 947 1,004 6%

NOTE:
SOURCE:
2019 annualised based on active members to
end of September 2019.
SOURCE:
sed based on active members to
ember 2019.

Policy
What can policymakers do to best help European tech?

European policymakers will play a critical role in determining the
speed at which European tech can fulfil its potential, but too many
founders are still in the dark about the policy vision for technology.
Policymakers need to maintain focus on what’s going on inside
Europe, and be less distracted by external factors. By paying
attention to the priorities of founders, and delivering on initiatives
like the Digital Single Market, policymakers can create optimal
conditions for innovation and growth in Europe.

Europe Policy Focus
Measuring policy focus in Europe
The data challenge

According to our survey respondents, Margrethe Vestager had the most impact
in European tech this year. She came first by a long mile with 12% of respondents’
votes. In fact 40% who picked the EU competition commissioner were founders/
employee of tech startups and 10% were part of the VC community. As such, our
aim in this article is to identify opportunities for improved collaboration between
policymakers and the European tech community. To do this, we used Politico Pro
Intelligence to analyse the activity of the European Parliament (the legislative
branch of the European Union) during the last term of the European Parliament
(2014 to 2019) to better understand the policy conversation around a number of key
topics for the tech community. The European Parliament, as the body that debates
and approves policy legislation, is where we can see the 'end result' of the European
policy agenda that is set by the European Commission. In other words, it's a useful
proxy for actual policy outcomes that may have a nearer-term impact on the
European tech ecosystem. If it were possible, we would extend the analysis to
cover the European Commission, which creates and proposes the forward-looking
policy agenda for the European Union, to be able to complement this analysis with
a longer-term view on future policy focus.
Activities and press releases provide a sense of what is being talked about and
Activities and press releases provide a sense of what is being talked about and the responses to those
the responses to those discussions. Legislative documents on the other end tell
discussions. Legislative documents on the other end tell us what makes it into draft policies.
Activities
usand
whatpress
Activities andreleases
makes it into
press provide a senseaof
draft policies.
releases provide whatof
sense iswhat
beingistalked
being about
talkedand
about theand
responses to those
the responses to those
discussions. Legislative documents on the other end
discussions. Legislative documents on the other tell us
end
Information what
tell makes
us what it into
makes draft
it policies.
into
Description draft policies. Why Is It Useful?
Type
Overview of European
Parliament data InformationInformation This data looks specifically at keywords occurrences in
Description Description Activities are a good Why Is Itfor
proxy Useful?
WhytheIsprevalence
It Useful? of selected technology-
Type
1 Activities parliamentary questions, speeches and debates made
Overview Overview
of European
of European Type
by elected legislators.
related discussions taking place at the EP.
Parliament data This data looks specifically at keywords occurrences in
This data looks specifically at keywords occurrences in
Parliament data 1 Activities parliamentary questions, speeches
Activities are a good are
Activities proxy for the
a good prevalence
proxy of selected
for the prevalence oftechnology-
selected technology-
1 Activities parliamentary questions,and debates
speeches made
and debates made
related discussions takingare
Press releases place at the
ataking
proxy forEP.
theatresponse
by elected legislators.
This data focuses on keywords occurences in related discussions place the EP. of the EP to these
Press by elected legislators. discussions and the communication back to the public. This should
2 commentaries and responses from the various agencies
releases translate into greater awareness of the issu es at hand (and proposed
and other moving parts of government. Press releases are a proxy for
This data focuses on keywords solutions)
Press of theare
releases athe
public.response
proxy for the of the EP to
response of these
the EP to these
Press This data focuses onoccurences in
keywords occurences in discussionsdiscussions
and the communication back to theback public. This should
2 Press
commentaries and responses from the various agen cies and the communication to the public. This should
2
releases commentaries and responses from the various agen cies into greater awareness of the issues at hand (and proposed
translate
releases This
and other moving data looks
parts at parts
the number
of government. of keywords occurences translate into greater awareness of the issues at hand (and proposed
and other moving of government.
related to legislative documentation, which relatessolutions)
to of the public.
solutions)
Legislation ofisthe public.
a proxy for the 'outcome' of 'activities', as it takes
3 Legislation
the ongoing process of law making, actual bills, discussions a step further into the process of law making.
This data looks at thelooks
procedures,
This data number of keywords
etc.at the number ofoccurences
keywords occurences
related to legislative
related to documentation,
legislative which relates
documentation, to relatesLegislation
which to is a proxy for
Legislation is athe 'outcome'
proxy for the of 'activities',
'outcome' as it takesas it takes
of 'activities',
3 Legislation
3 Legislation
the ongoingtheprocess
ongoingo f law making,
process actual
o f law bills,actual bills, discussionsdiscussions
making, a step further intofurther
a step the process
into the ofprocess
law making.
of law making.
procedures,procedures,
etc. etc.
NOTE:
We look at the number of keyword
occurrences relating to a set of selected SOURCE:
NOTE: NOTE:
technology-related topics in the European
We look at the number
look atof
Parliament.
We keyword
the number of keyword
occurrences occurrences
relating to a set of selected
relating to a set of selected S O U R C E : SOURCE:
technology-related topics in the topics
technology-related European
in the European
Parliament. Parliament.

09.1 Europe Policy Focus
We interrogated European Parliament documentation over the period 2014-2019 to get a sense of which topics
surfaced most frequently in terms of mentions in activities and press releases. It might be surprising to see
that Big Tech companies from the US were cited more frequently than any other topic, surpassing even Brexit.
We interrogated European Parliament documentation over the period 2014-2019
Data privacy-related terms, including GDPR, came in third.
to get a sense of which topics surfaced most frequently in terms of mentions in
We interrogated European Parliament documentation over the period 2014-2019 to get a sense of which topics
activities and press releases.
surfaced
Itmost
mightfrequently
be surprising to see that Big Tech companies
in terms of mentions in activities and press releases. It might be surprising to see
from the US were cited Number
more of mentions
frequently of keyword
than any
We
that interrogated
Bigmost
surfaced
Tech
occurrences
European
companies
related toin
frequently key from thetopic,
other
Parliament
US weresurpassing
documentation
cited
terms of mentions in activities
moreeven
over the period 2014-2019 to get a sense of which topics
frequently than any other topic, surpassing even Brexit.
and press releases. It might be surprising to see
Brexit. Data privacy-related
Data terms, including
privacy-related GDPR,
terms, came
including in third. 5,000
topics
that Big in European
Tech Parliament
companies from the US were citedGDPR, came in
more frequently third.
than any other topic, surpassing even Brexit.
# of mentions
activities
Data and press
privacy-related releases,
terms, including GDPR, came in third.
2014-2019
Number of mentions of keyword
Number of mentions of keyword 2,500
occurrences
LEGEND
occurrences related
related to key to key
5,000 5,000
topics
topics in European
# ofinmentions
European Parliament
Parliament
# of mentions
activities and press releases,
# of mentions
activities and press releases,
# of mentions (median of all topics)
2014-2019
2014-2019 0
2,500
LEGEND 2,500
es
it
PR
ce
ns
th
ke
ke
ta
ec
ex
al
ni
io
en
GD
n
ar
fa
l
LEGEND
nt
Br
he
pa
ta
# of mentions
pt
pa
llig
M
ep
Fi
d
gi
ko
m
m
l
le
ta
an
te
de
Di
co
co
ng
oc
gi
In
cy
n/
# of mentions
Di
h
ch
Si
St
l
tio
va
ec
ia
0
Te
c
ce ta
i
a
it t
pr
i
m
tif
ex ig
en i
g
PR ellig Dig
ta
Bi
r
Br b
Ar
efco
es
Da t
es
ns
th
es
ng
g
ke
a
US
tin
P
an
al
ak
lt
ni
io
ni
ntn
iti
GD
ar
he
pu
Fisi
pa
ta
pt
pa
ed
pf
pe
M
0
gi
Di
ko
m
m
m
ee
ce ital
le
n
e
Di
ro
co
co
ya
co
m
GD l Int
g
/d
oc
en Dig
in
no
Eu
ex ion
c
m
ch
ch
St
lS
iva
ia
Ge
ntsu
tas
th
te
Te
Br mat
ic
i
ke
giie
ke
ta
pr
ec
f
g
al
iuoa
g
i
n
rt
bi
ar
ta
Bi
or
fa
Dni
l
nt
he
pa
ta
pQt
pa
A
Da
US
llig
nf
n
ep
Fi
d
gi
ea
ko
si
m
m
l
le
ta
an
te
Di
de
Di
p
co
co
NOTE:
ng
ro
oc
gi
l In
cy
n/
Eu
Di
ch
ch
Si
St
io
iva
ia
te
Te
at
ic
ta
pr
This data looks at the number of keyword
tif
g
gi
g
bi
ta
Bi
or
Di
Ar
NOTE: SOURCE:
Da
US
occurrences related to key tech topics in
nf
an
si
pe
Di
European
This Parliament
data looks activities
at the number of keywordand press
ro
SOURCE:
Eu
occurrences
releases. related to key tech topics in
An analysis of European Parliament activities shows that Brexit has, of course, been a huge distraction in the
European Parliament activities and press
releases.
European
NOTE: Parliament over the past 4 years.
occurrences related to key tech topics in SOURCE:
An analysis of European Parliament activities shows that Brexit has, of course,
Number of mentions of Brexit in
releases.
1,056
been a huge distraction in the European
AnEuropean
analysis Parliament
Parliament activities
of European over
Parliament the past
activities 4 years.
shows that Brexit has, of course, been a huge distraction
1,011
in the
Anand
analysis
pressofreleases
European Parliament
per year activities shows that Brexit has, of course, been a huge distraction in the
1,000
European Parliament
European Parliament over
over the pastthe past 4 years.
4 years.
794
750
Number of mentions of Brexit in
# of mentions
NumberParliament
European of mentions of Brexit in
activities 1,011
1,056
1,056
European
and Parliament
press releases per year activities 1,000
1,011
1,000
and press releases per year 500
853
794
750
# of mentions
794
750
# of mentions
500 250
500 43
250 0
0
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
43
0
0
2014 250 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
NOTE:

NOTE: SOURCE:
43
occurrences
This data looks atrelated to of
the number Brexit in European
keyword SOURCE: 0
Parliamentrelated
occurrences activities and
to Brexit press releases.
in European 0
Parliament activities and press releases. 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
The level of focus on data privacy and GDPR during the previous European Parliament term is not a surprise. It
was,
NOTE:
arguably, the centrepiece of EU tech-related policy of the last parliamentary term. Following the
SOURCE:
The level of focus on implementation
data privacyrelatedand
ofGDPR
GDPR in Maythe
during
occurrences to Brexit in European
2018, it's nowEuropean
previous taken up materially less airtime in the European Parliament.
Parliament term is notParliament
a surprise. It was, arguably, the centrepiece
activities and press releases.
of EU tech-related policy of
Number the last parliamentary term. Following the
The levelofofmentions
focus on of data
data privacy and GDPR during the previous European Parliament 610 term is not a surprise. It
implementation of GDPR in May
privacy 2018,
or GDPR it’s now taken up materially600less airtime
in European
was,
The arguably,
level of focus the
on centrepiece
data privacy and of
GDPR EU tech-related
during the previous policy
European of the last
Parliament parliamentary
term is not a term.
surprise. It Following the
585
in the European Parliament.

Parliament activities and press
implementation of GDPRofinEUMay
was, arguably, the centrepiece 2018, it's
tech-related nowoftaken
policy the lastup materiallyterm.
parliamentary less airtimethe
Following
527
in the European Parliament.
releases per year
implementation of GDPR in May 2018, it's now taken up materially less airtime in the European Parliament.
# of mentions
Number
Number of mentions
of mentions of dataof data
400
610 610
privacy
privacy or or GDPR
GDPR in European
in European 600 600 585 585
Parliament activities and press 527
527
releases per year
releases per year 228
200
# of mentions
400
136
# of mentions
400
228 238
200
136 0
2014 2015 2016 228
2017 2018
200
NOTE: 0
136
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
occurrences related to data privacy issues in SOURCE:
NOTE:
releases. related to data privacy issues in SOURCE: 0
occurrences
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
releases.
NOTE:

SOURCE:
occurrences related to data privacy issues in
releases.
We also believe that As a business, we think globally – we don’t think locally.

