Why Venture Studios Are Attracting More Investors in 2025

Investors used to bet on founders’ ideas. But in 2025, many are shifting strategy: they’re investing in venture studios - organizations that build companies in-house, from problem-identification to founding teams to operational muscle. In a world where uncertainty rules, venture studios offer not just upside, but a clearer path through risk.

Here’s how venture studios are drawing in more investor interest this year, grounded in data and real examples.

Momentum You Can Measure

The interest in venture studios isn’t just hype. According to the Global Startup Studio Network (GSSN), startups born inside studios have about 30% higher success rates than those founded traditionally. From idea to Series A, the timelines are dramatically compressed: studio-born ventures take around 25.2 months to reach Series A, while conventional startups take about 56 months.

Seed funding is far more accessible through studios: approximately 84% of studio-born companies raise a seed round, compared to much lower rates for startups outside that model. And of those, 72% go on to secure Series A funding. By contrast, traditional startup paths hover around 42% for making it to Series A.

Hexa’s Low Failure Rate & Practical Startup Support

Hexa, a Paris-based venture studio, is a live example of why investors are paying attention. Hexa typically launches four to five startups per year. For each project, they invest roughly €800,000 in the early stages - this covers recruiting a co-founder team (CEO + CTO generally), putting together a small team of 10-15 employees, and building the first version of the product.

What’s notable is Hexa’s failure rate: around 6%. That is, only about 6% of its studio projects fail outright. The rest either continue to operate or move toward exit. That is well below the often-cited norm for startup survival (many startups fail at higher rates, often estimated at 10-20% within a few years).

Also, Hexa takes about 30% equity in each of its projects, giving the studio skin in the game. Once a startup spins out of Hexa (usually after ~18 months), it moves toward independent growth and subsequent investor rounds.

What Makes Studios Attractive to Investors

The numbers and case studies point toward several intertwined reasons why studios are drawing interest.

First, studios help de-risk early stages. Because studios run internal validations - market research, prototyping, testing - they reduce the chance of launching a product nobody wants. Investors often cite this validation as a major benefit.

Second, the talent risk is lowered. Studios like Hexa recruit leadership teams (CEO, CTO) early. They build supportive infrastructure (legal, design, accounting). Founders don’t have to bootstrap every role or function themselves. That matters: many startups fail not because the idea is weak, but because execution or team infrastructure is weak.

Third, studios tend to retain larger equity stakes, which means when success comes, returns are amplified. That alignment of incentives - studio, founders, investors - is powerful.

Fourth, studies like those from GSSN show the IRR (internal rate of return) for studio-born companies tends to be far higher - around 53% - than for conventional startups (which may average ~21-22%).

Examples Beyond Hexa

Atomic (San Francisco) is another studio that’s attracted heavy investor attention. Jack Abraham, its founder, once described Atomic’s approach as ideation + prototype + validation + funding - all internal. In 2021, Atomic raised US$260 million for its fund that builds startups. The fact that institutional or large investors are willing to commit this kind of capital to a studio model suggests confidence: they believe studio-built companies are more stable bets.

Other studios - Flagship Pioneering for biotech (Moderna is one of its signature spin-outs), Science Inc., eFounders - also serve as proof points. These studios have repeatedly launched companies that reach very high valuations or perform well in exits, not simply small wins. The common thread: strong domain knowledge, founder support, resource pooling, and long-term alignment.

Funding Realities & What Investors Want to See

Even as venture studios rise, investors are getting more selective about which ones they back. They look for studios that:

• Have a clear thesis and focus (industry, technology, geography).

• Demonstrate rigorous idea validation before spinning out.

• Maintain support beyond just the founding moment (infrastructure, mentoring, follow-on capital).

• Show evidence of past success - low failure rates, exits or scaling companies, good IRR etc.

Investors are also sensitive to the capital cost of running a studio (staff, infrastructure) and how that overhead is balanced by returns from successful spin-outs.

Why 2025 Seems Pivotal

Several market shifts make 2025 a turning point for studios. The venture market is less forgiving of inefficiency. Valuations are more conservative. Founders are more cautious, but also more collaborative. Studios look like a model that absorbs these pressures: faster path to funding, shared overheads, stronger operational support.

