The EU Grant Playbook 2025 is a hands-on roadmap that moves deep-tech companies from TRL 4–5 prototypes to TRL 8, market-ready products in just 24 months. Built for founders, researchers, and grant managers—not for evaluators—it converts Brussels' dense rulebooks into a focused, 90-day writing sprint that consistently wins funding.
Innovation-Action grants typically cover 70% of direct costs plus a 25% overhead uplift on most salary and ODC lines, shrinking the cash a company must supply.
Horizon Europe, Digital Europe, LIFE, PRIMA, Women's Leadership, and STEP can deliver €50k–€30m per project; EIC Accelerator adds equity for TRL 8–9 scale-up.
Proposals that nail IP freedom-to-operate, gender balance in senior roles, and a quantified go-to-market plan score up to 1.5 points higher in Impact and Implementation.
| Section | Key Take-away |
|---|---|
| Quick-Start Eligibility & Glossary | Verify in 10 minutes whether every partner and cost line is fundable. |
| Programme Matchmaker | Match your TRL, sector, and co-funding capacity to the single best EU call—including PRIMA, Women's Leadership, and STEP. |
| Evaluator Hot-Button Checklist | IP/FTO proof, gender targets, market sizing, competitive matrix, and evidence of 30% co-funding. |
| Budget Without Tears + Overhead Booster | Structure spending so the 25% indirect-cost rate lifts reimbursement to ~78% without inflating the top-line budget. |
| EIC Accelerator Deep Dive | Side-by-side guide to Grant-Only vs. Blended Finance tracks, video pitch tips (three speakers minimum), and interview rehearsal. |
| Consortium & Coordinator Playbook | Keep teams lean (3–7 partners), clarify roles, and arm the coordinator with one-page governance tools. |
| Business Coaching Benefits | 12 EU-funded coaching days that accelerate time-to-market by 15% and boost follow-on funding by 34%. |
| 90-Day Writing Sprint | Four-phase calendar (Discovery → Drafting → Red-Team → Final Polish) that lets you submit error-free, stress-free. |
| Post-Submission Guide | Navigate evaluation rebuttals, Grant Agreement Preparation, and pre-financing in ≤30 days. |
Companies that use our end-to-end Grant Architecture service have 45% higher chances of success compared to companies that submit alone (vs. <17% average), avoid compliance pitfalls, and free engineers to focus on R&D while we handle call selection, storyboarding, full drafting, red-team rehearsals, and portal upload.
Follow the Playbook and you will submit a proposal that:
The EU Grant Playbook 2025 turns EU funding chaos into a structured sprint and pairs it with expert support, giving ambitious innovators a repeatable path from concept to contract.
In less than ten minutes you will know exactly whether Brussels classifies your organisation as fully fundable, partially fundable or "bring‑your‑own‑budget." You will also walk away with a new Participant Identification Code (PIC) and a pocket‑sized glossary so call texts no longer feel like cryptic crossword clues.
For many first‑timers the most paralysing moment arrives before a single line is written: "Are we even allowed to apply?" The eligibility maze looks intimidating because it mixes geography, legal status and sometimes even project type. One partner may sit in an Associated Country, another in a low‑income economy that qualifies for automatic EU support, while a third—perhaps from the United States—must prove self‑financing.
Most guidance lumps the rules into dense tables. Below you will find a conversational version that you can run during your very first consortium call.
Start with your registered head‑office address, not the nationality of individual founders. If that address sits inside the EU‑27 or in an Associated Country—think Israel, the United Kingdom or Switzerland after January 2025—you automatically qualify for Horizon Europe money.
Every legal entity must hold a Participant Identification Code to unlock the Funding & Tenders forms. The process is simpler than a social‑media signup: create an EU Login, choose "Organisation Registration," upload either a VAT certificate or company registry extract and wait for the portal to spit out a nine‑digit code.
