Most serious EIC Accelerator support is priced as a hybrid: a modest fixed fee for the strategy and writing, plus a success fee that is only paid if your project is awarded. The fixed part funds real effort; the success part, usually a percentage of the grant, ties the consultant's reward to your outcome. Understanding that split is the difference between a fair deal and an expensive one.
Key takeaways
- Only about 5 to 6 percent of applicants are funded, so who you hire and how they are paid genuinely affects your odds.
- Three models dominate: fixed fee, pure success fee, and hybrid. The hybrid aligns incentives best for most companies.
- A success fee is a percentage of the grant, paid only on award. A fair one sits in the single-digit to low double-digit range.
- Guarantees of funding are the clearest red flag. Nobody can promise the outcome of a competitive evaluation.
- The real test of a consultant is whether they will put part of their own fee on your result.
Almost every conversation about hiring EIC Accelerator support arrives at the same question within minutes: what does this cost, and how do you charge? It is the right question, and the answer says a lot about who you are dealing with. The pricing structure is not just an administrative detail. It determines whose interests the consultant is actually optimising for once the work begins.
This matters more here than in most consulting, because the EIC Accelerator is brutally competitive. Only around 5 to 6 percent of applicants are ultimately funded, and the gap between a funded and a rejected proposal is often about how precisely it answers the evaluation criteria, not the quality of the company underneath. In that environment, how your consultant is paid quietly shapes how hard they push the proposal, and how honest they are with you about your real chances.
The three ways EIC support is priced
Strip away the variations and there are three underlying models. Each puts the risk in a different place.
| Model | How you pay | Your upfront risk | Incentive alignment |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fixed fee only | A set amount for the work, win or lose | High: you pay regardless of outcome | Weak: paid the same whether you win or not |
| Pure success fee | A percentage of the grant, only if awarded | Low: nothing upfront | Mixed: aligned on winning, but effort can be thin |
| Hybrid | Modest fixed fee plus a success fee | Moderate: a small committed cost | Strong: enough fixed to work hard, enough contingent to care |
Fixed fee only. You pay an agreed amount for the strategy and writing, whether or not you are funded. It gives you cost certainty, and it can suit a company that mostly needs a sharp editor for a proposal it has largely written. Its weakness is that the consultant is paid the same whether you win or not, so nothing in the structure pushes them to the winning standard.
Pure success fee. You pay nothing upfront and a percentage of the grant only if awarded. It feels attractive because your downside is zero. The catch is that a consultant carrying all the risk often manages it by taking on many applications and investing less in each, or by setting a high percentage to cover the ones that lose. Free upfront is not the same as cheap.
Hybrid. A modest fixed fee covers the real work; a success fee rewards the result. This is what most credible independent experts use, because it aligns both sides: the fixed component justifies deep effort on your specific proposal, and the contingent component keeps the focus on actually winning. It is the model I use, and I explain why below.
The underlying idea is the same one that separates advice from outcomes across all of this work, covered in innovation consultant vs venture builder: someone paid partly for your result behaves differently from someone paid only for their time.
What a fair engagement actually costs
Numbers vary with the stage you start from and how much of the proposal already exists, but the market has recognisable ranges.
The fixed component for strategy and writing commonly runs from a few thousand euros for a review and polish of a proposal you have largely drafted, up to the low tens of thousands for a full proposal structured and written from scratch, including the business plan and the pitch preparation. The success fee, paid only on award, is typically a single-digit to low double-digit percentage of the grant. Given that an EIC grant can reach 2.5 million euros, a few percentage points is a meaningful sum, which is exactly why the alignment it creates is real on both sides.
What you are paying for is not word count. It is the judgement of someone who understands how the proposal is scored, can tell excellence apart from what merely sounds impressive, and knows where applications quietly lose points. If you want the full picture of the application itself, the EIC Accelerator application guide covers the process, and why EU grant applications fail covers the recurring mistakes.
Red flags to walk away from
The market for EIC support is uneven, and a few signals reliably separate the serious from the opportunistic.
A guarantee of funding
Nobody can promise the outcome of a competitive evaluation where only 5 to 6 percent are funded. A guarantee is either dishonest or hidden in fine print. Walk away.
High fixed plus high success
A large upfront fee combined with a large success percentage loads risk onto you from both directions. The whole point of a success fee is to share risk, not to double-charge for it.
No skin in the game at all
A consultant unwilling to put any part of their fee on the outcome is quietly telling you how confident they are. If they will not share the downside, ask why.
No evaluator perspective
Writing a proposal without having scored one from the inside is guessing at the rubric. Ask directly whether they have evaluated EIC or similar proposals as an expert.
How I structure it, and why
For most EIC Accelerator engagements I work on the hybrid model: a modest fixed fee that covers the strategic and writing work, plus a success fee that is only paid if your project is awarded. The fixed part means I can invest fully in your specific proposal rather than spreading thin. The success part means I only earn the larger share if you actually win, which keeps my incentive locked to yours and makes it easy for me to tell you early, honestly, if I think your project is not ready to apply. We agree the exact split in writing before any work begins, and it depends on the stage you start from and how much already exists.
As a certified EU Expert Evaluator I have assessed more than 3,700 companies and proposals, so the judgement you are paying for is the view from the other side of the table. That is also why I would rather turn down an application that cannot win than take a fee to write it. If you are not sure where you stand, the honest first move is not to hire anyone, it is to check.
When a fixed fee is the right call
To be fair to the other models: a pure fixed fee is sometimes the honest choice. If you have already written a strong proposal and need an expert review, a defined piece of work for a defined price is cleaner than attaching a success fee to a document that is mostly done. The success-fee model earns its place when the consultant is doing the heavy lifting, from strategy through writing to interview preparation, and genuinely shares the risk of the outcome. Match the structure to the work, and be suspicious of anyone who applies the same pricing to every situation regardless of how much they are actually doing.
Work with Ipernovation
Thinking about EIC Accelerator support?
The first conversation is about whether your project can win, not about fees. If it is ready, we agree a clear hybrid structure in writing. If it is not, I will tell you what to fix first.
Book a discovery call →