We were born with the need to be international from
privacy is going to be a the beginning because our users demand it. The youth
huge topic globally, and of today are inherently global, and they seek fashion
as our laws are more inspiration from all over the world. This has forced us
to look at how our business can be more appealing
stringent in Europe – as a to other markets from day one. We also believe that
result of GDPR – we are in privacy is going to be a huge topic globally, and as our laws Maria Raga
are more stringent in Europe – as a result of GDPR – we are
a better position to adapt in a better position to adapt to our users’ expectations
Depop
to our users’ expectations as we expand globally. CEO
as we expand globally.
The Digital Single Market has been an important area of attention from European parliamentarians, especially
leading
The Digital Single Market hasupbeen
to and
an including
important2016,areabut given the widespread
of attention agreement on the importance of creating a uni ed
from European
parliamentarians, especially leading up to and including 2016, but given the is notable.
digital market, the drop in the level of discussion since 2016
widespread agreement on the importance of creating a unified digital market,
The
the drop in the level of Digital
discussion
Number Single
since
of mentionsMarket
of2016 has
is
Digital been an important area of attention from European parliamentarians, especially
notable.
leading up to in
Single Market and including 2016, but given the widespread agreement on the importance
European
675
of creating a uni ed
The Digital Single Market has been an important area of attention from European parliamentarians, especially
digital market,
Parliament the
activities drop in
and pressthe level of discussion
leading up to and including 2016, but given the widespread since 2016 is notable.
600 agreement on the importance of creating a uni ed
releases
digital per year
market, the drop in the level of discussion since 2016 is notable.
Number of mentions of Digital

# of mentions
Number of mentions of Digital 675

Single Market in European 400 675
Single Market in European 372
361
and press 600 330
600
releases per
releases per year
year
237
# of mentions
# of mentions
200
400 372
361
400 330
372
361
330275
237
200
0 237
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
200
NOTE: 0
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
occurrences
NOTE: related to Digital Single Market SOURCE:
in European
This data looks Parliament activities
at the number of keyword and press
0
releases.
occurrences related to Digital Single Market SOURCE: 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
in European Parliament activities and press
releases.
NOTE:
More recently,
This data looks at the there's been a surge of discussion around disinformation. Deep fakes clearly caught the
number of keyword
occurrences related to Digital Single Market SOURCE:
attention of Europe's legislators,
in European Parliament activities and press just as they captured the attention of the public.
More recently, there’s been
releases.a surge of discussion around disinformation. Deep
fakes clearly caught the attention of Europe’s legislators, just as they captured
Number of mentions of
the attention of the public.
More recently, there's been
disinformation/deepfakes
200
in a surge of discussion around disinformation. Deep fakes clearly caught the
attention
European
More of Europe's
Parliament
recently, there's legislators,
activities
been just asaround
a surge of discussion they disinformation.
captured theDeepattention of the
fakes clearly public.
caught the 167
and press
attention of releases per year just as they captured the attention of the public.
Europe's legislators, 150
Number of mentions of 200

# of mentions
Number of mentions of 200

disinformation/deepfakes
disinformation/deepfakes in in 187
European Parliament
European Parliament activities
activities 100 167 167
and press
and press releases
releases per year
per year
150
150
# of mentions
# of mentions
50
100 38
31
100
11
50 2
0 38
2014 31 2015 2016 2017 2018
50 11
2 38
NOTE: 0 31
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
This data looks at the number of keyword 11

occurrences
NOTE: related to SOURCE:
2
disinformation/deepfakes in European
occurrences related to and press releases. SOURCE: 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Parliament activities and press releases.
NOTE:
occurrences related to SOURCE:
Parliament activities and press releases.

What's interesting is just how little discussion, on a relative basis, there is around topics such as ntech or
09.1 digital
Europe Policy Focushealth, where European startups have had a huge impact on the global technology stage.
Number
What’s interesting is just howoflittle
mentions of ntech on a relative basis, there
discussion, 63
and digital health in European
is around topics such as
What's fintech
Parliament
or digital
interesting
activities is health,
just
and how
press
where European
little discussion, 60 startups
on a relative basis, there isasaround topics such as ntech or
What's interesting is just how little discussion, on a relative basis, there is around topics such ntech or
have had a huge impact onhealth,
digital theperglobal
health,
releases
digital where
year
where technology
European
European startupsstage.
startups
have had a have had aonhuge
huge impact impact
the global on thestage.
technology global technology stage.
LEGEND
# of mentions
Number of mentions of ntech 63
Number
digital of
andFintech mentions
health of ntech
in European
40 63
60
and digital
Parliament healthand
activities
Digital health
in press
European
releases per year 60
Parliament activities and press 25
23
releases
LEGEND
per year 21
# of mentions
40 20 17
Fintech
LEGEND
Digital health
# of mentions
10 28
26
40 7 25
23
Fintech 21
3 17
Digital health 20 1
0 10 25
7 23
2014 2015 2016
21 2017 2018
3
1 17
20
0
NOTE: 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
10
NOTE:
occurrences related to ntech/digital health SOURCE:
3
European Parliament
This data looks activities
at the number of keywordand press 1
releases. 0
releases. 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
NOTE:
For fintechs, European
European Parliament activities and press European tech continues to prosper, and it’s very likely
releases. the next giant will have started here. There are two crucial
regulators have fostered elements to this growth. Critically, later-stage VC money is
an environment in which no longer confined to Silicon Valley, removing the pressure
challengers can prosper for tech firms to relocate for scale. That’s had a massive
impact on the likes of TransferWise, Monzo and N26, who
on a level playing field have been able to grow, hire and innovate so much faster. For
with incumbents, e.g. fintechs, European regulators have fostered an environment Taavet Hinrikus
in which challengers can prosper on a level playing field with
the Bank of England incumbents, e.g. the Bank of England opening up settlement
TransferWise
opening up settlement accounts to non-banks. This forward-thinking approach is Co-Founder &
Chairman
accounts to non-banks. setting the standard for regulators all over the world, and is a
huge advantage for the European market. A year ago, Brexit
This forward-thinking was my big concern in continuing this momentum. Assuming
approach is setting the we lose the regulatory passporting rights the EU provides,
standard for regulators how would the current high-growth firms handle the need
to get regulated in multiple countries? Would TransferWise
all over the world, and is and others be able to continue to hire the talent we need to
a huge advantage for the scale? Today it’s clear the current crop of scale-ups will meet
this challenge. Most, like TransferWise, have already taken
European market. the steps needed to mitigate all possible Brexit outcomes. My
next concern is how we help the next generation of startups
also thrive, so that London in particular continues to be
attractive as a HQ to grow a business.
While it seems the European Parliament woke up to AI some time in 2016, it has yet to put strategically
importantParliament
While it seems the European and thriving deepup
woke tech
to AI elds
some like Quantum
time in 2016,Computing and Gene Editing on its policy agenda.
it has yet to put strategically important
While it seems and thriving
the European deep tech
Parliament fields
woke likeAI some time in 2016, it has yet to put strategically
up to
Quantum Computingimportant
and Gene
Number of Editing
and
mentions on
thriving
of its
Arti policy
deep
cial agenda.
While it seems the European Parliament woke up to AI some time inComputing
tech elds like Quantum 2016, it has yetand Gene
to put Editing on its policy agenda.
strategically 200
Intelligence,
important and Quantum
thriving deep tech elds like Quantum Computing and Gene Editing on its policy agenda.
Computing and Genetic Editing
Number
in Europeanof mentions
Parliament of Arti cial
Number of mentions of Arti cial 200
Intelligence,
activities and Quantum
Intelligence, Quantum
press releases per 200 150
Computing
year
Computing and and Genetic
Genetic EditingEditing
# of mentions
inin European Parliament

European Parliament
activities and
activities press
and releases
press per
releases per 150
150
LEGEND
year 100
year
# of mentions
Arti cial Intelligence

# of mentions
LEGEND
Quantum Computing 100
LEGEND
Genetic Editing 100
Quantum Computing 50
Genetic Editing
50
Quantum Computing
Genetic Editing
50
0
0
2014 2014
2015 2016 2015 2017 2016 2018 20172019 2018
NOTE:
NOTE:
This data looks
occurrences attothe
related arti number of keyword
cial intelligence,
SOURCE: 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
occurrences related
quantum computing to artiediting
and genetic cial intelligence,
in
European Parliament
quantum computing activities and press editing in
and genetic SOURCE:
NOTE:
releases.
releases.
occurrences related to arti cial intelligence,
quantum computing and genetic editing in SOURCE:
releases.

European information governance rules are strong on privacy

protection, but there are few contractual standards in place,
which makes it expensive and time-consuming to form bespoke
partnerships with every single institution.
Owkin is playing an important role More could be done by governments to support
in increasing collaboration between academic, collaboration. In America, for example, Thomas Clozel
biopharma and healthcare institutions hospitals have a standard contract form called Owkin
by championing a new class of technology a business association agreement (BAA) Co-Founder & CEO
called Federated Learning. FedAI allows which standardises how third parties access
researchers to collaborate and train predictive anonymised patient data. It is a rigorous but
models on the decentralised data within standard process. European information
disparate institutions, to reveal insights on governance rules are strong on privacy
mechanism of action, or drivers of disease protection, but there are few contractual
progression, while entirely safeguarding standards in place, which makes it expensive
patient privacy by sending the models to and time-consuming to form bespoke
the data and never removing data from the partnerships with every single institution.
hospital firewalls. However, I am confident that these issues are
being worked on, and that Europe is moving
in the right direction for both attracting and
retaining great health tech talent.
Taxation is, of course, a national competence and what is said in the European Parliament has no legal
standing, but it's still relevant to explore discussion on the topic to understand where priorities lie. We can also
see that while the idea of a digital tax has gained traction in European parliament activities, there has been less
discussion around key startup-related taxation changes, such as to the tax treatment of stock options.
Taxation is, of course, a national competence and what is said in the European Parliament has no
legal standing, but it’s still relevant
Taxation to explore
is, of course, discussion
a national on the topic
competence to understand
and what where
is said in the priorities
European Parliament has no legal
lie. We can also see that while
Number
standing, ofthe
but idea
mentions
it's of
of
still a digital
digital
relevant tax
to has
exploregained traction
discussion on in European
the topic to parliament
understand where priorities lie. We can also
Taxation
tax and is, of course,
stock options a national
in aroundcompetence and what is said in the European Parliament has no legal
activities, there has been
see less
that
standing, butdiscussion
while
it's the
still idea
relevant of
to a key
digital
explore startup-related
tax has
discussion gained
on the taxation
traction
topic to in changes,
European
understand where such asWe
parliament
priorities lie. tocanactivities,
also there has been less 39
European Parliament activities 40
the tax treatment of discussion
stock
see thatoptions.
whilearound
the idea of
and press releases per year key startup-related
a digital taxation
tax has gained traction changes,
in European such as
parliament to the
activities, tax
theretreatment
has been lessof stock options.
discussion around key startup-related taxation changes, such as to the tax treatment of stock options.
LEGEND 30
# of mentions
Number
Number ofof mentions
mentions of digital
of digital 43
Digital tax
tax andstock
tax and stock options
options in in 22 39
39
Stock options
European Parliament activities 40 20 20
and press releases per year
40
20
and press releases per year 14
LEGEND 30
# of mentions
10
Digital tax
LEGEND 30 822
# of mentions
10
Stock options 20 20
Digital tax 20
22
20 14 20
Stock options
0 0 0
20 10
9
10 8 0
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
14
0 0 0 10
NOTE: 0 10 8
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
occurrences related to digital tax and stock SOURCE:
NOTE:
The greater level of discussion in the European Parliament
options in European Parliament activities
0
on the idea
0
of a digital tax
0
compared with stock
and press releases. SOURCE: 0
option tax reform
occurrences
is better understood when examining
related to digital tax and stock
options in European Parliament activities 2014 which types of tech companies
2015 2016 have taken
2017up greater 2018
and press releases.
mindshare of European policymakers.
NOTE:
The greater level of discussion inthe
the European Parliament on the idea of a digital tax compared with
The
Thisgreater
data looks atlevel of discussion
number of keyword in the European
SOURCE: Parliament on the idea of a digital tax compared with stock
stock option tax reform is better
occurrences
Number understood
related
of reform when
to digital tax and stock
mentions examining which types of tech companies have
option
The tax
options in
greater European
level isofbetter
Parliament
of discussion
selected
activities understood when2,500
in the European examining
Parliament which
on the idea of types
a digital of techwith
tax compared companies
stock have taken up greater 2,381
taken up greater mindshare
US
and press
mindshare of
big tech European
companies versus
releases.
option tax reform of European policymakers.
policymakers.
is better understood when examining which types of tech companies have taken up greater
European tech companies in
mindshare of European policymakers.
European Parliament activities 2,000
Number
Number ofof mentions
mentions of selected
of selected 2,500 2,381
2,381
2,500
US bigtech
tech companies
versusversus
# of mentions
US big companies
LEGEND 1,500
European tech
European companies
tech in
companies in
European Parliament
US big tech activities
companies 2,000
European Parliament
activities 2,000
954
and press tech
European releases per year
companies 1,000
# of mentions
LEGEND 1,500 710