Work Programme (WP), RIA or IA, Grant Agreement (GA), PIC, Seal of Excellence (SoE) and Technology Readiness Level (TRL). These six shortcuts appear dozens of times in every call document. Think of them as your sat‑nav vocabulary; misreading even one will steer you to the wrong destination.
| Acronym | Meaning | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|
| WP | Work Packages | Detailed breakdown of project activities |
| Milestone | Project Milestone | Output of a task in a work package |
| Deliverables | Project Deliverables | Checkpoints produced at a specific point in a task |
| RIA / IA / CSA | Research, Innovation, Coordination actions | Dictate funding rate, partner mix, deliverables. |
| GA | Grant Agreement | Contract you must sign before receiving money. |
| PIC | Participant Identification Code | Unlocks all electronic forms. |
| SoE | Seal of Excellence | Quality label that opens national top‑up schemes. |
| TRL | Technology Readiness Level | Guides which EIC track or cluster to pick. |
The PIC registration process takes 10-15 minutes but can save weeks of frustration later. Follow these steps:
| Pitfall | Solution |
|---|---|
| Assuming US/UK/Swiss partners can receive funding | Check the latest Associated Countries list; some participate without funding |
| Missing SME validation | Complete the SME self-assessment questionnaire early |
| Incomplete legal entity validation | Submit all required documents during PIC registration |
You have a promising concept and a rough timeline, yet dozens of EU programmes compete for your attention. A wrong match steals weeks of drafting time. This chapter walks you through a narrative example and a stepwise filter to find your ideal fit.
EU funding looks like a giant buffet table. Horizon Europe alone holds nine thematic clusters, the European Innovation Council opens three separate tracks, Digital Europe sprinkles strategic projects, and LIFE focuses on climate. Beginners often skim the high-level descriptions, latch on to a buzzword, and dive straight into writing. Evaluators then wonder why a climate-mitigation project arrived in a digital-skills call. This section helps you avoid that trap.
Ambition drives entrepreneurs, but evaluators award points for evidence. The European Commission expresses evidence through the Technology Readiness Level ladder. Start by asking, "What can we show, not what do we hope?" This anchors your application in reality and maximises your odds.
| TRL band | Natural EU home | Typical ticket | Average win rate 2024 |
|---|---|---|---|
| One to Four | Horizon Pathfinder, ERC Starting | up to four million euro | seven percent |
| Four to Six | Horizon Transition, Digital Europe pilot actions | one to two-point-five million euro | fourteen percent |
| Six to Eight | EIC Accelerator blended finance, CEF pilots | two-point-five to seventeen million euro | eight percent |
| Eight to Nine | InvestEU guarantees, LIFE scale-up actions | debt or equity | n/a |
The table shows why picking the correct rung doubles your statistical odds before you type a word.
Maturity narrows the field, but theme seals eligibility. Every call lists a "Scope" paragraph peppered with keywords: circular economy, advanced materials, quantum, industrial symbiosis. Treat the scope like a lock and your project description like a key. If at least two keywords do not fit verbatim, shift to another topic even if the budget looks attractive.
Digital infrastructure and AI projects gravitate toward Digital Europe, yet certain AI applications — such as AI for climate-risk modelling — score higher in Horizon Cluster 5 because the cluster specifically measures GHG impact. A Greek start-up developing edge AI cameras for endangered-species monitoring jumped clusters and improved their technical grade by two points, purely by speaking the evaluators' language.
| Theme family | Primary programme | Strategic back-up option |
|---|---|---|
| Deep tech & fundamental science | Horizon Europe clusters One, Three, Four | ERC Proof of Concept if IP already filed |
| Digital infrastructure & AI | Digital Europe | Horizon Cluster Four or CEF Digital for large-scale demos |
| Green transition & climate | LIFE Clean Energy, Innovation Fund | Horizon Cluster Five for earlier TRL research |
| Education, mobility & skills | Erasmus Plus | Digital Europe skills pillar if tech heavy |
After matching maturity and theme, open the fine print on co-funding. Innovation Actions reimburse businesses at seventy percent. That gap sounds small until you calculate staff and prototyping costs over thirty-six months. Two options solve the gap: partner with at least one non-profit that receives full coverage, or blend the EU grant with national or private money. Spanish SMEs regularly pair a sixty-percent IA grant with CDTI loans, keeping effective coverage above ninety percent.
| Programme | Typical TRL | Max Funding Rate | Indirect Cost Rate | Eligibility Shortcut |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Horizon Europe RIA / IA | 3-8 | 100% / 70% | 25% flat | Link |
| EIC Accelerator | 5-9 | 70% + equity | 25% flat | Link |
| Digital Europe | 5-8 | 50-70% | 25% flat | Link |
| LIFE | 6-9 | 60% | 25% flat | Link |
| PRIMA | 3-8 | 70-100% | 25% flat | Link |
| Women's Leadership (WomenTechEU successor) | 4-6 | €75k + coaching | 25% flat | Link |
| STEP – Seal of Excellence Top-Up | Post-award | up to €2.5m | 25% flat | Link |
A footnote in the chapter will point readers to the Annotated Grant Agreement for the full indirect-cost rule set.