LPs (limited partners) are increasingly interested in not just what is being built, but how. If you’re going to place a large bet, you prefer predictability, lower risk, and a model that gives you more influence over the conditions that matter - team strength, product-market fit, execution discipline. Studios deliver on many of those.

Hexa’s recent financing is also a signal. In March 2025, Hexa closed a €29 million financing agreement structured as a revolving credit facility, aimed at ensuring regular liquidity to support its expansion - launching more startups, growing internal team, building long-term capacity. That kind of financial backing from banks shows institutional confidence in the model.

Looking Ahead: The Studio Model’s Growing Role

If the trends hold, studios will move from being exciting alternative models to being core infrastructure in many ecosystems. We may see generalist VCs building studio arms, governments sponsoring studio hubs, more founders choosing to launch inside studios rather than from zero alone.

For investors, this means studio portfolios will feature more predictable outcomes, stronger early metrics, and potentially higher returns per dollar invested. For founders, it means less of the chaos of starting with nothing, and more of building with safety nets - expertise, funding, structure - while remaining creative and ambitious.

The Next Chapter

Venture studios are not just catching eyes - they’re delivering. In 2025, when investors evaluate risk more carefully, the studio model often wins: it compresses timelines, reduces failure risk, aligns incentives, and produces meaningful exits.

For those watching capital flows, this shift matters: the studios that perfect this model - balancing discipline with innovation - will likely be among the defining organizations in the startup ecosystems of the next decade.

Les étapes clés pour construire une startup via le Venture Building

Dans l’imaginaire collectif, créer une startup rime souvent avec solitude, prise de risques extrêmes et nuits blanches à chercher son premier client. Mais depuis quelques années, une nouvelle approche change la donne : le Venture Building. Plutôt que de laisser des fondateurs naviguer seuls dans l’incertitude, le Venture Building met à leur disposition une méthode structurée, des ressources partagées et une équipe expérimentée. Résultat : les chances de succès augmentent, et les erreurs fatales diminuent.

En 2025, cette approche attire autant les entrepreneurs que les investisseurs, et il n’est pas difficile de comprendre pourquoi. Pour construire une startup via le Venture Building, certaines étapes clés sont devenues incontournables.

Comprendre le problème avant de penser à la solution

Beaucoup de startups échouent parce qu’elles partent directement d’une idée séduisante, sans s’assurer que le problème est réel. Dans un modèle Venture Building, la première étape consiste à identifier des problèmes de marché concrets. Cela se fait à travers des recherches approfondies : analyse de tendances, entretiens clients, études sectorielles.

L’objectif est clair : valider que le problème existe, qu’il est suffisamment douloureux pour les utilisateurs, et qu’il touche un marché accessible. Sans cette base solide, même la meilleure idée de produit a peu de chances de survivre.

La validation rapide : tester avant d’investir

L’une des grandes forces du Venture Building est sa capacité à tester les hypothèses très tôt. Plutôt que de dépenser des millions dans un produit complet, les studios construisent des prototypes simples ou des “Minimum Viable Products” (MVP). Ces tests permettent de mesurer l’intérêt du marché, d’obtenir des retours concrets et d’ajuster l’idée.

Selon une étude de McKinsey, les venture builders expérimentés multiplient par 2 les chances de succès de leurs startups comparé aux novices, car ils savent répéter ces cycles de test et d’apprentissage.

Constituer l’équipe fondatrice

Le capital humain reste la clé. Un Venture Builder ne se contente pas d’une bonne idée, il cherche aussi à assembler l’équipe fondatrice idéale. Souvent, le studio recrute un CEO, un CTO et parfois un CPO, afin d’équilibrer vision stratégique, expertise technique et exécution produit.

Prenons l’exemple de Hexa (anciennement eFounders), un Venture Builder parisien qui a contribué au lancement de plus de 40 startups SaaS, dont Aircall ou Front. Leur approche ? Associer très tôt des fondateurs complémentaires et les entourer de designers, développeurs et experts en croissance. Résultat : un taux d’échec extrêmement bas, autour de 6%, bien inférieur à la moyenne du marché.

Les ressources partagées : gagner du temps et réduire les coûts

Créer une startup, c’est aussi gérer mille détails : comptabilité, juridique, recrutement, communication. Le Venture Builder fournit des ressources mutualisées qui permettent aux jeunes équipes de se concentrer sur ce qui compte vraiment : le produit et le marché.