# of mentions
608
US big tech companies
LEGEND 1,500
European tech companies 954 929
US big tech companies 1,000 500
710
202
608 954
1,000 10 9 14 14 15
500
710
202 0 608
10
2014
9 14
2015 14
2016 15
2017
6
2018
0 500
NOTE: 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
202
NOTE:looks at the number of keyword
Data
10 9 14 14 15
occurrences
Data looks at therelated
number of tokeyword
select US big tech
(i.e. Google,related
occurrences Facebook,
to selectTwitter, Apple,
US big tech 0
(i.e. Google, Facebook, Twitter,
Microsoft, Amazon) and European Apple, tech 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Microsoft, Amazon) and European tech SOURCE:
companies (i.e. Spotify, Skype,
companies (i.e. Spotify, Skype, Adyen) in Adyen) in SOURCE:
NOTE:
European Parliament
activities and pressand press
releases.
releases.
Data looks at the number of keyword
occurrences related to select US big tech
(i.e. Google, Facebook, Twitter, Apple,
Microsoft, Amazon) and European tech
companies (i.e. Spotify, Skype, Adyen) in SOURCE:
releases.
215 In Partnership with &
The overall trends outlined in terms of the analysis of European Parliament activities and press releases also
The
lteroverall trends
down into outlined
the focus in terms
areas of the analysis
of legislative of European
documentation duringParliament
the last parliamentary term.
The overall trends outlined
activities and pressin releases
terms of the
also analysis
filter of European
down into the Parliament
focus areasactivities and press releases also
of legislative
The overall trends outlined in terms of the analysis of European Parliament activities and press releases also
lter down into the focusduring
documentation areas of legislative
the last documentation
parliamentary term.during the last parliamentary term.
lter down into the focus areas of legislative documentation during the last parliamentary term.
Number of mentions of key tech- Data privacy/GDPR 497
related issues in European
Number ofParliament
mentions of key tech-
legislative Data privacy/GDPR
Content & copyright 159 497
Number of mentions of key tech- Data privacy/GDPR 497
documents by topic, 2014-2019
Parliament legislative Content & copyright
Digital Single Market 159 152
Parliament legislative Content & copyright 159
documents by topic, 2014-2019
documents by topic, 2014-2019 Digital Single Market
Platform workers/gig economy 152 149
Digital Single Market 152
Platform workers/gig economy

Artificial Intelligence 149
93
Platform workers/gig economy 149
US big tech companies 93 72
Artificial Intelligence 93
US big tech companies Brexit 72 59

US big tech companies 72
Brexit Fintech 59 48
Brexit 59
Capital gains taxation48

Fintech 45
Fintech 48
Capital gains taxation

Disinformation/deepfakes 45 41
Capital gains taxation 45
Disinformation/deepfakes 41
Drones 36
Disinformation/deepfakes 41
Drones Stock options

36 32
Drones 36
Stock options 32
Blockchain/crypto 23
Stock options 32
Blockchain/crypto Digital health

23 18
Blockchain/crypto 23
Digital health
Autonomous 18
vehicles/mobility 15
Digital health 18
Autonomous vehicles/mobility 15 tax

Digital 6
Autonomous vehicles/mobility 15
Digital tax
Quantum 6
Computing 5
Digital tax 6
5
Quantum Computing European tech 5
Quantum Computing 5
European tech 5 Big Tech 2

European tech 5
2 editing
Big TechGenome 1
Big Tech 2
Genome editing 1 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550
Genome editing 1 # of mentions
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550
0 50 100 150 200 250
# of mentions 300 350 400 450 500 550
# of mentions
NOTE:
This data looks at the number of keyword SOURCE:

NOTE: occurrences of key tech-related issues in
NOTE:
European Parliament legislation.
This data looks at the number of keyword SOURCE:
This
occurrences of keydata looks at the
tech-related number
issues in of keyword SOURCE:
occurrences
European Parliament of key tech-related issues in
legislation.
European Parliament legislation.

The rise of AI, big data, gig workers, facial recognition technology and
5G has given rise to a new set of human rights issues. And governments
are turning their attention to the human rights impact of the adoption
and use of technology.
The healthcare platform that connects with The Council of Europe Commissioner for
patients around the world. Human Rights also published this year a Betsy Popken
10-point recommendation on AI and human Orrick
The disruptive consumer electronics innovator rights. The report recommends that member Special Counsel,
that makes and sells a new kind of device. states establish procedures for conducting Business and Human
human rights impact assessments, among Rights
The delivery app that relies on gig workers. other things.
The AI pioneer who utilises facial OECD also published its own Principles on AI
recognition technology. this year, calling for AI systems to be designed
in a way that respects human rights.
What do they all have in common?
They are exciting tech company models At the same time, more tech companies
that also present growing exposure worldwide are opting in to the UN Guiding
to human rights concerns. Principles on Business and Human Rights and
joining multi-stakeholder initiatives aimed at
Human rights may not be the first topic you promoting human rights and ethics in tech, like
associate with the state of the European tech the Global Network Initiative, Partnership
ecosystem. But the reputational, financial on AI and the World Economic Forum’s ethical
and legal hazards once associated primarily tech projects.
with the mistreatment of physical labourers
have moved into the digital world. The rise of There’s a lot to unpack here – and different
AI, big data, gig workers, facial recognition schemes need to be reconciled. But, if you’re
technology and 5G has given rise to a new set at a company looking to get started on these
of human rights issues. And governments are issues – as both a moral imperative and a
turning their attention to the human rights business and risk management matter – we
impact of the adoption and use of technology. suggest three key steps: (1) a human rights
impact assessment, which will help you
A valuable conversation is emerging about understand and prioritize areas of risk for your
‘responsible technology’ — preventing, particular business model, (2) integration of
addressing and remediating the negative human rights considerations into your existing
impacts of technology on human rights, and compliance processes and policies, and (3)
ensuring its ethical design, deployment and engagement with key stakeholders, including
use. And Europe is in the driver’s seat on your board.
‘responsible AI’. In April 2019, the European
Commission’s High-Level Expert Group This is a growing area of focus for companies,
on AI presented the ‘Ethics Guidelines for investors and consumers, as this year’s SOET
Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence’, which are report confirms.
underpinned by international human rights
law and identify seven key requirements for AI Be on the forefront.
systems to be deemed trustworthy.

Tech’s Take on Policy
We need clearer We need clearer objectives to successfully regulate

the European tech ecosystem. Are we trying to create
objectives to successfully sustainable employment and solve major societal
regulate the European challenges like health and the environment? Or is our chief
tech ecosystem. objective to focus our resources on policing companies
from other regions? These goals are not necessarily
mutually exclusive. Major technology firms undoubtedly
need sustained scrutiny. Still, the political world needs to Linda Griffin
define a European approach, which balances our ambitions
King
for robust tech regulation with an understanding of what’s
needed for our companies to scale. VP, Global Public
Policy
We used the survey to explore what matters most to more than 1,200 European
tech founders when We it comes
used theto potential
survey topolicy
explore support. The priorities
what matters most to they
moreshared
than 1,200 European tech founders when it comes to
focused mostly on policy to create
potential policythe conditions
support. that make
The priorities it more
they shared appealing for
focused mostly on policy to create the conditions that make
companies to attract, it retain and replace
more appealing for talent.
companies Founder respondents
to attract, retain andcited the talent. Founder respondents cited the
replace
introduction of simplified employee
introduction regulations
of simpli across Europe
ed employee regulationsas the number
across oneas the number one regulatory change that
Europe
regulatory change thatwould
Wewould
usedhave asurvey
have
the materially
a materiallypositive
to explore impact
positive
what on the
impact
matters on prospects
most moreofthan
thetoprospects their business.
1,200 EuropeanFor founders of companies
tech founders who to
when it comes
of their business. Forhave raised
founders
potential external
of
policycompanies capital,
support. who
The this is followed
have raised
priorities by better
theyexternal
shared taxation
capital,
focused of employee
mostly on policystock options.
to create the The harmonisation
conditions of
that make
tech-related
this is followed by better
itWe taxation
used
more regulation
appealingof employee
the survey tofor
exploreacross
stock
what
companies Europe
matters
to most also
options. scores
The
to more
attract, than
retain highly
harmonisation
1,200
and for founders
European
replace of both
tech founders
talent. whenbootstrapped
Founder it comes to
respondents and externally
cited the
potentialcompanies.
funded policy support. The priorities they shared focused mostly on policy to create the conditions that make
of tech-related regulation
it moreacross
introduction
appealing Europe
of simpli
for also scores
attract,highly
ed employee
companies to forreplace
regulations
retain and founders
talent.of
across bothrespondents
Europe
Founder as the number
cited theone regulatory change that
would
bootstrapped and externally have a simpli
funded
introduction of materially
companies.positive
ed employee impactacross
regulations on the prospects
Europe of their
as the number business.
one regulatory For founders
change that of companies who
have
wouldraised externalpositive
have a materially
What is one regulatory capital,
change thisonisthe
impact followed byofbetter
prospects taxation
their business. of employee
For founders stockwho
of companies options. The harmonisation of
have raised external capital, this is followed by better taxation of employee stock options.
Simplified employment The harmonisation of
regulations
tech-related
that would regulation
have a materially across Europe also scores highly for founders of both
tech-related regulation across Europe also scores highly for founders of both bootstrapped and externally
bootstrapped and externally
funded
positivecompanies.
impact
funded companies. on the prospects
20%
of your business? Better taxation of employee stock options
8%
What is one regulatory change 37%
What
LEGEND is one
that would haveregulatory
a materially change
Simplified employment regulations
Simplified employment regulations 37% 20%
that would
positive
Raised have
impact a materially
oncapital
external the prospects More harmonised technology regulation across Europe
20% 24%
positive impact on the prospects
of your business?
Bootstrapped Better taxation of employee stock options
8% 20%
of your business? Better taxation of employee stock options 17%
LEGEND
More favorable capital gains taxation across Europe 20% 8%
Raised external capital More harmonised technology regulation across Europe
24%
22%
LEGEND
Bootstrapped 20%
Raised external capital More harmonised technology regulation across Europe 17% 6%
More favorable capital gains taxation across Europe
Other 22%
24%
Bootstrapped 8%
6% 17%
Other
Europe 0
More favorable capital gains taxation across8% 5 10 15 20 25 30
22%
% of respondents
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
% of respondents
6%
Other
8%
NOTE:
S O U R C E : The State Of European Tech Survey 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
add to100
add to 100due
due to rounding.
to rounding.
% of respondents


