Innovation Funding Strategy: Why Grant Fit Matters More Than Grant Writing

For many innovation-driven companies, the grant application process begins with a familiar question: “How do we write a winning proposal?”

This is an important question, but it is not the first one to ask.

Before writing begins, a more strategic question should come first: “Is this the right grant for our company, our technology, and our stage of growth?”

In EU innovation funding, a well-written proposal can still fail if it is aimed at the wrong program. A deep-tech startup may have an impressive technology, but if the call expects stronger market validation, a different Technology Readiness Level, or a clearer European policy impact, polished writing will not solve the problem. A climate-tech company may describe its solution beautifully, but if it applies to a general R&D call when its project is better suited to a demonstration or deployment-focused program, the proposal may struggle from the start.

This is why grant fit matters more than grant writing.

Grant writing improves how a project is presented. Grant fit determines whether the project should be presented to that specific funder, at that specific time, under that specific call.

A strong innovation funding strategy does not begin with a template, deadline, or list of open calls. It begins with a structured assessment of the company’s technology, maturity, business roadmap, funding needs, eligibility, consortium options, policy relevance, and readiness to deliver. Only after that can a company decide which opportunity is worth pursuing and how the proposal should be positioned.

For startups, SMEs, and technology companies, this distinction is critical. EU grants can provide powerful non-dilutive funding, strengthen credibility, support international partnerships, and accelerate innovation. But applying for the wrong grant can do the opposite. It can consume months of management attention, pull technical teams away from development, delay stronger funding opportunities, and force the company to reshape its roadmap around a call that was never strategically aligned.

Why is rejection not always the biggest risk in EU innovation funding?

Rejection is disappointing, but it is not always the most damaging outcome. A rejected proposal provides a clear result. The company can review evaluator feedback, improve the project, consider resubmission, or move on to a better opportunity.

The greater risk is less visible: investing significant time, budget, and internal energy in a grant application that had little chance of success in the first place because the strategic fit was weak from the start.

This cost is rarely measured properly. A serious EU grant application often involves senior management, R&D teams, finance staff, business development, legal input, external partners, and sometimes months of coordination. The company must define work packages, prepare budgets, gather documentation, validate claims, align partners, and translate its innovation into the funder’s language.

If the call is poorly matched, all of this effort may produce little strategic value. Worse, the company may miss a better opportunity and precious time while focusing on the wrong one. In competitive funding environments, timing matters. A company that rushes into a weak-fit call may lose the preparation window for a stronger one opening several months later. It may also create internal fatigue, making the team less willing to invest properly when the right opportunity finally appears.

There is also a strategic cost. Companies sometimes adapt their story too aggressively to match a call. They emphasize activities that are not central to their roadmap, add partners they do not truly need, or promise impact pathways that are not realistic for their market. The proposal may look fundable on paper, but it begins to drift away from the company’s actual business priorities.

That is why rejection is not always the worst-case scenario. A rejected proposal is painful. A misdirected funding effort can be expensive long before the result arrives.

What does “grant fit” actually mean?

Grant fit is the alignment between a company’s innovation and the specific logic of a funding opportunity.

It is not simply a question of whether the company is eligible. Eligibility only answers whether the company is allowed to apply. Grant fit asks whether the company should apply.

A project may be eligible for a call and still be a poor strategic candidate. It may meet the formal rules but fail to match the program’s expectations, maturity level, impact logic, consortium structure, or funding purpose.

A strong grant fit usually includes several layers of alignment:

First, there is program fit. Different EU and national programs support different types of projects. Some are designed for early-stage research. Others support breakthrough innovation, industrial demonstration, commercialization, climate impact, digital infrastructure, or SME-led international collaboration. Treating them as interchangeable funding sources is a common mistake.

Second, there is maturity fit. The project’s Technology Readiness Level must match the program’s expectations. A lab-stage concept, a validated prototype, a first market deployment, and a scale-up project require different funding routes.

Third, there is strategic fit. The grant should support the company’s real business roadmap. It should accelerate work the company genuinely needs to do, not create an artificial project designed only to satisfy a call text.

Fourth, there is policy fit. EU innovation funding is strongly connected to European priorities such as climate neutrality, industrial competitiveness, digital transformation, health, resilience, and strategic autonomy. A project must show why it matters beyond the applicant’s private commercial goals.