C’est un gain de temps énorme. Au lieu de perdre des mois à structurer l’administratif, la startup démarre avec un cadre professionnel dès le jour un. Cela réduit aussi le risque d’erreurs coûteuses, comme de mauvaises clauses juridiques ou un recrutement mal géré.

Trouver le Product-Market Fit

Après la phase de test et le premier MVP, vient l’étape cruciale : atteindre l’adéquation produit-marché (Product-Market Fit). Le Venture Building insiste sur des itérations rapides : écouter les utilisateurs, ajuster les fonctionnalités, repositionner si nécessaire.

Un rapport du Global Startup Studio Network (GSSN) montre que les startups issues de Venture Studios atteignent le Series A en moyenne en 25 mois, contre 56 mois pour les startups traditionnelles. Ce rythme accéléré s’explique par le travail constant sur l’adéquation produit-marché, mené avec méthode et ressources.

Le financement structuré

Contrairement aux startups classiques, qui doivent convaincre des investisseurs dès le début, les startups issues de Venture Building bénéficient d’un financement interne initial. Le studio investit souvent plusieurs centaines de milliers d’euros pour couvrir les premiers 12 à 18 mois. Cela réduit le stress financier et permet de construire des bases solides avant d’aller chercher du capital externe.

Par exemple, Hexa investit environ 800 000 € par projet dès la phase initiale, ce qui permet aux fondateurs de se consacrer pleinement au développement sans se soucier immédiatement de lever des fonds. 

Le spin-off : voler de ses propres ailes

Une fois que le produit a trouvé son marché, que l’équipe est stable et que la traction est prouvée, vient l’étape du spin-off : la startup sort du Venture Builder pour devenir une entité autonome. Elle garde cependant souvent des liens forts avec le studio, qui reste actionnaire (en moyenne autour de 30% de participation).

Ce modèle crée un alignement d’intérêts : le studio a tout intérêt à maximiser les chances de succès, car son rendement dépend de la réussite de l’entreprise sur le long terme.

L’impact global du Venture Building

Avec cette approche, les risques de faillite diminuent sensiblement. Là où 9 startups sur 10 échouent dans le modèle classique, les données montrent qu’une majorité des projets issus de Venture Builders atteignent au moins le stade du financement externe, et certains deviennent des scale-ups internationales.

C’est aussi une manière de répondre à un contexte où les investisseurs recherchent davantage de sécurité et de discipline. En 2025, dans un environnement économique marqué par la prudence, le Venture Building apparaît comme une réponse adaptée : il combine créativité entrepreneuriale et rigueur méthodologique.

Le prochain chapitre

Construire une startup via le Venture Building n’élimine pas tous les risques, mais cela les transforme. Au lieu de parier sur une idée et un fondateur isolé, on s’appuie sur un cadre reproductible, une équipe solide et un accompagnement pas à pas.

Les étapes clés sont claires: identifier un problème réel, valider rapidement, recruter l’équipe fondatrice, bénéficier de ressources partagées, trouver le Product-Market Fit, sécuriser le financement et enfin, voler de ses propres ailes. En suivant ce chemin, les startups issues du Venture Building ne se contentent pas de survivre : elles posent les bases pour grandir plus vite, plus fort, et avec davantage d’impact.

L’avenir du Venture Building dans le prochain cycle d’innovation

L’histoire de l’innovation n’est jamais linéaire. Elle avance par vagues, par cycles, où des périodes d’exubérance sont suivies par des moments de rationalisation. Après les excès de la décennie passée -  capital abondant, valorisations gonflées, course effrénée à la croissance - 2025 ouvre un nouveau chapitre, plus sélectif, plus exigeant. Dans ce contexte, une question émerge avec force : quel sera le rôle du Venture Building dans le prochain cycle d’innovation ?

Ce modèle, encore méconnu du grand public il y a dix ans, s’impose désormais comme un pilier incontournable des écosystèmes entrepreneuriaux. Les données le confirment : selon le Global Startup Studio Network, une startup issue d’un Venture Studio a près de 30 % de chances supplémentaires de réussir par rapport à une startup traditionnelle. Et au moment de lever des fonds, ces startups passent du pré-seed à la Série A en 25 mois en moyenne, contre 56 mois pour les autres.