09.2 Tech’s Take on Policy
At present, there are I think the approach in Europe differs from country to
country. In countries like the UK, France and Portugal,
too many instances of while still recognising a need to regulate certain aspects
governments trying to of the tech community, there’s greater openness to
apply existing legislation disruptive innovation. Whereas in Spain there’s a distinct
lack of trust at the government level. However, what we
- legislation that was need is a new regulatory framework that focusses on the
drafted in a pre-digital digital economy. I find it hard to believe there are some Oscar Pierre
countries in Europe that fail to see the potential of the
age to respond to the digital revolution and the long-term socio-economic
Glovo
needs of a different benefits that come with it. At present, there are too Co-founder & CEO
type of work and a many instances of governments trying to apply existing
legislation - legislation that was drafted in a pre-digital
different type of worker age to respond to the needs of a different type of work
- to startups and new and a different type of worker - to startups and new
technologies. technologies. The digital age has brought about a sea
change in the global economy - changing the ways in which
we live, communicate, work and consume - and we need
regulatory modernisation to really reflect those changes.
Otherwise, we run the risk of slamming the brakes on the
digital economy. Today, we see millions of people around
the world signing up for platform jobs, and yet there’s still
no clear regulation that balances their requirement for
flexibility and their need for increased social benefits. If
we’re going to move forward, then this cannot continue.
There are clear differences in what matters most to founders of funded

companies of different scales.
There Interestingly,
are clear theinimportance
differences what mattersofmost
bettertotaxation
founders of funded companies of different scales.
of stock options is much more likely to be cited by companies that have
Interestingly, the importance of better taxation of stock gained
options is much more likely to be cited by companies
significant scale (i.e.that
more than 100 employees), while they are far less likely to
have gained signi cant scale (i.e. more than 100 employees), while they are far less likely to be concerned
be concerned about There areto
changes clear differences
improve the in what matters
harmonisation of mostregulation
tech to founders of funded companies of different scales.
about changes to improve the harmonisation of tech regulation across Europe or more favourable capital gains
Interestingly, the importance of better taxation of stock options is much more likely to be cited by companies
across Europe or more favourable capital gains taxation
taxation.
that have gained signi cant scale (i.e. more than 100 employees), while they are far less likely to be concerned
about changes
There are to improve
clear differences the
in what harmonisation
matters of tech
most to founders regulation
of funded companiesacross Europe
of different or more favourable capital gains
scales.
Interestingly, the importance of better taxation of stock options is much more likely to be cited by companies
taxation.
What is one regulatory change
that have gained signi cant scale (i.e. more than 100 employees), while they are far less likely to be concerned
that would have a materially
about changes to improve the harmonisation of tech regulation
≤10 employeesacross Europe or more favourable capital gains
positive impact on the prospects
taxation.
of your
What isbusiness?
one regulatory change
that would have a materially ≤10 employees
What is one regulatory change
positive
LEGEND impact on the prospects
that would have a materially
of your business?
Simpli impact
positive ed employment regulations
on the prospects
≤10 employees
11-100 employees
of your business?
Better taxation of employee stock
options
LEGEND
LEGEND
More
Simpli favorable capital gains
ed employment taxation
regulations 11-100 employees
Simpli ed employment regulations 11-100 employees
across Europe
Better taxation
Better taxation of employee
of employee stock stock
optionsharmonised technology regulation
More
options >100 employees
across Europe
More favorable capital gains taxation
More
across favorable
Europe capital gains taxation
Other
across Europe >100 employees
More harmonised technology regulation
across Europe >100 employees 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
More harmonised technology regulation
across
Other Europe % of respondents
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
NOTE:
% of respondents
NOTE:
Founder respondents of companies who SOURCE: The State Of European Tech Survey
Founder respondents of companies who S O U R C E : The State Of European Tech Survey
have raised external capital only. Numbers
may notadd
may not addto to
100100 due
due to to rounding.
rounding.
NOTE:
Founder respondents of companies who SOURCE: The State Of European Tech Survey

We also asked the European tech community to share their view on who is
We also asked the European tech community to share their view on who is most impacted by the regulatory
burden most impacted
in Europe today.by the regulatory
Whether they are burden in Europe
empirically right ortoday.
wrong,Whether they are
the perception of respondents from most
empirically
occupation groups,
We also askedright or
including wrong,
the European the
European perception
techtech of respondents
founderstoand
community investors,
share from most
is that
their view the occupation
on who burden
is mostisimpacted
being carried
by thebyregulatory
the
groups,
region'sburden inincluding
tech startups. European
Europe today. techthey
Whether founders and investors,
are empirically iswrong,
right or that the burden
the is
perception of respondents from most
being carried
occupation by theincluding
groups, region’sEuropean
tech startups.
tech founders and investors, is that the burden is being carried by the
region's tech startups. DATASET: FOUNDERS, TECH EMPLOYEES, INVESTORS
Who do you think is most
impacted by the regulatory
FOUNDERS, TECH EMPLOYEES, INVESTORS
burden amongst the following? DATASET: FOUNDERS, TECH EMPLOYEES, INVESTORS
Who do you think is most
impacted by the regulatory
LEGEND
burden amongst the following? Founder
Tech startups
Established
LEGEprivate
ND tech companies
Employee at a tech startup or scale-up Founder
EstablishedTech
public tech companies
startups
Non-tech SMEs
Established private tech companies
Venture
Employee capitalist
at a tech startup or scale-up
No difference
Established public tech companies
We also asked the European tech community to share their view on who is most impacted by the regulatory
Non-tech SMEs
burden in Europe today. Whether they
No difference are empirically right
or wrong,
Venture capitalist the perception of respondents from most
occupation groups, including European tech founders and investors, is that the burden is being carried by the
We alsoregion's
asked the techEuropean
startups.tech community to share their
LP investing view
Angel
in private on
investor
equity who
& venture is most impacted by the regulatory
capital
burden in Europe today. Whether they are empirically right or wrong, the perception of respondents from most
occupation groups, including European tech founders and investors, Other investorAngelis that the burden is being carried by the
investor
region's tech startups.
Who do you think is most DATASET: FOUNDERS, TECH EMPLOYEES, INVESTORS
impacted by the regulatory 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Other investor
burden amongst the following? % of respondents
Who do you think is most DATASET: OTHER OCCUPATIONS

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
impactedLEGE
by the
ND regulatory
OTHER OCCUPATIONS Founder % of respondents
burden amongst
NOTE: the following?
Tech startups SOURCE: The State Of European Tech Survey
Established
Numbers may not add to 100private
due totech companies
rounding.
LEGEND Employee at a tech startup or scale-up
Established public tech companies Academic/researcher
Tech startups
Non-tech SMEs
Numbers may not add to 100 due to Consultant/ M&A advisor/investment bankercapitalist
Established private tech companies
rounding. Venture
No difference
Established public tech companies Employee at a company that is not a tech startup or
scale-up
Non-tech SMEs LP investing in private equity & venture capital
No difference Employee in the public sector
Angel investor
Media/journalist

Other investor
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
% of respondents
Student
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
% of respondents
NOTE:
rounding.
rounding.

This perception may be impacted by the fact that the general level of
This perception
awarenessmayof bethe
impacted by the fact
key priorities that
of the the general
European level of awareness
Commission of the key priorities of the
in the tech
European Commission
and in the
digital sphere tech and
appears todigital
be low.sphere
Whenappears
asked totodetermine
be low. When asked
which to determine which of the
of the
Commission's prioritiespriorities
Commission’s was mostwasimportant, the most frequently
most important, the most cited answercited
frequently was answer
'I don't feel su ciently
informedwas
to comment'.
‘I don’t feelInterestingly, very few respondents
sufficiently informed to comment’ believe that delivering
. Interestingly, a connected, single digital
very few
market This
was the key priority for the European Commission.
perception may be impacted by the fact that the general level of awareness of the key priorities of the
respondents believe that delivering a connected, single digital market was the
European
key priority Commission in the tech
for the European and digital sphere appears to be low. When asked to determine which of the
Commission.
What doCommission's priorities
you think have been the was most important,
DATAS E T : FO U ND Ethe
R S, Tmost frequently
E C H EMPLOYEES, cited answer was 'I don't feel su ciently
INVESTORS
key techinformed
and digitalto comment'. Interestingly, very few respondents believe that delivering a connected, single digital
economic
market
priorities for the was the key priority for the European Commission.
European
Commission in the last 12
months? FOUNDERS, TECH EMPLOYEES, INVESTORS
What do you think have been the DATASET: FOUNDERS, TECH EMPLOYEES, INVESTORS
L E GEND key tech and digital economic
Founder
I don't feelpriorities for the to
su ciently informed European
comment
Commission in the last 12
Policing amonths?
handful of major platform Employee at a tech startup or scale-up
companies/Big Tech
Supporting the growth of the European
LEGE ND Venture capitalist
Tech ecosystem Founder
I don't feel su ciently informed to
This perception may be impacted by the fact that the general level of awareness of the key priorities of the
Delivering a connected Digital Single
comment
Market
European Commission in the tech and digital sphere appears Employee at a to
tech be
Policing a handful of major platform low.
startup When asked to determine which of the
or scale-up
Other
Commission's priorities was most important, the most frequently cited answer was 'I don't feel su ciently
companies/Big Tech
informed toSupporting
comment'. Interestingly,
the growth
Tech ecosystem
of the European very few respondents Angel believe
investor
that
Venture delivering a connected, single digital
capitalist
market wasDelivering
the key priority for the
a connected Digital Single
European Commission.
Market Other investor
Other
What do you think have been the DATAS E T : OT H E R O C C U PAT I ONS 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
% of respondents
key tech and digital economic Angel investor
priorities for the European

Commission in the last 12 OTHER OCCUPATIONS Other investor
months?
Numbers may not add to 100 due to 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
rounding.
L E GEND % of respondents
Academic/researcher
I don't feel su ciently informed to
comment Consultant/M&A advisor/investment banker
This perception may be impactedEmployee
Policing a handful of major platform
NOTE: by theat afact that
company The
the
that is
general
not aOf
tech startup or
level of awareness of the key priorities of the
companies/Big Tech SOURCE: State European Tech Survey
European Commission in the tech and digital sphere appears
scale-upto be low. When asked to determine which of the
Supporting the growth of the European
Commission's
This perception
rounding.
Tech ecosystem
may be priorities
impacted was
bymost important,
the fact that thethe most
general
Employee frequently
level
in the public cited answer
of awareness
sector
of the was 'I don't feel
key priorities ofsu
the ciently
informed
Delivering
European a connectedto comment'.
Digital Single Interestingly, very few respondents
Commission in the tech and digital sphere appearsMedia/journalist to be low. When asked to determine whichsingle
believe that delivering a connected, of thedigital
Market
market was the key priority for the European Commission.
Commission's priorities was most important, the most frequently cited answer was 'I don't feel su ciently
Other
informed to comment'. Interestingly, very few respondentsOther believe that delivering a connected, single digital
(please specify)
market was the key priority for the European

What do you think have been the Commission.
DATASET: FOUNDERS, TECH EMPLOYEES, INVESTORS
key tech and digital economic
priorities for the European Student
What do you think haveinbeen the 12 DATAS E T : A L L R E S P O ND E N TS
Commission the last
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
key tech and digital economic
months?
% of respondents
priorities for the European
CommissionLEGEinND
the last 12
months? I don't feel su ciently informed to ALL RESPONDENTS Founder
NOTE: comment S O U R C E : The State Of European Tech Survey

L E GENDmay not
Numbers add to a100
Policing due toof major platform
handful Employee at a tech startup or scale-up
rounding.
I don't feel sucompanies/Big Tech
ciently informed to
comment Supporting the growth of the European
Tech ecosystem Venture capitalist
Policing a handful of major platform
companies/Big Tech a connected Digital Single
Delivering
Market
Supporting the growth of the European LP investing in private equity & venture capital
Tech ecosystem
Other
Delivering a connected Digital Single All respondents
Market Angel investor
Other
Other investor
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
% of respondents
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
% of respondents
NOTE:
rounding.
rounding.

It's also telling that just one in ve European founders believes that the concerns and perspectives of the
region's startups and scale-ups are being heard by European policymakers. We also see that half of all founders
It’s also telling that just one inthat
perceive five European
Europeanregulation
founders believes
makes it that harder thetoconcerns
start and scale technology businesses. The European
and perspectives of the techregion’s
community startups and scale-ups
also shared a strongare callbeing
to bene heard t moreby from 'preferential treatment' for European tech
European policymakers. We also see that half of all founders perceive that
companies.
European regulationIt's makesalso telling
it harder that
tojust
startoneandin scale
ve European
technology founders
businesses.believes that the concerns and perspectives of the
region's
The European tech community startups and scale-ups are being heard by European policymakers. We also see that half of all founders
agreealso shared ave
strong call to benefit
It's Themore
concerns from
andconcerns
perspectives of startups and
Doalso
youtelling that just one in
or disagree with European founders believes that the and perspectives of the
‘preferential treatment’ perceive
for
region's that
European
startups European regulation
tech companies
and scale-ups makes it harder
scaleups to
are beingstart
heard by and
Europeanscale technology
policymakers
are being heard by European policymakers. We also see that half of all founders businesses. The European
tech community
perceive that European also sharedmakes
regulation a strong calltoto
it harder bene
start and
European t more
scale
regulation itfrom
harder to'preferential
technology
makes start and scale Thetreatment'
businesses. European for European tech
tech community also shared a strong call to bene t more from 'preferential technology
companies. treatment' businesses
for European tech
LEGEND
companies. European startups should benefit from preferential
Agree treatment from European policymakers
Disagree Regulation is an opportunity for countries to gain
The concerns andandperspectives of startups and
Do youagree
Do you agree or disagree
or disagree with with The concerns and perspectives
competitive
scaleups
scaleups are being heard
of startups
advantage
are being
by European heard by
policymakers in European
the race topolicymakers
attract tech
theNeither
the agree
following
following nor disagree
statements?
statements? investment and talent
European regulation makes it harder to start and scale
European regulation makes it harder to start and scale
businesses for competitive advantage
Regulation is an opportunity
technology
LEGEND technology businesses
for my company
LEGEND
Agree
European startups should benefit from preferential
treatmentEuropean
from European policymakers
startups should benefit from preferential
Agree
Disagree
Deregulation would have a positive impact on the
Regulation is an opportunity for countries to gainfrom European policymakers
treatment
competitive advantage in the race to attract tech prospects of my company
Neither
Disagreeagree nor disagree Regulation
investmentisand
an talent
opportunity for countries to gain
The competitive
Regulation is an opportunity direction of travel
for competitive of European
advantage
advantage regulation
in the race around
to attract tech
Neither agree nor disagree technology is positive for the European
for my company Tech ecosystem
investment and talent
Regulation
Deregulation would is an impact
have a positive on the for competitive advantage
opportunity
prospects of my company 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
for my company
The direction of travel of European regulation around
% of respondents
technology is positive for theDeregulation would have a positive impact on the
European Tech ecosystem
prospects of my company
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
% of respondents
The direction of travel of European regulation around
On the nal point of preferential treatment, it's fascinating that there's a high level of agreement across the
NOTE: technology
SOURCE: is positive
The State OfforEuropean
the European
TechTech ecosystem
Survey
board
Founders from the European
only. Numbers may not add to tech
100 community, including amongst European policymakers, 0 10 20
that30European
40
startups
50 60 70
due to rounding.
NOTE:
should bene t from preferential
treatment from the region's
policymakers. % of respondents
due to rounding.
To what extent do you agree or

