Four investors share what they look for once companies move beyond early-stage validation: from operational readiness and funding architecture to market strength, fundraising discipline and the relationship after investment.
For European companies moving into the growth stage, raising capital is no longer principally about demonstrating that an idea can work. By Series B and beyond, investors are looking more closely at whether a company can turn early success into repeatable, durable growth — and whether its organisation, financing and leadership are equipped for what comes next.
To explore how those judgements are made, we asked four investors the same five questions about growth-stage investment. Their perspectives span different sectors and investment approaches, offering both common ground and important differences in what they prioritise.
François-Xavier Dedde is a Deeptech Partner at Omnes, a private equity firm investing in the energy transition and European technological sovereignty, and responds from a deeptech investment perspective, including areas such as energy, aerospace and defence, and AI.
Isabelle De Cremoux, CEO and Managing Partner at Seventure Partners, and Quang Lê, Senior Associate at long-term equity investor Seventure Partners, draws on the organisation’s Life Sciences practice and examples spanning biopharmaceuticals, Techbio, Foodtech & Nutrition and Digital Tech.
Yann Marteil, Co-Founder and Managing Partner of Shift4Good, a venture capital fund focused on the decarbonisation of transportation, brings the perspective of a sector-specialist investor working across transportation and decarbonised mobility, including hardware, software, logistics and physical infrastructure.
Tom Filip Lesche is the lead Partner for growth-stage investments at Speedinvest, an EMEA-focused venture capital firm investing from pre-Seed to pre-IPO. Speedinvest’s six sector-focused teams provide deep domain expertise and operator insights across B2B AI & Infra, Climate Tech & Industrial Tech, Deep Tech, Fintech & DeFi, Health & Bio, and Marketplaces & Consumer.
Growth-stage capital comes with a different burden of proof. Early traction may establish demand, but investors at Series B and beyond need evidence that growth can be repeated, managed and forecast with greater confidence. That makes operational maturity, rather than potential alone, central to the investment case.
“At this point, the story has to shift from "can it work" to "how fast can we scale what already works". Technology risk behind (mostly), Industrialization should already be partially addressed, unit economics proven, a pipeline that no longer depends on the founders, and the next layer of TOP management already hired.”
“Transitioning from proof-of-concept to repeatable, de-risked execution is essential for our Life Sciences practice (VC / growth equity – beyond Series B).
In biopharmaceuticals, this is evidenced by clear clinical validation and visibility from regulatory bodies to advance into phase 2/3 trials, as seen with Enterome and Siota, among other companies.
In Techbio, / Foodtech & Nutrition, it means demonstrating clear unit economics, predictable ARR expansion, and scalable international operations, such as when we primarily invested in Karius and Polaris, among other portfolio companies.
Ultimately, investment readiness requires an infrastructure built to execute rapid multi-market scaling rather than just maintaining early traction.”
“At Series B and beyond, readiness isn't really about top-line growth anymore. What we're looking for is predictability, sound unit economics, and evidence that the team can actually execute against the plan they're presenting.
A big part of that comes down to KPIs that are clear and genuinely benchmarked. We want to see ARR growth, net retention, LTV/CAC, and gross margins that sit comfortably in the upper end of the industry, and that reflect real operational efficiency.
We also pay close attention to the track record. Has the management team consistently delivered on what they said they would? A credible Series B plan should be grounded in a real pipeline, realistic conversion assumptions, and a demonstrated ability to forecast both revenue and cash burn with some accuracy.
A Series B-ready leadership team should also have proven it can scale itself, not just the business. That usually means building out a real management layer beneath the founders, bringing in functional leaders with growth-stage experience where the founding team's own experience runs out, and showing they can attract and retain senior talent as the organization gets more complex.
Unit economics and technology maturity matter too. By this stage, the core product should be validated, and the economics should point toward margin expansion as the company scales, not the other way around.
Because a lot of what we back sits in decarbonized mobility, hardware, and complex logistics, industrial and supply chain scalability is another area we look at closely. The company should be able to show it can scale manufacturing, secure the raw materials it needs, and manage supply chain constraints without letting quality slip.
And finally, impact. Carbon metrics — CO₂e avoided or reduced — should be tracked, benchmarked, and forecasted with the same rigor as the financials, not treated as a secondary narrative.”
“Beyond Series B, investment-readiness shifts from validating product-market fit to demonstrating predictable operational leverage and unit economics. Three things tell us a company is there.