A three page call text hides every scoring lever evaluators will use against you. This chapter teaches you how to scan a topic sheet in ten minutes, pull out the four phrases that must appear in your abstract and map each requirement to a specific paragraph in your proposal skeleton.
Many first drafts fail because authors start writing before they have truly read the call. Horizon and Digital Europe topics follow a predictable anatomy yet bury critical details in footnotes. Missing even one can turn a brilliant project into an ineligible submission. Mastering call dissection ensures you answer the brief line by line and harvest every available evaluation point.
Call texts come in three layers: the headline, the scope block and the expected outcomes. Use a highlighter to mark every verb that signals obligation — "shall develop," "must address," "is expected to reduce." Each verb translates into a deliverable.
| Section of call | Maps to proposal heading | Typical weight |
|---|---|---|
| Expected outcomes | Impact – sub-section a | up to 6 points |
| Scope bullet list | Excellence & Implementation | up to 9 points |
| Specific conditions | Part A admin tables | pass/fail |
Copy each bullet into your outline as a placeholder so no evaluator can claim you ignored it.
Once you’ve identified all verbs and requirements, create a table that maps each demand to a specific paragraph in your proposal. This traceability not only ensures nothing is missed, but signals to evaluators that you are thorough and responsive.
| Call demand (verbatim) | Mapped section in proposal | Comment |
|---|---|---|
| “demonstrate measurable impact on GHG emissions” | Impact (section 2.1) | Include quantitative target and methodology |
| “ensure gender balance in project management” | Implementation (section 3.2) | Add a gender-balance KPI and responsibility owner |
| “develop an exploitation plan” | Excellence/Impact (section 2.2) | Attach Gantt chart and go-to-market plan |
Evaluators skim more than sixty proposals in a single batch. A clean architecture turns your document into an easy score, ensuring every mandatory element lands exactly where the reviewer expects it. This chapter converts the intimidating Part B template into a page-plan with word targets and storytelling cues.
Part A is about numbers and check-boxes, but Part B is your narrative. Horizon Europe gives you a fixed shell — Excellence, Impact, Quality and Implementation — yet the template does not teach pacing or emphasis. Writers who copy-paste generic paragraphs often score poorly because key claims bury themselves in text walls. A deliberate architecture highlights mandatory phrases, threads evidence through tables and frames "why us, why now" in the first two pages.
Picture an evaluator opening your PDF at eight-thirty in the evening. They scroll first, read second. Give them a sign-posted journey. Use Heading two for section tags and Heading three for sub-questions so the built-in PDF outline mirrors the evaluation sheet. Place a bold sentence at the start of each subsection that answers the Commission's question in plain language.
The template allows forty-five pages in most Research and Innovation Actions. Not all sections weigh the same. Excellence and Impact carry up to fifteen points each, Implementation another fifteen, but Impact now counts thirty percent of the cut-off. Your text should mirror that ratio.
A working heuristic: eight pages for Excellence, twelve for Impact, eight for Implementation, two for risk and ethics, leaving fifteen pages for figures, tables and annexed CVs.
| Section | Max points | Recommended pages | Purpose snapshot |
|---|---|---|---|
| Excellence | 15 | 8 | State of the art gap and ambition proof |
| Impact | 15 (30 percent weight) | 12 | KPIs, market, EU policy alignment |
| Quality & impl. | 15 | 8 | Work packages, Gantt, budget split |
| Risks, ethics | pass/fail | 2 | Red flag removal |
Every subsection should open with one sentence that directly answers the Commission's question. "This project will reduce carbon emissions by forty percent through novel catalyst design" beats "Carbon emissions are a major challenge facing Europe today." The Golden Sentence technique forces clarity and gives evaluators an immediate hook.
Evaluators scan before they read. Pack partner qualifications, work package breakdowns, and KPI targets into tables with clear headers. A well-designed table can replace three paragraphs of prose and score higher on clarity.
From TRL 4-5 to TRL 8: market-ready in 24 months
Lab validation, early prototypes.
Integrated system tested in relevant environment.