NOTE: LP investing in private equity & venture capital
disagree with the following
statement:
due to rounding.European startups
should bene treatment,
On the final point of preferential t from preferential
it’s fascinating that there’s a high Academic/researcher
treatment from European
level of agreement across the board from the European tech community,
policymakers
On the nal
including amongst European point of preferential
policymakers, treatment,
that European it's fascinating
startups should thatOther there's
investora high level of agreement across the
board
On from
the the
nal European
point of tech
preferential community,
treatment, it's including
fascinating that amongst
there's a high European
level of policymakers,
agreement across the that European startups
benefit from preferential treatment from the region’s policymakers
LEGEND
should
Agreebene t from preferential treatment from the region's policymakers.
board from the European tech community, including amongst European policymakers, that European startups
should bene t from preferential treatment from the region's policymakers.
Disagree
To what extent
To what extentdo youagree
do you agree
or or
LP equity
LP investing in private investing Employee
in private
& venture capital in &
equity the public capital
venture sector
statement: European startups
statement: European
should bene startups
t from preferential Academic/researcher
should bene from

treatment t from preferential
European Media/journalist
Academic/researcher
policymakers
treatment from European Other investor
policymakers
LEGEND
Other investor
Agree Consultant/M&A advisor/investment banker
LEGENDDisagree
Agree Employee in the public sector Angel investor
Disagree
Media/journalist
Founder

Media/journalist
Angel investor
Founder Policymaker/regulator

Angel investor
Student
Founder
Student
Venture
Employee at a tech startup orcapitalist
scale-up
Venture capitalist
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Policymaker/regulator % of respondents
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
% of respondents

NOTE:NOTE:
SOURCE: TheSOURCE: The Tech
State Of European State Of European Tech Survey
Survey
Numbers
Numbers maymaynotnot
addaddto
to 100
100due
dueto to
rounding.
rounding. Student
Venture capitalist
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
% of respondents

NOTE:
One of the shared responsibilities of all government – local and national

- is to deliver key services in areas like health, mobility, housing and
environment. The demand and the opportunities are huge: we have only
just begun to see how public services can be improved when resources
like public data sets are opened up and re-used. But startups/scale-ups
and government services often have different priorities, sensitivities Linda Griffin
and timescales. They also have different ways of working. Both sides King
need to understand each other better. There are examples of this VP, Global Public
Policy
here and there - but it’s far too underdeveloped. We must promote
cooperation and dialogue.
Disinformation is most frequently cited by respondents as the technology area that requires urgent attention
from regulators. This is followed by arti cial intelligence, data privacy and cybersecurity as other areas cited as
requiring
Disinformation is most urgent
frequently attention.
cited As interesting
by respondents as theastechnology
what's top of thethat
area list, requires
is what's on the bottom. Drones, intermediary
liability, autonomous vehicles and blockchain were all far less likely
urgent attention from regulators. This is followed by artificial intelligence, data privacy toand
be cited as requiring urgent attention.
cybersecurity as other areas cited as
Disinformation requiring
is most urgentcited
frequently attention. As interesting
by respondents as theastechnology
what’s toparea that requires urgent attention
of the list, is what’s on the
In
from bottom.
your opinion,
regulators. Drones,
which areas intermediary
in
Thisfrequently
is followed liability, autonomous vehicles
Disinformation (e.g. deep fakes)
and
Disinformation
tech require is most
urgent attention cited by arti cial intelligence,
by respondents as the technology dataareaprivacy andurgent
that requires cybersecurity
attention as other areas cited as
blockchain were all far less
requiring likely to
urgent
from regulators. be
This cited
attention. as requiring
is followed As urgent
interesting
by arti attention.
as what's
cial intelligence, top ofand
data privacy
Artificial
the
Intelligence
list, is what's
cybersecurity onareas
as other the bottom.
cited as Drones, intermediary
from regulators as they are likely Data privacy & management 32%
liability, autonomous
requiring
to be most impactful forvehicles
society and blockchain were all far less likely to be cited as requiring urgent attention.
urgent attention. As interesting as what's top of the list, is what's on the bottom. Drones, intermediary
liability, autonomous vehicles and blockchain were all far less likely to be cited as requiring urgent attention.
Cybersecurity 30%
(in a good or bad way) ? Select up
to 3 Genetic editing 24%
Disinformation (e.g. deep fakes)
In Inyour
youropinion, which
opinion, which areas
areas in in Disinformation (e.g. deep fakes)
Tax (e.g. digital tax for big tech)
42%
22%
techtechrequire urgent
require urgent attention
attention Artificial Intelligence Artificial Intelligence 39%
from regulators as they are likely Data privacy &Platform workers (e.g. gig economy) 20%
from regulators as they are
to be most impactful for society
likely management
Data privacy & management
32%
32%
to(inbea most
good orimpactful for society
bad way) ? Select up
Cybersecurity
Blockchain/cryptocurrency 30% 19%
Cybersecurity 30%
(intoa3good or bad way) ? Select up Genetic editing
Autonomous vehicles
24%
18%
to 3 Tax (e.g. digital tax for big tech) Genetic editing 22% 24%
Intermediary liability (i.e. platforms responsible for
13%
content uploaded by its users)
Platform workers (e.g. gig economy)
Tax (e.g. digital tax for big tech) 20%
22%
Blockchain/cryptocurrency Drones 19% 12%
Platform workers (e.g. gig economy) 20%
Autonomous vehicles 18%
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Intermediary liability (i.e. platforms responsibleBlockchain/cryptocurrency
for 19%
13%
content uploaded by its users) % of respondents
Drones Autonomous vehicles 12% 18%
Intermediary liability (i.e. platforms
0 responsible
5 10 for 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
13%
content uploaded by its users) % of respondents
NOTE: Drones 12%

Numbers do not add to 100 as respondents 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
NOTE:
could select up to three responses. S O U R C E : The State Of European Tech Survey
Numbers do not add to 100 as respondents % of respondents
could select up to three responses.
It's interesting to explore the impact of European policy on the European startup community. Notably, almost
half
NOTE:of founders of companies of 10 employees or fewer stated that they have not been negatively impacted by
It’s interesting to explore
privacy thedo
Numbers impact
regulation, ofasthough
not add to 100 European
respondentsthatpolicy on thethat
still means European
more than startuphalf of community.
the region's smallest tech startups have been
could select up to three responses.
Notably, almost half ofnegatively
founders impacted.
of companies The larger
of 10the company,
employees orthefewermore likelythat
stated founders
they have are tonotreport having been negatively
impacted
been negatively impacted by privacy
by privacy regulation
regulation, over the
though thatlast
still12means
months. that The mostthan
more frequent
half ofchange
the cited by founders of
It's interesting
companies withto10+ explore the impact
employees of European
asimpacted.
having negatively policy
impactedon thetheir European business startup community.
is the Notably,
appointment almost
of Data
region’s smallest tech startups
half of founders have been
of negatively
companies of 10 employees The or larger
fewer the company,
stated that they the more
have not been negatively impacted by
likely founders are toProtection
report
privacy having
It's interesting
O�cers,
regulation, been
to explore
anegatively
role that isimpacted
though
both di�cult
thatofstill
the impact means
European byon
that
policy
and expensive
privacy
more regulation
than
the European half
startup
to �ll.
over
ofcommunity. the last
the region's 12 almosttech startups have been
smallest
Notably,
months. The most frequent
negatively change
half of founders ofcited
impacted. companies by founders
The larger theofcompany,
of 10 employees companies
or fewer statedwith
the 10+
that they
more employees
have
likely asarehaving
not been negatively
founders impacted by
to report having been negatively
privacy regulation, though that still means that more than halfareas
of the
- notregion's smallest tech startups have been
negatively impactedimpacted
their
Which business
oneby
negatively
is
of privacy the
the following
impacted.
appointment
Theregulation
of
over the
larger the company,
Data
thelast
Protection
None
more12
of these
months.
likely foundersThe
Officers,
most
are to report
a
negatively impacted
role
by privacy
frequent
having been
regulation change cited by founders of
negatively
that is both difficult and expensive
changes
companies
impacted to
byprivacy
with to10+
privacy fill.
regulation
employees
regulation over theas having
last negatively
12 months. The mostimpacted
frequent change theircitedbusiness is the
by founders of appointment of Data
have impacted
companies with your company the
10+ employees as having negatively impacted their business
Appointment of datais the appointment
protection officers of Data
Protection O�cers,
most over the last 12 months?
a role that is both di�cult and expensive to �ll.
Protection O�cers, a role that is both di�cult and expensive to �ll.
Right to access (i.e. providing copy of personal data free
of charge)
LEGEND None
None of these areas - notof these areas
negatively - not
impacted negatively impacted by privacy
by privacy
Which
Which one
one ofofthe
the following
following Right to be forgotten (i.e. ability to ask for theirregulation
regulation personal
≤10 employees
changes to
changes toprivacy
privacy regulation
regulation data to be erased)
have impacted your company the Appointment of data protection officers
have
mostimpacted
11-100 employeesyour company the
over the last 12 months? Appointment of data protection officers
Privacy by design
most
>100over the last 12 months?
employees Right to access (i.e. providing copy of personal data free
of charge)
LEGEND Right to access (i.e. providing copy of personal data free
Right to be forgotten (i.e. ability to ask for their personal of charge)
Data portability
≤10 employees
LEGEND data to be erased)
11-100 employees Right to be forgotten (i.e. ability to ask for their personal
≤10 employees Privacy by design
Breach notifications (i.e. data breach
datanotification to
to be erased)
>100 employees
customers and controllers within 72 hours)
11-100 employees
Data portability
Privacy by design
>100 employees 0 10 20 30 40
Breach notifications (i.e. data breach notification to
% of respondents
customers and controllers within 72 hours)
Data portability
0 10 20 30 40 50
% of respondents
Breach notifications (i.e. data breach notification to
NOTE: customers and controllers within 72 hours)
Founders
NOTE: only. Numbers may not add to 100 0 10 20 30 40
due to rounding. % of respondents
due to rounding.
NOTE:
due to rounding.
The impact of data privacy regulation is the top-ranked area of regulation perceived as most challenging by
founders of companies of all sizes.
The impact of data privacy regulation is the top-ranked area of regulation
perceived as most challenging by founders
Thinking about of companies of all sizes. Data protection and privacy
any potential
The impact
negative of data
impact privacy regulation is the top-ranked area of regulation
on your Tax perceived as most challenging by
founders
business of of
The impact companies
from regulation,
data of all sizes.
privacywhich
regulation is the top-ranked area of regulation perceived as most challenging by Employment
one area do
founders of you view asof
companies the
allmost
sizes.
challenging for your company? Competition
Data protection and privacy
Thinking about any potential Data protection and privacy Certification
Thinking about any potential
negative
negativeimpact
LEGEND impact onon your
your Tax
Tax
business
business
≤10 from regulation,
from regulation,
employees which
which Data localisation
Employment Employment
oneonearea
areado
11-100
you
do you
employees
view
view as
as the the
mostmost None of these areas - not negatively impacted by
challenging for your company? Competition regulation
challenging for your company? Competition
>100 employees Certification Copyright
LEGEND Certification
Data localisation
LEGEND
≤10 employees Licensing
None of these areas - not negatively impacted by Data localisation
≤1011-100 employees
employees regulation
Patents
>100 employees None of these areas - not negatively impacted by
Copyright
11-100 employees regulation
Licensing 0 5 10 15 20 25
>100 employees Copyright % of respondents
Patents
0
Licensing
5 10 15 20 25 30 35
% of respondents
Patents
VCs,
NOTE:LPs, tech workers and founders areSOURCE: more likely The Stateto agree Tech
Of European that European founders can compete equally on
Survey
0
the global
Founders
NOTE: only. tech
Numbers stage,
may not while
add to 100policymakers and media are
more sceptical. Who's5 right and10 who has15the better20
% of respondents
25
due to rounding.
vantage
Founders point?
only. Numbers And
due to rounding.
if topolicymakers
may not add 100 are sceptical about the ability for European founders to compete on the
global stage, what can they do to better support the founders in that objective?
To
due what extent do you agree or
to rounding. LP investing in private equity & venture capital
VCs, LPs, tech workersstatement:
and founders are more likely to agree that European
European founders
founders can competecanequally
competeonequally
the global
on the tech stage, while policymakers Venture capitalist
and media are more sceptical. Who’sstage