Un contexte favorable à l’émergence des Venture Builders

La première raison de croire en l’avenir du Venture Building réside dans le climat économique actuel. Les investisseurs se montrent plus prudents : les levées de fonds globales ont reculé de près de 42 % en 2023 par rapport à l’année record de 2021. Dans ce nouvel environnement, où chaque euro compte, le Venture Building apparaît comme une réponse logique.

Pourquoi ? Parce qu’il réduit le gaspillage. Les idées sont testées rapidement, les ressources mutualisées, les équipes accompagnées pas à pas. Là où un startup classique peut brûler des millions avant de se rendre compte que son produit ne trouve pas son marché, un projet issu d’un Venture Builder ajuste le tir bien plus tôt.

Leçons tirées des pionniers

Des acteurs comme Flagship Pioneering aux États-Unis ont déjà montré la voie. Ce Venture Builder de Boston est à l’origine de plusieurs géants de la biotech, dont Moderna, qui a joué un rôle clé dans la mise au point du vaccin à ARNm contre le Covid-19. Ici, l’exemple est frappant : sans un Venture Builder capable de financer la recherche fondamentale, de recruter les bons scientifiques et de structurer une startup avant même qu’il y ait un marché, une telle réussite aurait été improbable.

En Europe, le studio parisien Hexa (anciennement eFounders) démontre également la puissance du modèle. Avec plus de 40 startups lancées et un taux d’échec limité à 6 %, Hexa prouve que l’innovation peut être industrialisée sans perdre son agilité. Leurs spin-offs, comme Aircall ou Front, sont devenus des scale-ups internationales, générant des milliers d’emplois.

Le Venture Building comme réponse aux grands défis

Le prochain cycle d’innovation sera marqué par des défis mondiaux : le climat, l’intelligence artificielle, la santé, la cybersécurité. Autant de secteurs où le temps presse et où les erreurs coûtent cher. Or, le Venture Building est particulièrement adapté pour s’attaquer à ces problématiques complexes.

Dans le domaine climatique, par exemple, les projets nécessitent des investissements lourds et des validations scientifiques rigoureuses. Les Venture Builders peuvent absorber ce risque en mutualisant les ressources, en travaillant avec des chercheurs et en créant plusieurs projets en parallèle. Cela augmente les chances qu’au moins l’un d’entre eux réussisse à atteindre une échelle significative.

De même, dans l’IA, où l’innovation avance à une vitesse vertigineuse, les studios offrent un cadre permettant de tester rapidement des cas d’usage, de sécuriser l’accès aux talents et de lever des fonds dès que la traction est prouvée.

Une industrialisation de l’entrepreneuriat ?

Certains critiques voient dans le Venture Building une forme de « fabrique à startups » qui risque de standardiser l’entrepreneuriat. Mais l’expérience montre l’inverse. En réalité, le modèle ne bride pas la créativité : il la canalise. Il donne aux idées le cadre nécessaire pour passer du stade de concept à celui d’entreprise viable.

McKinsey souligne que les Venture Builders expérimentés produisent en moyenne des startups générant 12 fois plus de revenus au bout de cinq ans que celles issues de studios novices. Cela prouve que l’expérience accumulée ne tue pas l’innovation, elle la renforce.

Vers une hybridation des modèles

L’avenir du Venture Building ne se limitera pas aux studios indépendants. On observe déjà une hybridation :

• Des entreprises traditionnelles lancent leurs propres Venture Builders pour explorer de nouveaux marchés (par exemple, les grands groupes énergétiques qui développent des spin-offs dans les énergies renouvelables).

• Des fonds de capital-risque commencent à intégrer des équipes de Venture Building pour mieux accompagner leurs participations.

• Des gouvernements soutiennent des programmes de studios nationaux afin de stimuler l’innovation locale et de retenir les talents.

Cette hybridation crée un écosystème plus robuste, où le Venture Building n’est plus une alternative marginale mais un composant central du cycle d’innovation.

Une promesse d’impact à long terme

À mesure que ce modèle gagne en maturité, une chose devient claire : le Venture Building n’est pas seulement un outil pour créer des startups plus vite, c’est une méthode pour créer des entreprises plus solides et plus alignées sur les grands besoins de la société.