First, the growth is explainable. By Series B a company should be able to show cohort behaviour, not just aggregate revenue. Retention that holds or expands, payback that has moved in the right direction over the last few quarters, and a clear answer to where the next €20m of sales investment goes.
Second, the company no longer relies on founder-led sales. Someone other than the CEO owns the repeatable go-to-market engine and is able to hit the sales target.
Third, and most underrated, the company can retrieve its own data quickly. If it takes three weeks to produce a clean cohort file, that tells us more about operational maturity than any pitch deck will.”
There is no universal template for a growth-stage round. The capital required to expand a software company can look very different from the financing needed to scale manufacturing, complete clinical development or build physical infrastructure. Sector characteristics therefore affect not only how much companies raise, but also the instruments they use and the milestones around which financing is organised.
“Deeptech is a very broad category, spanning many subsectors — energy, aerospace and defense, AI, to name a few. Capital intensity and development cycles vary a lot from one to another, so there is no cookie-cutter answer here.
What holds true across the board: the size, structure and timing of a round should be adapted to the reality of the company. Size varies widely, but the most ambitious plays are also the ones requiring the most capital. Structure is often blended: equity plus non-dilutive funding (EIC, national schemes, procurement), with room for strategic co-investors.
As for timing, the company — and especially the CEO — should anticipate the successive funding rounds as early as possible, and adapt the size and structure of each round accordingly.”
“Capital structure and timing are in our view dictated by sector maturity horizons. Life Sciences and Deeptech require larger tranche-based growth rounds, synchronized with long regulatory, manufacturing, and clinical milestones.
Conversely, Digital Tech demands rapid, upfront deployment to dominate network effects and capture high gross margins, as exemplified by financial platform SumUp.
Timing in biotech follows clinical trial readouts, while in SaaS and fintech, it is driven by market capture velocity and land-and-expand metrics.”
“Transportation is a sector that really demands its own approach to how rounds get structured. A lot of mobility ventures blend hardware, software, and physical infrastructure together, and that combination changes the math on capital intensity versus milestone timing.
Growth rounds tend to be structured with longer runways in mind, often 24 months or more, simply because sales cycles, certification processes, and industrialization take longer to play out than they would in a pure software business.
We also see blended financing structures come up frequently. Equity alone often isn't the right tool, so it gets paired with non-dilutive funding, venture debt, or project finance, particularly for asset-heavy models like fleet electrification or charging infrastructure.
And strategic investor involvement tends to shape both timing and syndicate composition more than people might expect. When corporate venture arms are in the mix, whether that's OEMs, tier-1 suppliers, or energy majors, their participation is often what secures off-take agreements, distribution, or regulatory backing, so their timelines can end up driving the round's timeline, too.”
“Capital intensity and regulation set the shape. A software business with 80% gross margins can raise smaller and later because it has the option to wait, as capital is deployed primarily into GTM acceleration and international expansion.
A business that needs a licence, a balance sheet, hardware or heavy compute does not have that option, so rounds tend to be larger, earlier, and mixed with debt or structured instruments. Founders in those categories should plan the financing architecture as seriously as the product roadmap.
On timing, the trigger should be a proof point rather than a calendar quarter, which in practice means starting investor relationships two rounds early.”
A compelling company does not operate in isolation from its market. At the growth stage, investors must judge both the opportunity around the business and its ability to capture it sustainably. The balance between those factors varies, but the distinction becomes especially important when strong sector momentum can make underlying company performance harder to read.
“I separate what the company controls (technology, cost, team) from what it doesn't — mainly adoption timing. In deeptech, regulatory pull can be critical and turn a niche into a massive category within a few years: look at the energy transition a couple of years ago, and at sovereignty today.
A strong market forgives execution mistakes; a strong company in a market that isn't ready burns cash waiting. So I underwrite the company and stress-test the timing — always leaving room for deviation.”
“A booming market offers structural tailwinds, but a strong company builds defensible, high-moat assets capable of converting sector momentum into durable market leadership
In healthcare and microbiome verticals, true company strength lies in proprietary IP, clinical differentiation, and regulatory barriers, demonstrated by therapeutics pioneers like The Akkermansia Company (exit via M&A) or targeted nutrition platforms like Foodsmart (exit via LBO).
Strong companies are backed by stellar founders who don't just ride a trend, but actively shape their sector's regulatory and commercial benchmarks, while pitching an appealing enough entrepreneurship journey to create HR demand and attract top tier talents.”