Finally, there is operational fit. The company must be able to deliver the work, manage the budget, collaborate with partners if needed, and meet reporting requirements after the grant is awarded.

In other words, grant fit is not a vague impression that “this call sounds relevant.” It is a professional assessment of whether the funder, the project, the company, and the timing truly belong together.

Why can’t good grant writing compensate for poor strategic fit?

Good grant writing matters. It can make a complex technology easier to understand, sharpen the impact narrative, organize the work plan, and help evaluators see why the project deserves support.

But grant writing has limits.

It cannot turn a poorly matched project into a strong candidate for the wrong funding program. It cannot make an early-stage technology look truly ready for a scale-up instrument. It cannot turn a local commercial objective into a convincing European policy contribution. It cannot create a credible consortium where the required expertise, geography, or implementation capacity is missing.

This is where many companies misjudge the role of proposal writing. They assume that if the idea is strong enough and the language is persuasive enough, the proposal can overcome almost any weakness. In reality, evaluators are not only reading for style. They are assessing whether the project fits the purpose of the call.

Writing can improve the expression of the strategy. It cannot replace the strategy.

This distinction is especially important in EU innovation funding, where proposals are judged against specific expectations. Evaluators look for excellence, impact, and implementation, but these criteria are not abstract writing categories. They reflect the funder’s deeper questions:

Is the innovation genuinely strong?

Does the project address the call’s objectives?

Is the expected impact meaningful and credible?

Can this team or consortium deliver the work?

Is the budget realistic?

Are the risks understood?

Does the project create value beyond the applicant’s own business?

If the answer to these questions is weak, better wording will not solve the problem.

That does not mean writing is secondary or unimportant. Once the right opportunity is selected, professional proposal development becomes essential. But writing should come after the strategic decision, not before it.

How do EU funding programs differ, and why does that matter?

One of the reasons grant fit is so important is that EU funding is not a single, uniform category. “EU grants” is a broad term covering many programs, instruments, priorities, and evaluation models.

A company may be highly innovative and still be wrong for a specific call.

Horizon Europe, for example, supports research and innovation across a wide range of areas. Within it, different pillars, clusters, missions, and instruments serve different purposes. A collaborative Horizon Europe project may require a multi-country consortium and a clear contribution to specific European policy goals. The European Innovation Council, also under Horizon Europe, includes different instruments for different innovation stages, from early breakthrough research to scale-up support for startups and SMEs.

The EIC Accelerator is often attractive to startups because it supports high-risk, high-potential innovation. But it is not suitable for every startup. A company must show not only technological ambition, but also market potential, scale-up logic, team capability, and a credible route to impact. A promising idea without sufficient maturity or commercial readiness may be better suited to a different instrument.

The Innovation Fund follows another logic. It is focused on innovative low-carbon technologies and industrial decarbonization. For this type of program, the project’s climate impact, scalability, maturity, and deployment potential are central. A company that treats it as a general R&D grant may miss the point.

Eurostars is different again. It is built around international collaborative R&D led by innovative SMEs. A company that wants solo funding may find that the structure does not fit its needs, while another company with the right international partners may find it highly relevant.

Other programs, such as LIFE, Digital Europe, regional schemes, national incentives, or sector-specific calls, each have their own logic. Some prioritize environmental impact. Some support digital infrastructure or advanced technology adoption. Some require strong public-sector relevance. Others are designed to help companies collaborate across borders.

This diversity creates opportunity, but it also creates risk.

When companies see only the funding amount or the prestige of a program, they may overlook the more important question: what is this funding instrument actually designed to achieve?

The same innovation can be evaluated very differently depending on the program. In one call, it may look too early. In another, too commercial. In another, too narrow. In another, highly strategic.

A strong innovation funding strategy compares available opportunities not only by deadline and budget, but by purpose. It asks whether the program’s logic matches the company’s current stage, future goals, technical evidence, partner network, and capacity to deliver.

The right program can strengthen the company’s roadmap. The wrong one can force the company into a shape that does not fit.

What are the signs that a company is applying for the wrong grant?

A company does not always realize it is chasing the wrong grant. In many cases, the opportunity looks attractive at first: the budget is significant, the topic sounds relevant, the deadline is approaching, and competitors may be preparing applications.

