A low threshold is not a low bar
Women TechEU sets its official gate at 3 out of 5 per criterion and 10 out of 15 overall. Those are easy numbers to reach and they tell you almost nothing, because everything above the line is ranked and funded from the top down. The published evaluation we calibrated this review against scored Impact 3.27, Excellence 3.25 and Implementation 3.87 — a clean pass on every gate, and no funding.
So a review that tells you that you have passed has answered the easy question. The useful one is how far you are from the ranking line, which sits closer to 13 out of 15, with Impact around 4.4 because Impact is the first tie-breaker. This review reports those as two separate conclusions and never merges them into a single reassuring verdict.
How Women TechEU is actually assessed
Eligibility is a gate, not a score
Company age on the national register date, autonomous SME status including linked and partner enterprises, women's share of the complete cap table, equity under EUR 1 million, and TRL 4–6 before a high-fidelity MVP. Each is reported PASS, FAIL or UNCERTAIN with the evidence relied on. A gate failure is never softened into a weak score.
Two evaluators who disagree
One technical, one commercial. The failure pattern in real evaluations is not a weak proposal — it is a well-presented one where the technical reader infers a strength the commercial reader demands proof of. The review runs both readings and names every claim they would score more than half a point apart.
The deep-tech boundary decides Excellence
What did you build, and what is a third-party or open-source component? Without an architecture map that separates them, deep-tech excellence is capped however strong the deck looks. Generic AI API use is not deep tech, and the review says so plainly.
The deck is a scored document
In the published evaluation we calibrated against, both evaluators assessed Impact almost entirely from the pitch deck — and took the funding ask, the roadmap and the milestones from it too. The form carries eligibility and the plan; the deck carries the commercial case. We review it as such, and locate findings by slide.
The cost logic has to live in the form
A detailed budget annex is not permitted, so price, gross margin and cost structure have to appear inside the application itself. Missing unit economics is one of the most common and most expensive omissions in this programme.
What the review actually checks
A sample of the questions the Women TechEU route asks. Each produces a located, evidenced finding with a concrete correction.
- Whether the eligibility gate actually closes — age, SME status, women's ownership of the complete cap table, the EUR 1 million equity ceiling, and TRL 4–6 before a high-fidelity MVP.
- Whether the proposal separates what you developed from third-party and open-source components, and whether a competitor could copy it quickly.
- Whether one beachhead segment is chosen on evidence, or several verticals are listed at once.
- Whether each pilot carries payment status, result, learning and a conversion decision — or is only named.
- Whether price, gross margin, acquisition cost and sales cycle appear inside the form.
- Whether the market is sized bottom-up from reachable buyers, or top-down from a total addressable market figure.
- Whether the roadmap has acceptance criteria and commercial decisions attached, or is a feature list.
- Whether the IP position is assessed — chain of title, component map, protection route, freedom to operate — or aspirational.
- Whether the team matrix states employment status, committed FTE and who owns product and customer success.
- Whether the EUR 75,000 is spent on the highest-value evidence gaps rather than founder branding and generic training.
- Whether any environmental, social or gender claim carries a baseline and a method, or is a bare percentage.
- Whether the form, the pitch deck and the CVs state the same figures.
Every issue carries its location in your text, the criterion it damages, a concrete correction, a model-answer pattern, and a re-review test you can run after editing.
What you upload, and what comes back
What to upload
Required: your Full Proposal form (PDF, DOCX, TXT or MD).
- Strongly recommended: the investor pitch deck. In this programme the evaluators score Impact largely from the deck rather than the form, so without it the Impact part of the review is partial — and the report says so rather than filling the gap by inference.
- Optional: the founder and team CVs — checked for role clarity, employment status and committed FTE.
- The three-minute founder video is not uploaded or reviewed. The report says so rather than implying it was watched.
What comes back
A free score preview by email within 5–8 minutes, with your two highest-priority fixes.
- The complete report adds the eligibility gate, all three criterion scores, threshold status and ranking readiness as separate conclusions, and the full issue register.
- A final classification: do not submit, revise substantially, submission capable, or ranking competitive.
- A shareable PDF, useful when fixes belong to a co-founder or an adviser.
Start with the free preview
See where each criterion sits against the threshold and the ranking line, and the two corrections that matter most, before deciding whether the full report is worth €50. If it gives you nothing worth acting on, email us within 14 days and we refund it in full.
Questions
Is this an official Women TechEU evaluation?
No. It is a simulation built to be faithful to the published evaluation criteria, thresholds and eligibility rules so gaps surface before you submit. It is not an EISMEA or European Commission assessment, it does not predict funding decisions, and you should read the current call documentation yourself.
Can you tell me whether we are eligible?
The review tests every eligibility requirement against what your documents actually evidence and reports each as PASS, FAIL or UNCERTAIN with the evidence it relied on. Where a rule could have changed, it names the document you need to check. It is a pre-submission check, not a legal determination — only the programme can rule on your eligibility.
We are clearly women-led. Is that not the hard part?
Formal ownership and title are necessary but they are not merit. The review tests whether the dossier evidences actual control of the science, the product, the customers, the people and the finance — and it flags gender impact claimed from founder identity alone, which is a named failure pattern in real evaluations rather than a strength.
Our technology is not yet an MVP. Is it too early to review?
No — TRL 4 to 6 before a high-fidelity MVP is exactly the eligible band, and the review is calibrated for it. It will not ask for evidence a company at that stage cannot have. What it does test is whether the claims made match the stage claimed.
Can I re-review after making changes?
Yes, and it is the intended way to use this. Comparing the two reports shows which issues resolved, persisted, worsened or appeared in the new draft.
What happens to my proposal?
Files are transmitted securely for transient processing in the EU. They are not retained and are not used to train models. The generated report may be stored for up to seven days so you can open it from your private email link.
Ready when you are
No account. No subscription. The preview costs nothing.
Review my Women TechEU proposal