“A strong market gives you a rising tide, but it's really the strong company that ends up delivering top-tier returns at growth stage.
Markets in this space tend to look strong for similar reasons: net-zero mandates, shifting consumer habits, and tightening environmental regulation all create real tailwinds. But a hot market can also be misleading. It's easy for a rising tide to mask weak execution or a business that doesn't actually have much of a moat once the conditions change.
A strong company looks different. It shows a defensible moat, whether that's through proprietary IP, proprietary data, network effects, or a dominant position in its supply chain, and it's led by a management team that can pivot when it needs to, execute without excuses, and stay disciplined on cost even when the market would let them get away with not being.
Our own decision criterion comes down to this: we invest when a genuinely strong execution team, with a defensible moat, is operating in a high-growth decarbonization market.”
“You can out-execute weak competitors, but you cannot out-execute a small market. So the market question comes first. Is the growth coming from the market expanding, or from shares being taken?
A strong market provides a rising tide that lifts revenue numbers across the sector, but strong tailwinds often mask operational inefficiencies, high churn, or weak unit economics.
A strong company demonstrates defensibility within that market. Look for pricing power, gross margin expansion, strong net retention that proves customers stay even as competitors enter, and structural moats such as proprietary data loops or network effects.”
The growth-stage fundraising process itself can reveal a great deal about a company. Investors are evaluating not only the opportunity presented in a pitch, but also how management handles data, risk, capital planning and due diligence. At this point in a company’s development, preparation and execution become part of the investment signal.
“Most common mistake: not understanding the rules of the game. Fundraising is a capital game, and at the growth stage the CEO should have a clear understanding of the dynamics at play from the investor's perspective — real empathy for the investor mindset.
In practice, that means not focusing on the technology, but on business development and value creation. What stands out: an exceptional CEO on stage, honesty about weaknesses before we find them (self-assessment capacity), a data room ready on day one, flawless logistics, a use of funds tied to milestones, and a clear view of the capital moves that come after the round.”
“Growth-stage founders often misstep by pitching early-stage narrative hype instead of presenting rigorous, data-driven unit economics and realistic execution buffers. A fundraising process stands out when management demonstrates extreme capital efficiency, clear risk mitigation, and pre-established alignment with global industrial partners.
Through Health for Life Capital™ funds, backed by corporate leaders, we look for management teams that combine visionary scale with operational discipline. Once again, success stories stemmed from founders who delivered transparent data and consistently executed against their stated milestones.”
“There's a pattern where fundraising conversations tend to fall short, and it usually comes down to a handful of things.
The first is a weak equity story, or really, a missing exit vision. A lot of founders focus almost entirely on the next 18 months without stepping back to articulate where the value creation actually leads. They don't map out future milestones, they haven't thought about who the eventual acquirers might be, whether that's OEMs, industrial conglomerates, or financial buyers, and they haven't really considered M&A versus IPO as a route. That leaves investors without a clear sense of how return targets like IRR or MOIC actually get realized.
Capital requirements are another common miss. Founders sometimes underestimate the CapEx and working capital that industrial scaling or geographic expansion genuinely requires, and that tends to produce round sizes that don't hold up once reality sets in.
And impact metrics are often too vague. Sustainability gets presented as a narrative rather than something backed by real data, and we'd much rather see proper Scope 1, 2, and 3 lifecycle emissions analysis than a good story.
On the flip side, a few things tend to make a process stand out. A coherent equity story helps enormously, one where founders can walk clearly from Series B through to exit and explain how this specific round builds a market position that's hard to replicate and attractive to strategic buyers down the line.
Data-driven transparency matters, too. A well-structured data room with granular cohort analysis, honest supply chain economics, and unit-level margins that are properly benchmarked against the market tells us a lot about how the team operates.
We also notice when founders are upfront about execution risk rather than glossing over it. Acknowledging real bottlenecks, whether that's grid connection delays or certification timelines, and pairing that with a concrete mitigation plan tied to the budget, builds more trust than pretending those risks don't exist.
And finally, strategic clarity goes a long way: a shared understanding of how Shift4Good's sector expertise, network, and impact methodology can be put to work beyond just the capital, in a way that actually helps accelerate time to exit.”
“The most common mistake in the transition to growth stage is running the fundraise with a seed-stage pitch playbook, focusing excessively on vision rather than concrete operational data, unit economics and cohort retention. The process then dies in weeks three to six because the data room was not ready and momentum leaks away.