Near-commercial prototype, compliance, first users.
Pre-series production, supply chain, go-to-market.
The Playbook's 90-day writing sprint maps each work package to exactly one TRL jump, ensuring evaluators see a clear, risk-managed route to full commercial readiness.
Use consistent heading styles so the PDF outline becomes a navigation tool. Avoid light gray text that fails screen readers. Include alt-text for complex diagrams. These small touches signal professionalism and help evaluators with visual impairments.
Reviewers run an arithmetic macro before they read a single sentence of your science. A flawless budget clears the macro in seconds and frees their attention for your ideas. This chapter hands you a ready formula to split personnel, subcontracting, equipment and indirect costs so no red flag appears in the portal.
Horizon Europe has moved more than a third of its topics to lump‑sum but many calls still rely on actual cost accounting. Mixing the two cost models inside one consortium can trigger confusion. Beyond models, evaluators look for proportionality: too much salary hints at padded staff, too much subcontracting signals weak in‑house capacity. A balanced budget is an argument for credibility.
Start with total project ask, then cap personnel at forty‑five percent, equipment and subcontracting together at fifteen percent unless unique infrastructure demands more, and let the standard twenty‑five percent flat‑rate overhead handle indirects. The remaining fifteen percent covers travel, dissemination and contingency.
| Cost line | Safe ceiling | Evaluator whisper | Example on €2m total |
|---|---|---|---|
| Personnel | 45% | Too high implies scope creep | €900k |
| Equipment | 10% | Must be prorated by usage | €200k |
| Subcontracting | 5% | Over 15% triggers "weak consortium" | €100k |
| Indirect costs | 25% on direct | Fixed multiplier | €300k |
| Travel & misc. | 5% | Avoid exotic venues | €100k |
Standard Innovation Actions cover 70 percent of eligible project costs, but most Personnel and Other Direct Costs lines automatically receive a 25 percent flat overhead (indirect cost) uplift. The uplift is designed to cover expenses that are not directly eligible, such as office rent, insurance, and bookkeeping.
When you structure your budget so that the majority of spending sits in overhead-eligible categories—salary, leased lab equipment, travel—the effective reimbursement climbs from 70 percent to roughly 78 percent without changing the total budget ceiling.
Planning tip: keep Subcontracting and one-off Equipment purchases as low as feasible because they do not attract the overhead uplift.
Lump‑sum pays on deliverables not invoices. Choose it if your work packages produce tangible outputs every six to nine months. Actual cost suits R&D where effort is continuous and hard to break into chunks. Mixing models inside one consortium is legal but risky — everyone must use the same method.
The Commission reimburses only the share of equipment use during the project life. A laser cutter that costs one‑hundred‑thousand euro but operates six months out of thirty‑six can claim one‑sixth of depreciation. State the math inside the Part B budget table so evaluators do not question it.
Generic "conference travel" lines invite cuts. Link each trip to a dissemination task with a deliverable such as a paper or demo booth. Use economy fares by default; business class sparks scrutiny.
The Funding & Tenders system flags arithmetic errors in real time, but only for the active user. Export the Excel summary and run a second pass offline. Ninety‑nine cent gaps arise from rounding when partners use different currencies before conversion.
| Stage | Purpose | Mandatory Deliverables | Time-Saver Tip |
|---|---|---|---|
| Short Application (pre-screen) | Show fit for either the Open track or a specific Challenge | • 12-page online form • 3-minute pitch video featuring at least three team members who explain the technology and market vision • 10-slide pitch deck |
Script the video first so each speaker covers a unique KPI. |
| Full Proposal | Provide full tech, work plan, and budget | • Part A (web forms) • Part B (max 50 pages) • 10-slide pitch deck |
Use the Playbook's 8-12-8 structure to mirror evaluator score sheets. |
| Remote Evaluation | Review by three independent experts | – | Back every claim with a citation or letter of intent. |
| Brussels Interview | Live Q&A with the EIC jury | • Updated deck • Demo or prototype |
Schedule a red-team rehearsal ten days before the interview. |
The Playbook adds a checklist for all preparatory items—video brief, deck outline, budget form—so teams can assemble the EIC package during weeks 1-2 of the 90-day sprint.
We now turn to the administrative forms, which are covered on the next page.
Balance across work packages: Ensure budget distribution reflects the importance and complexity of each work package.
Justify high-cost items: Provide detailed justification for any single item exceeding €25,000.