But a closer look often reveals warning signs:

The first sign is forced alignment. If the team has to stretch the project description too far to match the call text, the fit may be weak. A proposal should require thoughtful positioning, but not distortion. When the company has to rewrite its roadmap, exaggerate its impact, or add activities it would not otherwise pursue, the application may be driven by the grant rather than by strategy.

Another warning sign is unclear program logic. If the team cannot explain why this specific program is the right route, beyond “we are eligible” or “there is funding available,” the opportunity deserves another review. Eligibility is not enough. A strategically sound application should have a clear reason for choosing this call over other options.

Poor maturity fit is another common problem. A technology that is still in early validation may not be ready for a program that expects demonstration, commercialization, or scale-up. At the same time, a company with a market-ready solution may not fit a call focused on early research. In both cases, the proposal may be rejected not because the innovation lacks value, but because it is being evaluated in the wrong context.

Consortium issues can also signal weak fit. Some calls require a strong European partnership, specific types of organizations, or complementary capabilities across countries. If partners are added only to satisfy formal requirements, without a clear role in the project’s success, evaluators are likely to notice. A consortium should strengthen the proposal, not decorate it.

Budget discomfort is another red flag. If the company cannot realistically handle co-financing, delayed reimbursement, documentation, reporting, or audit obligations, the grant may create more pressure than value. A funding opportunity should be assessed not only by how much money it offers, but by what it requires in return.

Timing is equally important. Starting too close to the deadline often leads to rushed decisions, weak partner alignment, incomplete evidence, and superficial positioning. A company may submit on time, but the proposal may not reflect the level of strategic preparation required for a competitive call.

Perhaps the strongest warning sign is this: the company would not want to deliver the project exactly as described if it won.

If the proposed work plan feels artificial, inconvenient, or disconnected from the real business roadmap, the grant is probably not the right fit. A proposal should describe a project the company genuinely wants and is ready to execute, not just a version of the business designed to impress evaluators.

The wrong grant often reveals itself through internal hesitation. Teams feel the mismatch before they can always name it: the impact sounds inflated, the partners feel random, the timeline feels unrealistic, or the project narrative feels slightly detached from reality.

A serious innovation funding strategy brings these doubts to the surface before months are invested in the application.

More About Timing

Many companies begin thinking seriously about a grant when the call is already open. By then, the deadline creates pressure, and pressure can lead to poor strategic decisions.

In competitive EU innovation funding, preparation should begin much earlier.

The strongest applicants do not simply react to open calls. They build a funding roadmap in advance. They know which programs may become relevant, what evidence they need to strengthen, which partners they may need, and how future calls could support their business milestones.

This early preparation matters because grant fit is rarely assessed in a single meeting. It requires analysis of the technology, maturity level, market readiness, eligibility, financial capacity, consortium needs, and policy relevance. These elements take time to clarify.

When these steps begin too late, the proposal becomes reactive. The company may choose the nearest deadline rather than the best opportunity. It may accept weak partners because there is no time to build better ones. It may force the project into the call instead of shaping a compelling and credible funding strategy.

Early timing also matters because not every good opportunity should be pursued immediately. Sometimes the right strategic decision is to wait. A company may need another pilot, a stronger customer reference, a clearer regulatory pathway, a more developed prototype, or a better consortium before applying. Waiting for the right call with stronger evidence can be smarter than rushing into a weak submission.

This is especially true for companies that see grants as part of a broader funding roadmap. A grant application may need to align with investor conversations, product development milestones, market entry, manufacturing scale-up, or international partnerships. If the timing is wrong, the grant can compete with these priorities instead of supporting them.

The best innovation funding strategies are built before urgency takes over. By the time the call opens, the company should already understand whether the opportunity fits, what project should be proposed, what evidence is missing, who needs to be involved, and how the proposal will be positioned.

A grant deadline should trigger execution, not strategic panic.

What happens if a company wins the wrong grant?

Most companies think about the risk of losing. Fewer think seriously about the risk of winning the wrong grant.

At first, a grant win may look like an unquestionable success. It brings funding, recognition, credibility, and momentum. But once the project begins, the company must deliver what it promised. That is where poor strategic fit becomes much more visible.

If the funded project does not align with the company’s real priorities, the team may find itself committed to activities that no longer make commercial or technical sense. Work packages that looked convincing in the proposal may compete with product development. Partner tasks may slow decision-making. Reporting obligations may consume more internal capacity than expected. Co-financing requirements may create cash-flow pressure. Milestones may be difficult to meet because they were designed around the call rather than the company’s actual execution path.