The second mistake is unrealistic valuation expectations, disconnected from broader growth-stage market multiples.
What stands out, besides data room preparedness, is clarity on risk. Founders who clearly articulate their primary execution risks and present actionable mitigation strategies rather than ignoring potential downsides.
And best of all, visible progress during the process itself. Nothing changes a conversation faster than the numbers improving while we are looking at them.”
Closing a round changes the nature of the investor-company relationship. Governance becomes more formal, but the value of an investor can also depend on what happens outside formal board meetings — from difficult conversations to hiring, introductions and preparation for future strategic decisions. The four perspectives point to a relationship built around transparency without blurring responsibility for running the business.
“No surprises. Bad news travels fast, reporting is honest, and boards debate strategy instead of reviewing slides. In return, the investor does real work between boards, supporting the CEO on critical topics: customer intros, senior hires, preparing the next round. The real board work happens before and after the meeting itself. Trust is built between board meetings, not during them.”
“Post-investment, a strong investor-scaleup relationship functions as an operational catalyst, not a micromanagement committee. We leverage our global network across Europe, North America, and Asia to unlock cross-border expansion, key clinical partnerships, and strategic scaling for companies like Clinical Microbiomics (Cmbio).
We possess a strong level of synergies across portfolio companies, but most importantly between investors and scale-ups, that catalyse strategic collaborations, non-dilutive agreements and acquisitions.
We are almost a systematic active board mentorship to navigate critical growth milestones, whether preparing for IPOs, strategic M&A liquidity, or international executive hiring, while maintaining deep respect and flexibility for the founder. The goal is a high-trust that equips scale-ups to transition smoothly from category challengers to market leaders.”
“Once a Series B closes, a strong relationship really becomes about active partnership rather than passive oversight, and that's especially true because internationalization is almost inevitable at this stage.
As a sector-specialist VC with teams across three continents, this is a space where we have real, on-the-ground experience, and we see our role as staying closely engaged with the team as they navigate everything that comes with cross-border growth.
A lot of that starts with team and culture. Structuring local leadership, whether that's country managers or local sales teams, while still holding onto the core culture and keeping governance aligned across jurisdictions, is genuinely hard to get right.
Go-to-market needs adapting too. Sales cycles and distribution channels rarely translate cleanly from one market to another, so there's usually work to be done adjusting to local regulatory frameworks and the OEM or industrial ecosystems specific to each region.
We also spend time helping companies think through their investor syndicate as they grow, bringing in US, Asian, or local European co-investors where it makes sense, both to support future rounds and to open up local market access.
On governance, we act as a sounding board for the big strategic decisions, international M&A, new market entries, key C-level hires, while leaving day-to-day execution with the leadership team.
Where we can add real value is through hands-on ecosystem access, using Shift4Good's network to connect scale-ups with international corporate LPs, tier-1 suppliers, and transit operators in ways that can meaningfully accelerate local traction.
Impact and ESG frameworks tend to need scaling too, since international expansion usually means adapting carbon-impact methodology to different regulatory regimes, from the EU's CSRD to various US federal and state requirements.
And underneath all of it, what matters most is candor. We aim to build a relationship where operational hurdles, particularly the ones that come with moving fast internationally, get raised early rather than late, so there's still time to work through them together before they start putting pressure on the runway.”
“A healthy post-investment dynamic means no surprises in either direction. What matters is proactive transparency: early communication around challenges or missed milestones allows board members to act as problem-solvers rather than auditors.
From our side, the test is whether we are useful in specific ways rather than generally supportive, delivering on high-leverage fronts such as opening customer introductions, assisting in executive hiring, or navigating subsequent funding and M&A options.
There should also be a clear distinction between board governance, meaning strategy, capital allocation and executive alignment, and daily execution, trusting management to run the business.”
The EIC Scaling Club is a curated community where 120+ European deep tech scale-ups with the potential to build world-class businesses and solve major global challenges come together with investors, corporate innovators and other industry stakeholders to spur growth.
The top 120+ European deep tech companies will be carefully selected from a pool of high-growth scale-ups that have benefitted from EIC financial schemes, other European and national innovation programmes, and beyond.
The EIC Scaling Club is an EIC-funded initiative run in partnership by Tech Tour, Bpifrance (EuroQuity), Hello Tomorrow, Tech.eu (Webrazzi), EurA and IESE Business School.
Subscribe to our newsletter here to stay up-to-date!