Link to deliverables: Every budget item should be clearly linked to specific deliverables or milestones.
Impact now carries thirty percent of the evaluation weight, yet most proposals treat it as an afterthought. This chapter shows how to build measurable pathways from research outputs to societal benefits, complete with KPIs that evaluators can verify and stakeholders who will champion your results.
The Commission wants proof that EU money creates change beyond academic papers. Impact means different things to different clusters: Cluster 1 measures scientific breakthroughs, Cluster 4 tracks industrial adoption, Cluster 5 counts carbon savings. Yet all clusters reward concrete KPIs, named stakeholders and realistic timelines. Vague promises about "transforming society" score zero.
Every project should target scientific, economic and societal impact. Create a table with three rows, four columns: pathway type, short‑term KPI (within project), medium‑term KPI (five years), measurement method. Use numbers wherever possible.
| Impact pathway | Short‑term KPI | Medium‑term KPI | Measurement method |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scientific advancement | two peer reviewed papers in Q1 journals | five hundred citations | Google Scholar tracking |
| Green transition | three thousand ton carbon dioxide avoided | forty thousand ton carbon dioxide avoided | Life cycle analysis verified by TÜV |
| Economic value | thirty five skilled jobs created | one hundred twenty jobs | HR payroll records |
Link every KPI to a measurement method. Evaluators reward traceability.
An exploitation ladder moves from early adopters to full market in logical steps: pilot customers, standardisation bodies, licensing partners, manufacturing scale up, policy makers. List at least one stakeholder under each rung and attach a letter of intent when possible.
Provide top down and bottom up numbers. Total Addressable Market sets the ceiling, Serviceable Available Market narrows to reachable buyers, then first beachhead. Use conservative compound annual growth rate and cite a source such as Eurostat or Gartner. A rule of thumb: evaluators trust a smaller credible beachhead more than an inflated market size.
An ambitious work plan is useless if the team looks unbalanced or the legal boxes stay unticked. This chapter shows how to build a consortium that feels inevitable — each partner solving a unique, evaluator‑visible gap — while meeting every compliance rule from ethics screening to the new AI Act self‑assessment.
A Horizon proposal must convince two different audiences in parallel. Scientific experts judge whether the partners carry the right skills, while legal experts verify that ethics, data protection and security will not derail the project after funding. Neglect either layer and the proposal stalls. A well‑designed consortium matrix and a pre-filled compliance packet stop this risk at the gate.
Begin with a blank table: rows are work packages, columns are core competences (research, prototyping, pilot user site, exploitation, regulatory). Fill the diagonal with "must‑have" skills. Now invite partners only where a cell is empty. Result: no redundant roles, no evaluator comment about overlaps.
| Work package | Research skill | Tech prototype | Pilot site | Exploitation | Regulatory |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| WP1 Biology | University Haifa | – | – | – | – |
| WP2 Hardware | – | EdgeCam Ltd | – | – | – |
| WP3 Field demo | – | – | NatPark Greece | – | – |
| WP4 Scale‑up | – | – | – | Bio‑Ventures GmbH | – |
| WP5 Compliance | – | – | – | – | RegConsult Ltd |
Evaluators see that every partner answers one and only one need.
A minimum of three legal entities from three eligible countries is mandatory for most RIA and IA calls. Aim for at least one SME, one research organisation and one end‑user to tick "multi‑actor" boxes. If applying from a Widening country, consider the Hop‑On Facility to join existing funded projects.
The portal now asks five separate checklists: ethics, security, dual‑use, data handling and — for AI projects — an AI Act conformity self‑check. Draft answers in a shared document before the last week. Common pitfalls include storing health data outside EU servers (GDPR clash) and omitting an internal gender equality plan.
| Compliance Area | Key Requirements | Common Pitfalls |
|---|---|---|
| Ethics | Human subjects, animal testing, dual-use research | Missing ethics committee approval |
| Data Protection | GDPR compliance, data management plan | Health data stored outside EU |
| Security | Classified information, security clearance | Inadequate security protocols |
| Gender Equality | Gender equality plan, balanced teams | Missing internal equality plan |
| AI Act (if applicable) | Risk assessment, conformity declaration | Underestimating AI system risk level |
Each partner uploads an e‑signed letter. Use a single‑page template stating budget share, task list and the sentence "We have read and accept the ethics and security obligations." This wording shortcuts clarifications.