This is especially challenging for startups and SMEs, where leadership attention and technical resources are limited. A large organization may absorb a misaligned project more easily. A smaller company may feel the impact immediately.

There are also strategic constraints. A company may need to adjust its product roadmap, but the funded project has fixed deliverables. It may identify a better market opportunity, but the grant timeline points elsewhere. It may need to pivot, but major changes could require formal approval. It may want to move faster commercially, while the project structure requires partner coordination, documentation, and periodic reporting.

None of this means grants are a burden by nature. The right grant can be transformative. It can finance essential R&D, validate technology, open European partnerships, support market credibility, and reduce reliance on dilutive capital.

But the wrong grant can become a distraction disguised as success.

This is why companies should evaluate a grant opportunity not only by asking, “Can we win this?” but also, “Would we still want this project if the funding were approved?”

That question changes the quality of the decision. It forces the company to look beyond the application deadline and consider the full life cycle of the grant: delivery, reporting, cash flow, partner management, audits, amendments, and strategic flexibility.

A strong innovation funding strategy protects the company from both bad applications and bad wins. It ensures that if the company succeeds, the funded project will strengthen the roadmap rather than pull it off course.

What should a strategic grant fit assessment include?

A strategic grant fit assessment is the work that should happen before the proposal is written.

Its purpose is not simply to answer the question, “Can we apply?” That is only the eligibility layer. The more important question is, “Should we apply, and if so, how should we position the project to make sense to this specific funder?”

A serious assessment begins with the company itself:

The first step is to understand the innovation: what the technology does, what problem it solves, what makes it different from existing solutions, and how much evidence already exists. This includes a realistic review of the Technology Readiness Level, not an optimistic one. A company may feel that its solution is ready for market, but the funder may look for specific proof: pilot data, prototype validation, regulatory progress, customer traction, production capability, or measurable performance results.

The second step is to understand the business roadmap. A grant should support the company’s next meaningful milestone. That may be R&D, technical validation, demonstration, scale-up, market entry, industrial deployment, or international collaboration. If the proposed project does not move the company closer to a real business objective, the funding opportunity may not be strategically useful.

The third step is program mapping. This means comparing relevant EU, national, regional, and sector-specific funding routes, rather than focusing only on the best-known or nearest deadline. Horizon Europe, EIC Accelerator, Innovation Fund, Eurostars, LIFE, Digital Europe, and other programs do not serve the same purpose. Each has its own logic, evaluation criteria, eligible applicants, timelines, and expectations.

The fourth step is policy alignment. EU innovation funding is not awarded only because a company has a clever product. The project must connect to broader priorities such as climate neutrality, industrial competitiveness, digital transformation, health, resilience, food security, circular economy, or European strategic autonomy. A strategic assessment identifies which policy priorities are genuinely relevant and which would feel forced.

The fifth step is consortium strategy. Some opportunities can be pursued by a single company. Others require a consortium with partners from several countries or sectors. In those cases, the question is not only whether the company can find partners, but whether those partners make the project stronger. The right consortium adds technical expertise, market access, research capacity, implementation credibility, or geographic relevance. The wrong consortium adds complexity without value.

The sixth step is budget and operational feasibility. A grant may offer attractive funding, but the company must understand the real cost of participation. This includes eligible cost rules, co-financing, cash-flow timing, documentation, reporting, audits, and internal project management. A company should know in advance whether it can realistically deliver the project if it wins.

The final step is prioritization. Not every relevant opportunity deserves action. A professional fit assessment should produce a clear recommendation: apply now, prepare for a future call, join a consortium, pursue a different program, resubmit after strengthening the project, or do not apply.

This is where innovation funding strategy becomes a discipline. It combines technical analysis, business judgment, policy understanding, funding intelligence, and evaluator logic.

A strong assessment does not chase grants. It builds a funding path.

How to Think in “grant-market fit” Terms

To move beyond the vague question, “Is our technology innovative enough?”

A better set of questions would be:

• Does this funder care about the problem we solve?
• Is our project mature enough for this instrument?
• Are we too early or too late for this call?
• Does our evidence match the level of ambition?
• Can we show impact beyond our own commercial success?
• Would this project still make sense if we removed the grant from the equation?