global technology right and who has the better vantage
point? And if policymakers
VCs,
are sceptical about the ability for European
LPs, tech workers and founders are more likely to agree that European founders Other investor
can compete equally on
LEGEND
founders to competeVCs,
onglobal
the the
LPs,
Agree
global
tech
tech stage,
workers
stage, while what
and can
policymakersthey
founders
and do
are
mediato
arebetter
moremorelikely to
sceptical. agree
Who's that
right European
and founders
who has the better can compete equally on
support the foundersthein that
vantage
global
Disagree
objective?
point? And if
tech policymakers
stage, while are sceptical aboutand
policymakers the ability
media forare
European
Employee atmore
founders
sceptical.
a tech startup
to compete on the
or scale-up Who's right and who has the better
vantage
Neither point? And if policymakers are sceptical about the ability for European founders to compete on the
agree nor disagree
To what extent do you agree or LP investing in private equity & venture capitalEmployee in the public sector
statement: European founders
To compete
can what extent
equallydo you agree or
on the Venture capitalist
Academic/researcher
global technology stage
statement: European founders
LEGEND
Other investor
can compete equally on the

Agree Founder
Venture capitalist
global
Disagreetechnology stage Employee at a tech startup or scale-up

Other investor
LEGEND Employee in the public sector
Agree
Disagree Academic/researcher Other

Founder
Employee in the publicStudent
sector

Academic/researcher
Other
Student Policymaker/regulator
Founder

Angel
Employee at a company not a tech startup investor
or scale-up
Media/journalist
Other
Angel investor
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Student % of respondents
Media/journalist
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Consultant/M&A advisor/investment banker % of respondents
NOTE:
NOTE: Policymaker/regulator
rounding. S O U R C E : The State Of European Tech Survey
rounding.
Angel investor
Media/journalist
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
% of respondents

rounding.
It's interesting that respondents from outside Europe show a materially higher level of agreement with the view
that European founders can compete equally on the global stage.
It’s interesting that respondents from outside Europe show a
materially higher level To ofwhat
agreement
extent do with theor
you agree view that European
founders can compete It'sdisagree
interesting
equally with
onthethat
the respondents
following
global stage. from outside Europe show a materially higher level of agreement with the view
thatstatement:
European European founders
founders can
It's interesting that respondents fromcompete equally
outside Europe show on
Outsidea
the global
materially
Europe
stage.
higher level of agreement with the view
can compete equally on the
that European founders can compete equally on the global stage.
LEGEND with the following
disagree
statement: European
Agree European
statement: foundersfounders
Outside Europe Outside Europe
can
can compete
compete
Disagree equally
equally on the on the
global technology
Neither stage
agree nor disagree Inside Europe
LEGEND
LEGEND
Agree
Disagree
Agree
Neither agree nor disagree Inside Europe
Disagree
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Neither agree nor disagree Inside Europe % of respondents
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Opinion is split on Europe's likelihood to gain ground % of respondents
relative
NOTE: to the US and China in the next decade.
Numbers may not add to 100 due to 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
NOTE:
rounding. SO U R C E : The State Of European Tech Survey % of respondents
rounding.
European tech is likely to gain
Venture capitalist
groundmay
Numbers relative
not addto
to the UStoand
100 due
China in the next decade
rounding.

Opinion is split on Europe’s
LEGENDlikelihood to gain ground relative
to the US and China inOpinion
the is split
next
Agree
on Europe's likelihood to gain ground
decade.
relative
Opinion isto
Disagree
the
split onUS and likelihood
Europe's China intothe
gainnext decade.
ground
Media/journalist
relative to the US and China in the next decade.

Other
Do you agree or disagree with LP investing in private equity & venture capital
Do you agree or disagree with LP investing in private equity & venture capital
the following
statement?
European
European techtech is likely
is likely to gainto gain Founder
Venture capitalist
ground relative
ground to the
relative toUStheand
US and Venture capitalist
China in the next decade
China in the next decade Grand total
LEGEND Employee at a tech startup or scale-up
LEGEND
Agree
Media/journalist
Disagree
Agree Academic/researcher
Neither agree nor disagree Media/journalist
Disagree Other
Neither agree nor disagree Student

Founder Other

Grand total
Founder
EmployeeAcademic/researcher
at a company not a tech startup or scale-up
Grand total
Student
Other investor
Academic/researcher

Student
Other investor Policymaker/regulator


Angel investor
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
% of respondents
Angel investor Other investor
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
% of respondents
rounding.
NOTE: S O U R C E : The State Of European Tech Survey Policymaker/regulator
rounding.
Angel investor
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
% of respondents

rounding.

09.2 Europe's
Tech’s Take on Policytech ecosystem remains characterised by a strong level of optimism about the future. 91% of
respondents said they were more optimistic about the future of European tech or the same as they were 12
months ago. This is on par with the levels seen in the past two years.
Europe’s tech ecosystem remains characterised by a strong level of optimism
about the future. 91%Europe's
of respondents said they
techorecosystem were more
remains optimistic
characterised 100 byabout thelevel of optimism about the future. 91% of
a strong
Are you more less optimistic
future of European tech or the
respondents samesaid
about the future as they
of Europeanwere 12 months ago. This is on par
they were more optimistic about the future91%of European tech or the same 90%
as they were 12
with the levels seen in the past
Europe's
technology two
tech
today years.
ecosystem
than remains
you were characterised by a strong level of optimism about the future. 91% of
respondents said they were more optimistic about the future of European tech or the same as they were 12
12 months ago? 75
100
% of respondents
Are you more or less optimistic 100
Are you more or less optimistic 91% 90%
about the future of European
about the future of European
91% 90% 91%
technology today than you were 50

technology today than you were
1212months ago?
months ago? 75 75
% of respondents
% of respondents
25
50
50
25
0
2017 2018
25
0
2017 2018 2019

% of all respondents that answered either
NOTE: 0
'More' or 'About the same' . 2017 2018
Interestingly, however,
% of all respondents that answered either
'More' or 'About the same' . there is a large divergence depending on the occupation of respondents. Investors in
European tech, including both VCs and LPs, are amongst the most optimistic occupations, while founders and
tech
NOTE:employees also expressed strong sense of optimism about the future of European tech. Policymakers, by
contrast, werethat
% of all respondents the leasteither
answered optimistic. This divergence of opinion between the founders operators and investors
on'More'
theor one hand, and policymakers on the other, speaks volumes.
'About the same' .
Interestingly, however, there is a large divergence depending on the

occupation of respondents.
Are you Investors
more or lessin European tech, including
optimistic LP both
investing VCs
in private equity & venture capital
and LPs, are amongst about the future

the most of European
optimistic occupations, while founders
technology today than you were
and tech employees Interestingly,
also expressed
12 months strongthere
ago?however, senseisof optimism about the future on the
a large divergence depending Venture occupation of respondents. Investors in
capitalist
of European tech. Policymakers, by contrast,
European tech, including both VCs andwere the least optimistic.
LPs, are amongst the most optimistic occupations, while founders and
This divergence of opinion
LEGEND
tech between
employees
Interestingly, the
however, founders
alsothere
expressed operators
is a large strong sense
divergence and investors
of optimism
depending on the occupation about ofthe future of
respondents.
Academic/researcher European
Investors in tech. Policymakers, by
on the one hand, andcontrast,
policymakers
European on the
tech, including
About the same
other,
both speaks
VCs and volumes.
LPs, are amongst the most optimistic occupations, while founders and
were the least optimistic. This divergence of opinion between the founders operators and investors
tech
Lessemployees also expressed strong sense of optimism about the future of European tech. Policymakers, by
oncontrast,
the onewere
hand, andoptimistic.
the least policymakers on the of
This divergence other, speaks
opinion betweenvolumes.
the foundersStudent
operators and investors
More
on the one hand, and policymakers on the other, speaks volumes.
Are you more or less optimistic

Are you more or less optimistic LPConsultant/M&A advisor/investment
investing in private equity & venture banker
capital
about
aboutthe future
the future of of European
European
technology today
technology today than
than you were
you were
12 months ago? Venture capitalist
12 months ago? Employee at a tech startup
Ventureorcapitalist
scale-up
L E G E ND
Academic/researcher
LEGEND
About the same
Academic/researcher
Less
About the same
More Student
Less
More Founder
Student
Employee at a tech startup or scale-up Other

Media/journalist
Founder
Employee in theAngel investor

public sector
Other
Media/journalist Other Founder

investor
Angel investor
Other
Other investor
Media/journalist
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Policymaker/regulator Angel investor % of respondents
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
% of respondents
Other investor
NOTE:
Numbers
NOTE: may not add to 100 due to S O U R C E : The State Of European Tech Survey
rounding.
Numbers may not add to 100 due to Employee at a company not a tech startup or scale-up
rounding.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
% of respondents
NOTE:
There is still a wide gap between the world of policymaking and that of
tech entrepreneurs... I think that venture capitalists have a key role to play
in bridging that gap between the two worlds.
There is still a wide gap between the world of Unlike entrepreneurs, venture capitalists
policymaking and that of tech entrepreneurs. don’t have to focus on one single problem
Policymakers genuinely want to help, but they over the course of several years. They can Nicolas Colin
don’t know a thing about tech startups, and embrace a long-term view of the market, The Family
they usually don’t count tech entrepreneurs identify the many regulatory obstacles that Co-Founder &
as friends or acquaintances, which makes it still stand in the way, and help policymakers Director
even more difficult for them to understand understand technology and come up with
what’s going on. On the other hand, tech sound regulations designed to boost local
entrepreneurs have difficulties reaching champions.
out to policymakers because they don’t
understand that world, where everything It’s both about providing entrepreneurs with
seems so slow and so bureaucratic; they the resources and the security they need to
rightfully prefer to focus on growing their take more risks and about raising the bar for
businesses. European tech companies, forcing them to
get better on various fronts, and ultimately
This is the reason why, by the way, I think that consolidating their competitive advantage
venture capitalists have a key role to play in at a global scale - an industrial policy for the
bridging that gap between the two worlds. Entrepreneurial Age.
The OECD has given the UK its highest overall score for the quality of our
regulatory practices, but we're not resting on our laurels. We are bringing
forward world-leading policies to boost innovation and build trust in
digital markets, to promote ethical and responsible technology and give
tech firms growing on our shores the competitive advantage they need.
Nicky Morgan
UK Secretary of
State for Digital,
Culture, Media &
Sport

About
This report was produced in partnership with Slush and Orrick.

Nearly 100 people and 20 organizations came together to provide
insights and data. This is who they are.