Coordinator = single throat to choke from the EU's perspective.
Remember: a bloated consortium drags scores down on Implementation; keep it tight and aligned.
We confirm that:
Sincerely,
[Name, Title]
[Date]
[Digital Signature]
Deadlines create clarity. A fixed 90-day plan breaks a forty-five page proposal into weekly bites and keeps every partner moving in lock-step. This chapter hands you a proven calendar that balances deep work, red-team review and unavoidable admin so you never scramble on submission day.
The Funding and Tenders portal shuts at seventeen-hundred Brussels time on the dot. Files one second late are refused automatically. Teams that drift past week eight without a full draft usually rush the final fortnight, introducing errors that cost points. A sprint plan anchored on weekly milestones keeps stress low and quality high.
Days 1-21
Partner alignment, gap analysis, and foundation setting
Days 22-56
Content creation, budget building, and narrative assembly
Days 57-75
Independent review, revision, and quality assurance
Days 76-90
Layout, portal upload, and submission preparation
The discovery phase establishes the foundation for your proposal. Clear roles, shared understanding, and aligned expectations prevent confusion during the intensive drafting weeks ahead.
Set roles, deadlines, and reference call text. Establish communication protocols and shared workspace.
Collect CVs, background projects, budget estimates, and technical capabilities from all partners.
Map partner capabilities to work packages, identify gaps, and finalize consortium structure.
Lock TRL evidence, Impact KPIs, and competitive positioning. Define success metrics.
The drafting phase follows a structured weekly schedule where each partner contributes specific sections. This parallel approach ensures no bottlenecks while maintaining quality control.
The red-team phase brings fresh eyes to your proposal. An independent reviewer—ideally someone who has served as an EU evaluator—marks the document as if scoring it for real. This external perspective catches blind spots and strengthens weak arguments.
Send complete V1 narrative to independent reviewer along with call text, evaluation criteria, and scoring sheet. Include specific questions about weak sections.
Independent reviewer marks in-line comments, scores each section, and provides overall assessment. Focus on clarity, evidence gaps, and evaluation alignment.
Team call to resolve all open issues, freeze structure and headings. Assign revision tasks to specific partners with clear deadlines.
Ethics officer finalizes self-assessment forms. All compliance documents reviewed and approved by legal team.
The final phase focuses on presentation, technical compliance, and error-free submission. No new content is added—only formatting, cross-references, and portal preparation.
Format tables, number figures, fix cross-references, and ensure consistent styling throughout.
Populate Part A forms, run arithmetic checker, upload partner CVs and commitment letters.
Upload narrative PDF V-final-1, partners review portal view for accuracy and completeness.
Complete test submission to catch file corruption, portal errors, or missing documents.
Submit before noon local time, archive confirmation email, and celebrate with the team!
Submission is not the finish line. The evaluation process runs for four to six months and includes multiple phases where you can still influence the outcome. This chapter maps the post‑submission journey from acknowledgment email to Grant Agreement signature, with practical tips for each milestone.
Many applicants treat submission as a black box: file goes in, decision comes out months later. Yet the Commission runs a transparent process with predictable stages. Understanding the timeline helps you plan follow‑up activities, prepare for clarification requests and avoid common mistakes that derail funded projects during Grant Agreement Preparation.
All EIC Accelerator winners receive up to 12 days of expert coaching paid separately by the EU.
Teams that engage fully with coaching report 15% faster time-to-market and 34% higher follow-on funding (EIC impact survey, 2024).
Templates and checklists turn theory into execution. Downloadable tools save dozens of hours and ensure every partner uses the same formatting and formulas.
Companies that use our end-to-end Grant Architecture service achieve a 45% success rate (vs. <17% average), avoid compliance pitfalls, and free engineers to focus on R&D while we handle call selection, storyboarding, full drafting, red-team rehearsals, and portal upload.
Bottom line: we let your engineers focus on engineering while we turn your vision into a funded EU contract.
Contact our Grant Architecture team to discuss your project and explore how we can help you secure EU funding.
We hope this EU Grant Playbook serves as your trusted companion on your funding journey. Your success in securing EU grants contributes to innovation and progress across Europe.
You May Also Like
Transforming marketing strategies for B2B tech companies to drive growth and success.
Services
Company
Contact
© 2025 CMO’vate. All rights reserved.