These questions are more demanding, but they lead to better decisions.

Grant-market fit protects companies from prestige bias. The best innovation funding strategies are not built around chasing the most impressive grant name. They are built around finding the funding path that matches the company’s real stage and strategic needs.

How does a multi-submission strategy reduce the risk of poor grant fit?

A strong innovation funding strategy should not depend on one application, one deadline, or one program. This does not mean companies should apply for every open call that looks remotely relevant. That approach creates the same problem in a different form: too much effort spread across too many weak opportunities. A multi-submission strategy is not a volume game. The goal is to reduce dependency on a single outcome while protecting the company from poor-fit applications.

In highly competitive EU funding environments, even strong proposals can be rejected. A good project may miss the threshold because of limited budget, intense competition, evaluator interpretation, or small weaknesses compared with other applicants. If the company has only one funding path, rejection can create a major setback.

A multi-submission strategy changes the risk profile. Instead of treating one grant as the entire plan, the company builds a pipeline of opportunities that match different aspects of its roadmap. One call may support early technical validation. Another may support international R&D collaboration. Another may be suitable for demonstration, market readiness, or climate impact. A later opportunity may become relevant only after more evidence, stronger partners, or additional customer validation.

This approach allows the company to plan, rather than react. It can decide which opportunity to pursue now, which to prepare for later, which to keep as a resubmission route, and which to avoid. It can also balance ambition and probability: a highly competitive flagship program may be worth pursuing, but it should not necessarily be the only route. A more accessible national, regional, or consortium-based program may provide important momentum while the company prepares for a larger opportunity.

The key is strategic coherence. Each application should serve a clear purpose. It should fund a distinct work plan, support a real milestone, and avoid overlap or double funding. The company should not copy and paste the same project into different calls. It should build a coordinated funding roadmap in which each opportunity has a defined role.

This also improves proposal quality. When companies think in terms of a pipeline, they become more disciplined about evidence, timing, and positioning. They can use evaluator feedback from one submission to strengthen the next. They can prepare documents earlier, nurture partnerships, and align grant deadlines with product and business milestones.

When should a company say no to a grant opportunity?

One of the clearest signs of a mature innovation funding strategy is the ability to say no.

This can be difficult. Grants are attractive. They offer non-dilutive capital, credibility, partnerships, and the possibility of accelerating important work. When a relevant call appears, especially with a significant budget, the instinct is often to apply.

But not every opportunity deserves the company’s time.

A company should consider saying no when the relevance is only superficial. If the call uses familiar words, but the expected outcomes do not match the company’s project, the fit may be too weak. A keyword match is not a funding strategy.

It may also be wise to say no when the timeline is unrealistic. If the deadline is too close to build a credible proposal, secure the right partners, prepare evidence, and align the budget, submitting may create more harm than value. A rushed application can consume resources without producing a serious chance of success.

Another reason to step back is poor roadmap alignment. If the project would require the company to develop features, research questions, markets, or partnerships that are not strategically important, the grant may pull the company away from its real priorities.

The same applies to consortium pressure. Some calls require partners, but a weak consortium can weaken the proposal and complicate implementation. If the company cannot identify partners who genuinely strengthen the work, it may be better to wait.

Budget and delivery capacity should also influence the decision. A grant may look attractive on paper but require co-financing, documentation, reporting, and project management that the company is not ready to handle. Winning a grant without the capacity to deliver it well can create operational stress and reputational risk.

Companies should also say no when they are applying mainly because funding is available. Public funding should support strategy, not replace it. If the team cannot explain how the grant advances a real milestone, the opportunity probably needs more scrutiny.

Saying no is not a failure. It is a strategic filter. In innovation funding, discipline protects focus. Sometimes the smartest funding decision is not to write. It is to wait, prepare, and choose the opportunity that truly fits.

How can Argentum Consultants help companies choose the right funding path?

Expert support becomes valuable long before proposal writing begins.

Argentum Consultants helps companies approach EU innovation funding as a strategic process. The work starts by assessing the company’s grant potential: its technology, business model, maturity level, market direction, and existing evidence. This makes it possible to identify the company’s “grantable assets” and understand which funding opportunities are genuinely relevant.