Our Contributors
Thanks to all of the following people for their assistance and

insight in developing this year’s State of European Tech Report
Contributors
Giovanni Anelli Sophia Bendz Alice Bentinck Elsa Bernadotte

CERN Atomico EF Karma
Tom Blomfield Kat Borlongan Loubna Bouarfa Christina Brinck

Monzo La French Tech OKRA Technologies Sixth Swedish National Pension Fund
Anisah Osman Britton Ophelia Brown Jessica Butcher Suranga Chandratillake

23 Code Street Blossom Capital Tick Balderton Capital
Stjin Christiaens James Clark Thomas Clozel Nicolas Colin

Collibra London Stock Exchange Owkin The Family

10.1 Our Contributors
Simon Cook Andy Davis Sonali de Rycker Pierre Entremont

Draper Esprit Backstage Capital Accel FRST
Madeleline Evans Ekaterina Gianelli Linda Griffin Irina Haivas

Levell Inventure King Atomico
Thomas Hellmann Kate Hilyard Taavet Hinrikus Sophia Hmich

University of Oxford Healx TransferWise Future Positive Capital
Christine Hockley Antoine Hubert Miki Kuusi Daniel Keiper-Knorr

British Patient Capital Ynsect Wolt Speedinvest
Jacopo Losso Yury Melnichek Osnat Michaeli Martin Mignot

EBAN Bulba Ventures Infarm Index

Valentina Milanova Nicky Morgan Akshay Naheta Steve O’Hear

Daye UK Secretary of State for Digital, SoftBank Vision Fund TechCrunch
Culture, Media & Sport.
Deborah Okenla Patrick Pichette Oscar Pierre Maria Raga

YSYS Inovia Capital Glovo Depop
Andreas Saari Abby Scarborough Naren Shaam Perry Teicher

Slush Yena Omio Orrick
Alex Terrien Nigel Toon Roxanne Varza Check Warner

Future Positive Capital Graphcore Station F Diversity VC
David York Leila Rastegar Zegna Niklas Zennström

Top Tier Capital Partners Kindred Capital Atomico

Acknowledgements
We wouldn’t have been able to put together the State of European Tech
without a lot of help - thanks to all of the following in particular:
Acknowledgements
Mike Allanson Kaloyan Andonov Giovanni Anelli Karl Bjelland

Studio Lovelock Global University Venturing European Organization for Nuclear Politico
Research (CERN)
Jon Brewer Yuliya Chernova James Clark George Clayton

Orrick Craft London Stock Exchange Studio Lovelock
Matt Collins Katelyn Dennis Ivan Draganov Anastasiya Dudareva

Studio Lovelock Shareworks Dealroom Craft

Mark Dunbavan Oscar Farres Rugiyya Gahramanli Sofian Giuroiu

Studio Lovelock EIF London Stock Exchange PEREP Analytics/EDC
Sarah Guemouri Thierry Heles Ben Jakob Ant Jumratsilpa

Atomico Global University Venturing Studio Lovelock Studio Lovelock
Bryce Keane Julie Kim Thomas Kösters Julien Krantz

Atomico Quid European Startup Initiative Invest Europe
Ilya Levtov Joe Lovelock Elissa Maercklein Gligor Micajkov

Craft Studio Lovelock Craft Dealroom

Elmo Pakkanen Angelina Panagiotopoulou Julien Puls Anais Rassat

Slush Studio Lovelock Dealroom European Organization for Nuclear
Research (CERN)
Julia Silge Maxine Smith Karthik Suresh Eleanor Warnock

Stack Overflow Atomico Craft Atomico
Tom Wehmeier Yoram Wijngaarde The purpose-driven porpoise

Atomico Dealroom Self-employed

About Atomico
We’re Atomico. You probably knew that already.

But who are we really?
We’re not a traditional venture capital firm.
We are built by founders for founders. Every single aspect of Atomico, every part
of our culture, and every decision we take, is designed with the sole ambition
of helping our partners succeed.
We exist for more than returns. We believe entrepreneurs are the ultimate agents
of positive, transformational change across every aspect of our society and economy.
Our mission is to spur this progress forward.
It’s why we partner with the world’s most ambitious founders. The rule-breakers who
want to build the next leader in their category. The world-shapers creating companies
that fundamentally shift the way we live today. The gamechangers using technology
to rewire the world in favour of something better, for as many people as possible.
When we find these people, we invest much more than money. We work hand-in-glove
with them, drawing on hard-won experience scaling some of the most successful
technology companies in the world.
About Orrick
But who is Orrick?

Creators. Visionaries. Underdogs. The Daring.
Orrick counsels more than 2,700 tech companies, as well as the most active
funds, corporate venture investors and public tech companies worldwide.
We help you disrupt. We help you build. We protect you. We help you win.
We are the No. 1 most active law firm in European venture capital, No. 3
globally (PitchBook), top 15 for global M&A (Bloomberg) and advisors to seven of the
top 15 global private equity funds. We offer destination practices in other areas that are
important to tech companies’ success: privacy and cybersecurity, intellectual property,
payments, and beyond.
And we innovate not only in our legal advice but also in the way we deliver our services.
That’s why Financial Times has named us the most innovative law firm in North America
for the last three years in a row.

About Slush
Once again we’ve partnered with Slush

to produce the State of European Tech report
But why are so many people flocking
to Helsinki in November?
Slush is a student-driven, not-for-profit movement with the mission
to create and help the next generation of groundbreaking entrepreneurs.
The Slush year culminates in Helsinki in November, when 25,000 founders,
investors, media and executives from 130+ countries gather in Helsinki.
Held during the darkest time of the year, Slush has always been characterized
by a unique energy and enthusiasm.
Slush is run by a community of students who want to radically change how
entrepreneurship is perceived in Northern Europe and beyond. Several successful
entrepreneurs, from the founders of Supercell and Spotify among others, have already
become a part of the not-for-profit initiative that has already become a movement
of global magnitude.
About Studio Lovelock
Branding to engage and inspire

Studio Lovelock partners with ambitious scale-ups
ready to embrace the power of brand to drive growth
Studio Lovelock is a branding and communications design agency based in London.
We are a collection of open-minded, smart and creatively restless folk, driven to help
the businesses we believe in achieve great things. We are founded on the belief that
creativity and clear design thinking are critical components in the long term success of
any business. We pride ourselves on our willingness to push beyond our comfort zone
and the quality of the relationships we’ve built with our clients.
Being friendly, helpful and reliable doesn’t hurt either.
View more of our work at studiolovelock.com

Appendix
Last but not least

Survey Respondents
Occupation of survey Founder 27%
respondents
Employee at a tech startup or scale-up 19%

16%
scale-up
Occupation
Occupation of survey
of survey Founder Founder 27% 27%
Venture capitalist 10%
respondents
respondents
Employee atEmployee atadvisor/investment

a tech
a tech startup
Consultant/M&A startup or scale-up
or scale-up banker 7% 19% 19%
Employee atEmployee atthat

a company a company
is not a that
techisstartup
not a tech
or startup or
Student 5% 16% 16%
scale-up scale-up
Venture capitalist
Venture capitalist Other 4% 10% 10%
Consultant/M&A
Consultant/M&A advisor/investment
advisor/investment
Employee in the publicbanker
banker sector 7%
3% 7%
Student Student
Academic/researcher 5%2% 5%
Other Other
Angel investor 4% 2% 4%
Employee inEmployee
the publicin
sector
theOther
public sector 3%
investor 2%3%
LP investing Academic/researcher
& venture capital 2%
Academic/researcher
in private equity 1% 2%
Angel investor
Angel investor 2%
Media/journalist 1% 2%
Other investor
Other investor2%
Policymaker/regulator 1% 2%
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
LP investingLP
in private equity
investing & venture
in private capital
equity 1%
& venture capital 1%
% of respondents
Media/journalist 1%
Media/journalist 1%
NOTE:
Policymaker/regulator 1%
Policymaker/regulator 1%
rounding.
Company size of survey
≤10 employees 0 0 5 5 10 10 15 15 20 20 25 25 30
35% 30
respondents
% of respondents
% of respondents
11-100 employees 29%

NOTE: NOTE: S O U R C E : SOURCE:
The State Of
TheEuropean
State OfTech Survey
Numbers may not add
Numbers to 100
may not due
add to 100 due to
rounding. rounding.
CompanyCompany size of survey

size of survey 100+ employees 30%
≤10 employees≤10 employees 35%
respondents
respondents 35%
Not applicable 6%
11-100 employees
11-100 employees 29% 29%
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
% of respondents
100+ employees
100+ employees 30% 30%

Numbers may not add to 100 due to Not applicableNot applicable 6% 6%
rounding.
0 0 5 5 10 10 15 15 20 20 25 25 30 30 35 35 40 40
% of respondents
% of respondents
NOTE: NOTE: SOURCE: The State Of The

European Tech Survey Tech Survey
SOURCE: State Of European
Numbers may not add may
Numbers to 100 due
not toto 100 due to
add
rounding. rounding.

respondents First-time founder 51%
11.1 Survey Respondents
Repeat founder with limited experience 31%
Experience
Experience level of founder
level of founder
respondents
respondents First-time founder
First-time founder 51%
51%
Repeat founder with significant experience 18%
Repeat
Repeat founder withfounder with limited experience 0
limited experience 5 10 15 20 25 31% 30 31% 35 40 45 50 55
% of respondents

Repeat founder withfounder
Repeat significant
withexperience
significant experience 18% 18%
Gender of survey
Founders only. Numbersrespondents
may not add to 100
Male
due to rounding. 67%
0 50 10 5 15 10 20 15 2520 30 25 35 30 40 35 45 40 50 45 55 50 55
Female 31% % of respondents
% of respondents

NOTE: NOTE: SOURCE: The State Of European
SOURCE: The State OfTech SurveyTech Survey
European
Founders only. Numbers
Founders only.may not add
Numbers to 100
may not add to 100
Gender Gender
of survey
due to rounding.
due ofrespondents
survey respondents
to rounding. Male
Male 67% 67%
Non-binary 0%
Female Female 31% 31%

Other 0%
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Prefer not toPrefer
say not to
2%say 2%
% of respondents
0%
Non-binary Non-binary 0%
Ethnicity of survey respondents
rounding. Other Caucasian/White
0%Other 0% 81%
Asian 6%
0 0 10 10 20 20 30 30 40 40 50 50 60 60 70 70
% of respondents
% of respondents
Mixed 3%
European
Hispanic/Latinx 2%
Numbers may not add
Numbers to not
may 100 add
due to
to 100 due to
Ethnicity Ethnicity
of survey
rounding. rounding. ofrespondents
survey respondents Caucasian/White
Caucasian/White 81% 81%
Middle Eastern/North African 2%
Asian Asian 6% 6%
Other (please specify) 1%
Prefer not toPrefer
say not to say
4% 4%
Black/African/Caribbean 1%
Mixed 3%
Mixed 3%
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Hispanic/Latinx 2%
Hispanic/Latinx 2% % of respondents

Middle Eastern/North 2%
African 2%
NOTE: SOURCE: The(please

State Of
Other (pleaseOther
specify) 1%European1%
specify) Tech Survey
Numbers may not add to 100 due to Nordics 39%
Geographic
rounding. origin of survey
respondents UK & Ireland 16%
0 0 10 1020 2030 3040 4050 5060 70
60 80
70 90
80 90
DACH 13% % of respondents
% of respondents
CEE 9%
NOTE: France & Benelux 8%

NOTE: SOURCE: The State Of
SOURCE: European
The State OfTech SurveyTech Survey
European
Numbers may not add
Numbers to not
may 100 add
due to
to 100 due to SouthernNordics
Europe
Nordics 8% 39%
Geographic
rounding. Geographic
origin oforigin
rounding. survey of survey 39%
respondents
respondents UK & IrelandRest
UK &ofIreland
world 4% 16% 16%
Rest of Europe
DACH DACH 2% 13% 13%
United States
CEE CEE 2% 9% 9%
France & Benelux 0 5

8% 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
France & Benelux 8%
% of respondents
Southern Europe
Rest of worldRest of world 4% 4%

NOTE:
Rest of Europe 2%
Rest of Europe 2%
rounding.
United States 2%
United States 2%
0 0 5 5 10 10 15 15 20 20 25 25 30 30 35 35 40 40
% of respondents
% of respondents

European
Numbers may not add
Numbers to not
may 100 add
due to
to 100 due to
rounding. rounding.
More About Our Data Partners
Aon
Radford is the technology and life sciences unit of Aon’s Rewards Solutions practice.
ABOUT REWARDS SOLUTIONS
The Rewards Solutions practice at Aon empowers business leaders to reimagine their approach to
rewards in the digital age through a powerful mix of data, analytics and advisory capabilities. Our
colleagues support clients across a full spectrum of needs, including compensation benchmarking,
pay and workforce modeling, and expert insights on rewards strategy and plan design. To learn
more, visit: rewards.aon.com.
ABOUT AON
Aon plc (NYSE:AON) is a leading global professional services firm providing a broad range of risk,
retirement and health solutions. Our 50,000 colleagues in 120 countries empower results for
clients by using proprietary data and analytics to deliver insights that reduce volatility and improve
performance. For further information, please visit aon.com.
Dealroom.co
Dealroom is a global company information database & research firm. Its software, database and
bespoke research enable its clients to stay at the forefront of innovation, discover promising
companies and identify strategic opportunities. Among its clients are world-leading strategy
consulting firms, investment banks, multinationals, technology firms, venture capital & buyout
firms and governments. For more information, please visit: dealroom.co
CBRE
CBRE Group, Inc. (NYSE:CBRE), a Fortune 500 and S&P 500 company headquartered in Los
Angeles, is the world’s largest commercial real estate services and investment firm (based on 2018
revenue). The company has more than 90,000 employees (excluding affiliates) and serves real
estate investors and occupiers through more than 480 offices (excluding affiliates) worldwide.
CBRE offers a broad range of integrated services, including facilities, transaction and project
management; property management; investment management; appraisal and valuation; property
leasing; strategic consulting; property sales; mortgage services and development services. Please
visit our website at www.cbre.com.

