CATÓLICA-LISBON

What accelerators prioritize in their selection processes may not be aligned with what investors actually value when it comes to investing.

 

When Miguel and his co-founders were accepted into a Lisbon-based accelerator, they believed they had found the right ticket to venture capital. The program assigned them mentors, helped refine their pitch deck, and offered weekly workshops on business models. However, three months after demo day, no investor had shown interest. Meanwhile, another startup from the same cohort less charismatic but highly specialized in artificial intelligence secured seed funding within a few weeks. What made the difference? It was not the presentation, but the founding team’s technical expertise and their ability to respond to market needs. Investors were not buying ideas; they were buying execution.

 

This story highlights a critical insight: what accelerators prioritize in their selection processes may not be aligned with what investors actually value when making investment decisions. This tension between perspectives lies at the heart of recent research on post-acceleration funding.

 

 

In the dynamic world of startups, accelerators have become central players, offering early-stage companies tools, mentorship, and networks to attract investors. As Peter Drucker argued, innovation does not depend on luck, but on the ability to systematically identify opportunities and act on them with discipline. However, despite being seen as bridges between ideas and capital, a key question remains: do they truly prepare startups for the funding they seek? What enables some to secure venture capital while others, even after following the same path, fall behind?

 

Based on a combination of qualitative interviews and survey data, this study explores the mismatch between accelerator priorities and the criteria that drive investment decisions. Understanding this dynamic requires more than observing success stories. It involves analyzing the assumptions, selection criteria, and program formats that shape the experiences of founders and investors.

 

 

To understand how these dynamics play out in practice, the study drew on 14 in-depth interviews with venture capital experts and accelerator program managers, as well as a survey of 42 startup founders who had participated in acceleration or incubation programs. The sample was evenly split between startups that secured pre-seed or seed funding (50 percent) and those that did not (50 percent). Thirteen accelerators across different sectors were also analyzed, highlighting the diversity of existing models. The findings reveal a subtle but significant gap between what programs prioritize and what investors actually seek.

 

The type and focus of the accelerator program acted as the independent variable, shaping founders’ development throughout the process. This influenced mediating factors such as perceived founder readiness, the strength of the pitch, and the startup’s network. The dependent variable was whether equity funding was secured after the program. In the end, 50 percent of startups raised capital, while the other half did not.

 

The data converges on a key point: team quality, especially soft skills such as commitment and learning ability, is the primary selection criterion for entry into programs. Some program managers indicated that up to 80 percent of the selection decision is based on this dimension. However, when it comes time to invest, the criteria shift. Investors prioritize technical expertise, sector specialization, and founder–market fit. This misalignment creates a silent paradox: startups are being “accelerated” not necessarily because they are fundable, but because they demonstrate charisma and potential. The data also shows that sector fit and the accelerator’s reputation strongly influence investor interest. Investors are more likely to evaluate startups coming from programs with a proven track record. In fact, 70 percent of investors stated that the accelerator’s reputation played a relevant role in their investment decision, with the success of past participants serving as a strong predictor of future outcomes.

 

Another tension lies in program design. While accelerators provide support in areas such as documentation, networking, and pitch preparation, they often fall short in delivering in-depth technical mentorship and sector-specific guidance. Indeed, 60 percent of founders reported that these dimensions were insufficiently addressed precisely the aspects that investors consider essential for making an investment viable.

 

The study identifies three key takeaways for the main actors in the entrepreneurial ecosystem. For accelerators, the selection process should go beyond team charisma and also assess technical depth and market knowledge. Programs that combine soft skills development with technical capability building will be better positioned to produce startups with real funding potential.

 

For founders, choosing an accelerator should not be based solely on visibility or brand recognition, but on alignment with the project’s stage and sector. A prestigious name helps, but only if it is accompanied by real value in preparing for the market. For investors, it is essential to recognize that participation in an accelerator is only part of the equation. It is equally important to assess program quality and evaluate how well the founding team is prepared for what comes after demo day.

 

Ultimately, this study repositions the role of accelerators not as endpoints, but as strategic bridges. When their criteria and practices align with the true drivers of investment competencies, specialization, and strategic coherence they do not just accelerate companies. They accelerate capital, unlocking the next wave of entrepreneurial success.