The next step is mapping those assets against the European funding landscape. Instead of treating grants as isolated deadlines, Argentum helps companies compare potential routes across EU, national, regional, and sector-specific programs. This includes assessing not only eligibility, but also strategic fit, competitiveness, timing, policy alignment, and the operational implications of winning.

Argentum also supports companies in shaping the project itself. A fundable project is not always identical to the company’s product. It must be defined in a way that reflects the company’s real roadmap while also addressing the funder’s priorities. That requires careful positioning: what part of the innovation should be funded, what evidence should be emphasized, which impact claims are credible, and how the project should be structured for evaluation.

Only after this strategic work does proposal writing become truly effective.

At that stage, Argentum can help translate the selected funding strategy into a strong application: a clear narrative, a coherent work plan, a realistic budget, a persuasive impact section, and a proposal that speaks directly to evaluator expectations.

Conclusion: Grant writing wins attention, but grant fit wins strategy

In EU innovation funding, where programs are highly competitive and deeply purpose-driven, funders are not simply looking for interesting technologies. They are looking for projects that serve specific goals, from climate neutrality and industrial competitiveness to digital transformation, health, resilience, and European strategic autonomy.

That means companies need to think beyond the question, “Can we apply?” They need to ask, “Should we apply?”, “Is this the right program?”, “Is this the right time?”, “Is this the right project?”, “Would winning this grant support our roadmap?” and “Are we ready to deliver what we promise?”

These questions may seem simple, but answering them well requires experience, market understanding, policy knowledge, and a realistic view of the company’s readiness.

The right grant can be transformative. The wrong grant can do the opposite. In the end, grants writing helps companies communicate their value. Grant fit determines whether that value belongs in the opportunity they are pursuing.

Not sure where to start? Contact us and we’ll be happy to help you find your way around the competitive and complex world of innovation funding strategy.

FAQ: Innovation Funding Strategy and Grant Fit

Can a grant application affect future investment rounds?

Yes. A well-chosen grant can strengthen investor confidence by validating the company’s technology, market direction, and ability to win competitive non-dilutive funding. However, a poorly aligned grant can raise questions if investors see that the funded project does not support the company’s commercial roadmap.

Should a company mention planned fundraising in a grant application?

It depends on the program and the role of private capital in the project. In some cases, planned fundraising can strengthen the business case by showing growth capacity and financial planning. In others, the proposal should focus more on public value, technical risk, and why grant support is needed.

How much internal time should a company expect to invest in a serious EU grant application?

Even with external support, the company should expect meaningful involvement from leadership, technical, financial, and business teams. Consultants can manage the process and reduce the burden, but they still need accurate technical input, strategic decisions, financial data, and timely feedback from the company.

Should the CEO be involved in the grant strategy?

Yes, especially at the strategy stage. EU grants can affect product direction, partnerships, financing, hiring, and long-term commitments. The CEO does not need to manage the full application, but should be involved in deciding whether the opportunity fits the company’s roadmap.

Can a company reuse an old rejected proposal for a new call?

Sometimes, but it should not be copied into a new application without a strategic review. A rejected proposal may contain useful material, but the new call may have different priorities, evaluation logic, maturity expectations, or impact requirements. Reuse should be selective and carefully adapted.

Does a company need customer validation before applying for innovation funding?

Not always. It depends on the program and maturity stage. Early research instruments may focus more on scientific or technological breakthrough. Commercialization-oriented programs usually expect stronger customer evidence, market understanding, pilot results, or letters of intent.

How important are letters of intent or support?

They can be valuable when they prove market interest, stakeholder relevance, pilot access, regulatory engagement, or deployment potential. Generic letters are less useful. The strongest letters show a specific relationship between the project and a credible external need.

Can a company apply if its technology has not yet been patented?

Yes, but it must show that it understands its intellectual property position. This may include patents, trade secrets, freedom-to-operate thinking, licensing plans, or a clear strategy for protecting and exploiting results.

Should the grant project include the whole product roadmap?

Usually not. A grant project should be a defined, fundable part of the roadmap, with clear objectives, work packages, deliverables, budget, and impact. Trying to fund the entire company journey can make the proposal unfocused and harder to evaluate.

How should companies treat competitor activity in grant strategy?

Competitor activity can provide useful signals about which programs fund similar technologies, what maturity levels are being supported, and how the funding landscape is evolving. However, companies should not copy competitors blindly. A competitor’s good-fit opportunity may be a poor fit for another company.