11.2 More About Our Data Partners
The European Organization

for Nuclear Research (CERN)
The European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) - is a world-renowned centre for scientific
research, celebrated for its recent discovery of the Higgs boson. CERN’s technology provides
concrete business solutions in many fields: from medtech to aerospace, and industry 4.0, and are
already present in start-ups hosted in CERN’s network of Business Incubation Centres. CERN is also
part of the ATTRACT initiative, a European call for breakthrough ideas that will fund 170 innovative
projects from 2019.
Craft
Craft is building the ‘Source of Truth’ on companies, mapping the global economy, and delivering
unique intelligence on companies to corporate decision-makers globally. Craft collects, aggregates
and curates financial, operating and human capital data to provide the deepest picture of private
and public companies to assist decision-makers to manage their supply chain, maximize their
investments, mitigate risks, grow their sales, leverage their talent and enhance their competitive
position.
The European Business Angels Network (EBAN)

EBAN, The European Business Angels Network, is the pan-European representative for early stage
investors gathering over 150 member organizations in more than 50 countries. Established in 1999
by a group of pioneer angel networks in Europe with the collaboration of the European Commission
and EURADA, EBAN represents a sector estimated to invest over 7 billion Euros a year and playing
a vital role in Europe’s future, notably in the funding of Start-Ups SMEs. EBAN has been conducting
research on the business angel market since 2001 and is the leading source of knowledge in Europe
for this industry.
The European Investment Fund (EIF)

The European Investment Fund (EIF) is part of the European Investment Bank group. Its central
mission is to support Europe’s micro, small and medium-sized businesses (SMEs) by helping them to
access finance. EIF designs and develops venture and growth capital, guarantees and microfinance
instruments, which specifically target this market segment. In this role, EIF fosters EU objectives in
support of innovation, research and development, entrepreneurship, growth, and employment.
Flourish
Flourish makes it easy to produce beautiful and engaging data visualizations and interactive
presentations. Used by companies from Google and EY to Sky News and the BBC, it converts
complex datasets into animated, mobile-friendly, on-brand data stories in minutes. No coding
required. Get started for free at flourish.studio.

Global University Venturing

Global University Venturing is both a quarterly magazine and website written for and about
universities taking stakes in spinouts. We help universities to share best practice and to connect
with each other, with investors and with other useful parties in the innovation ecosystem. Our aim
is to help improve the processes of bringing innovations from academia to the market and facilitate
their integration into the business ecosystem.
Graphext
Graphext provides a data science software for business decision makers. Combining the latest
machine learning techniques and a user friendly interface, Graphext automates and simplifies data
driven decision making for all aspects of your business.
Indeed
More people find jobs on Indeed than anywhere else. Indeed is the #1 job site in the world and allows
jobseekers to search millions of jobs on the web or mobile in over 60 countries and 28 languages.
More than 250 million people each month search for jobs, post resumes, and research companies on
Indeed. For more information, visit indeed.com.
Invest Europe
Invest Europe is the association representing Europe’s private equity, venture capital and
infrastructure sectors, as well as their investors.
Our members take a long-term approach to investing in privately held companies, from start-ups
to established firms. They inject not only capital but dynamism, innovation and expertise. This
commitment helps deliver strong and sustainable growth, resulting in healthy returns for Europe’s
leading pension funds and insurers, to the benefit of the millions of European citizens who depend
on them.
Invest Europe aims to make a constructive contribution to policy affecting private capital
investment in Europe. We provide information to the public on our members’ role in the economy.
Our research provides the most authoritative source of data on trends and developments in our
industry.
Invest Europe is the guardian of the industry’s professional standards, demanding accountability,
good governance and transparency from our members.
Invest Europe is a non-profit organisation with 25 employees in Brussels, Belgium.
For more information visit www.investeurope.eu

London Stock Exchange

London Stock Exchange Group (LSE.L) is a diversified international exchange Group that sits
at the heart of the world’s financial community. The Group can trace its history back to 1801.
The Group operates a broad range of international equity, bond and derivatives markets, including
London Stock Exchange; Borsa Italiana; MTS, Europe’s leading fixed income market; and the
pan-European equities platform, Turquoise. Through its markets, the Group offers international
business, and investors, unrivalled access to Europe’s capital markets.
Post trade and risk management services are a significant and growing part of the Group’s business
operations. LSEG operates CC&G, the Rome headquartered CCP and Monte Titoli, the significant
European settlement business, selected as a first wave T2S participant. The Group is also a
majority owner of leading multi-asset global CCP, LCH.
The Group offers its customers an extensive range of real-time and reference data products,
including Sedol, UnaVista and RNS. FTSE calculates thousands of unique indices that measure
and benchmark markets and asset classes in more than 80 countries around the world.
London Stock Exchange Group is also a leading developer of high performance trading platforms
and capital markets software. In addition to the Group’s own markets, over 40 other organisations
and exchanges around the world use the Group’s MillenniumIT trading, surveillance
and post trade technology.
Headquartered in London, United Kingdom with significant operations in Italy, France, North
America and Sri Lanka, the Group employs approximately 4,700 people.
Meetup
Meetup is a global community platform that connects people in real life. It was founded with one
simple idea: use technology to get people off technology. Our vision is to harness technology to
remove the barriers to human connection and deliver real life community.
Meetup supports over 40 million members+, 320,000+ Meetup groups and 12,000 Meetups per day
around the world. Meetup was acquired by WeWork in 2017. The two companies share a vision of
the power of bringing people together, and together using technology to create new and innovative
ways of building community. Follow us @Meetup on Twitter, @Meetup on Instagram and Facebook,
or visit meetup.com to learn more.
POLITICO
POLITICO, a global nonpartisan politics and policy news organization, launched in Europe in April 2015.
POLITICO Europe is a joint-venture between POLITICO LLC, based in the USA and Axel Springer, the
leading publisher in Europe.
With operations based in Brussels and additional offices in London, Berlin, Paris, Rome, and Warsaw,
POLITICO connects the dots between global power centers. In June 2018, an annual ComRes/Burson-
Marsteller survey ranked POLITICO as the #1 most influential publication on European affairs, for the
second year running.
POLITICO’s premium politics and policy news service, POLITICO Pro, empowers thousands of policy
experts and decision-makers from over 900 organizations on key industries. Launched in 2015, Pro
now covers 7 policy areas: Agriculture and Food, Energy and Climate, Financial Services, Healthcare,
Technology, Trade, and Mobility. POLITICO Pro has 5 cross-industry products: Brexit Pro, Sustainability
Pro, Cybersecurity and Data Protection Pro, EU Budget Pro and Competition Pro. Subscribers include EU
and national government, corporations, trade associations, consultancies, law firms, and NGOs.
POLITICO Pro’s newest offering, Pro Intelligence, is an innovative platform which fuses the power of
technology with the power of journalism, providing professionals with an overview of bills, legislation,
voting behavior and attendance, tweets, activities, press releases, transcripts and more, at the touch of a
button. Users can track information on the EU Institutions and national legislatures in the UK, France and
Germany. Pro Intelligence was used by Atomico to research data on EU Tech legislation for this report.

Quid
Quid is a big data research platform that inspires full picture thinking by drawing connections
across massive amounts of unstructured data. The software applies advanced natural language
processing technology, semantic analysis, and artificial intelligence algorithms to reveal patterns in
large, unstructured datasets, and generate visualizations to allow users to gain actionable insights,
enabling our Fortune 1000 clients to quickly complete analyses like tech scouting, competitive
tracking, market landscapes, and brand narrative maps.
Shareworks
Option Impact by Shareworks is the leading provider of pre-IPO compensation data. We partner
with over 180 top-tier investors and over 3600 private companies to produce the world’s largest
corporate-sourced compensation database specific to private, venture-backed companies. Option
Impact is a rolling cash and equity survey providing relevant market data across all levels and job
families for $0 in exchange for maintaining current information in the system. To learn more, please
email us at compensation@shareworks.com.
Sifted
Sifted is the new Financial Times backed media platform for European entrepreneurs, innovators
and investors. It is an essential, trusted and independent resource for the startup and tech world: a
source of news, information and analysis and also a channel for discovery.
Stack Overflow
Founded in 2008, Stack Overflow is the largest, most trusted online community for anyone that
codes to learn, share their knowledge, and build their careers. More than 50 million unique visitors
come to Stack Overflow each month to help solve coding problems, develop new skills, and find job
opportunities. Stack Overflow partners with businesses to help them understand, hire, engage, and
enable the world’s developers. Stack Overflow’s products and services are focused on developer
marketing, advertising, technical recruiting, and enterprise knowledge sharing.
Startup Heatmap Europe

The Startup Heatmap Europe is a data & knowledge platform enabling tech communities in Europe
to grow. Find more information on the data and courses for ecosystem builders on
www.startupheatmap.com
The Startup Heatmap Europe is an annual survey among founders and the greater tech community
on mobility and the attractiveness of startup hubs. The 2019 survey was collected between May
and August 2019 and had 1,200 participants. After cleaning and sampling the data 806 complete
datasets remained that were weighted to adjust for regional representativeness on country level.
Founders were 53% of respondents. For long-term trends in founder mobility, we used a combined
dataset of 4 years with >6,000 founder opinions. Analysis of key topics and trends was based on
social media data and a dataset of >20,000 startup meetup.

The State of European Tech Report 2019 PDF

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

The State of European Tech Report 2019 PDF

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

In Partnership with &

www.stateofeuropeantech.com 1 In Partnership with &

www.stateofeuropeantech.com 2 In Partnership with &

CAPITAL INVESTED IN EUROPE

We are on track to surpass $110B capital

Cumulative investments by European cities ($M), 2015 - 2019 9M

www.stateofeuropeantech.com 3 In Partnership with &

Meet Europe’s billion-dollar

www.stateofeuropeantech.com 4 In Partnership with &

We had another record year in 2018 with

Cumulative VC funds raised 2010-2014 vs. 2015-2019

www.stateofeuropeantech.com 5 In Partnership with &

EUROPEAN TECH FOUNDERS

We surveyed more than 1,200

www.stateofeuropeantech.com 6 In Partnership with &

DIVERSITY & INCLUSION

There is no material improvement in the

www.stateofeuropeantech.com 7 In Partnership with &

www.stateofeuropeantech.com 8 In Partnership with &

Why can’t Europe do tech?

www.stateofeuropeantech.com 9 In Partnership with &

A Foreword to the 2019 Report

www.stateofeuropeantech.com 10 In Partnership with &

5 years ago Now

www.stateofeuropeantech.com 11 In Partnership with &

The State of Diversity and Inclusion

www.stateofeuropeantech.com 12 In Partnership with &

www.stateofeuropeantech.com 13 In Partnership with &

Photo by: Jussi Hellsten

www.stateofeuropeantech.com 14 In Partnership with &

At Slush, we believe that entrepreneurship is one of the most effective

However, Europe is only waking up to the diversity issue as a whole, and to

With these developments in mind, the record investment into European

www.stateofeuropeantech.com 15 In Partnership with &

What will it take to sustain this Europe’s success?

www.stateofeuropeantech.com 16 In Partnership with &

Photo by: Jussi Hellsten

www.stateofeuropeantech.com 17 In Partnership with &

How much are venture capitalists investing in European tech?

www.stateofeuropeantech.com 18 In Partnership with &

in capital invested inUS

Capital invested ($B) in Europe,   125.0 #  # 

  #  #  $34.3B

CAPITAL INVESTED IN Q2 2019

Capital invested ($B)

Capital invested ($B)

0.0 2.5 800.0

All Dealroom.co data excludes the following:

biotech, secondary transactions, debt, S O U R C E : Dealroom

lending capital, grants. Please also note the

All Dealroom.co data excludes the following:

www.stateofeuropeantech.com 19 In Partnership with &

Capital invested ($B)

Capital invested ($B)

Capital invested ($B)

biotech, secondary transactions, debt, SOURCE: Dealroom

It does feel like we are

Capital invested ($B) and number DATASET: CAPITAL

www.stateofeuropeantech.com 20 In Partnership with &

A small number of giant deals

($B)capital invested ($B)

Total capital invested ($B)

Total capital invested

Capital invested ($B) in Europe, 125.0 # #

# # $34.3B