En réduisant les risques d’échec, en attirant les meilleurs talents et en canalisant les capitaux vers des projets réellement validés, il contribue à un écosystème entrepreneurial plus durable. Et dans un monde où les crises se succèdent - sanitaires, climatiques, géopolitiques, cette durabilité est plus précieuse que jamais.

Le prochain chapitre

L’avenir du Venture Building dans le prochain cycle d’innovation sera donc marqué par trois dynamiques : une adoption massive par les investisseurs en quête de sécurité, une expansion vers des secteurs critiques comme le climat et la santé, et une hybridation avec les entreprises et les institutions.

Nous entrons dans une période où l’innovation ne peut plus se permettre d’être chaotique ou gaspilleuse. Le Venture Building, avec sa rigueur et sa créativité, apparaît comme le modèle capable d’écrire les prochaines grandes histoires entrepreneuriales.

Dans dix ans, il est probable que nous ne parlerons plus de Venture Building comme d’une nouveauté, mais comme de l’infrastructure invisible de l’innovation mondiale.

The Rise of Thematic Venture Capital Funds: Climate, Deep Tech, and Impact

Venture capital is changing shape. For decades, generalist funds dominated the landscape, chasing outsized returns across consumer, fintech, and SaaS. But as the market adjusts after pandemic highs, a new type of investor is stepping into the spotlight: thematic venture capital funds. These funds concentrate on specific areas like climate, deep tech, and impact. They are not merely chasing a trend - they are reshaping how capital meets purpose, with measurable results that suggest they are here to stay.

A Market Holding Its Ground

The last few years have been turbulent for venture markets globally. Deal volume is down, valuations have corrected, and late-stage funding has become scarcer. Yet within this volatility, thematic funds have shown remarkable resilience.

PwC’s State of Climate Tech 2023 report found that while overall VC and private equity investment fell by nearly half between 2022 and 2023, climate-tech investment dropped by a smaller margin - about 40%. That still amounted to roughly $32 billion globally in 2023, and since 2020, cumulative climate investment has surpassed $140 billion across 4,000 deals. According to Silicon Valley Bank’s Future of Climate Tech report, U.S. clean energy and power companies alone attracted $7.6 billion in VC funding in 2024, a 15% increase year-over-year, with more than three-quarters of deals at seed and Series A stage.

These figures show that while venture capital has cooled broadly, investors continue to channel capital into funds aligned with structural shifts like the energy transition, technological sovereignty, and social resilience.

Climate Funds: From Metrics to Unicorns

Climate tech is the clearest example of this thematic resilience, and its story is increasingly supported by data. World Fund, a European climate VC, analyzed more than 150 climate-tech unicorns created between 2020 and 2024 in Europe and the U.S. Their research revealed that over 60% of these unicorns met their “Climate Performance Potential” criteria, meaning their technologies could deliver significant emissions reductions. By contrast, only a small minority of startups in general deal flow met this threshold. Even more telling, over 80% of climate unicorns that went bankrupt had failed to meet those impact criteria.

The implication is striking: measuring real climate performance is not just an ethical filter, but a predictor of financial resilience. In other words, impact is becoming a risk-management tool.

One case that illustrates this dynamic is Berlin-based Enpal, Europe’s fastest-growing solar company, which became a unicorn in 2021. By combining a subscription model with household solar installation, Enpal has raised more than €1.6 billion in financing. Its climate impact is measurable in the tons of CO₂ avoided each year, and its financial backing is a testament to how climate metrics can underpin durable business models.

Deep Tech and the Long View

eyond climate, deep-tech thematic funds are also gaining ground. These funds focus on frontier innovations - quantum computing, semiconductors, space, and advanced materials - that require longer time horizons and highly specialized knowledge. Historically, such ventures have been considered too capital-intensive for most generalist VCs. But governments and sovereign wealth funds are increasingly backing deep-tech funds, recognizing that technologies of this nature are critical for economic competitiveness and security.

In Europe, for instance, funds like European Innovation Council Fund and Future Ventures have stepped in to bridge the financing gap for deep-tech startups. A case in point is PsiQuantum, a U.S.-U.K. company working on photonic quantum computing, which has raised more than $600 million from backers including BlackRock and Microsoft’s venture arm. For investors, the appeal lies in both the defensibility of the science and the long-term potential to dominate trillion-dollar markets.

Impact as Risk Mitigation

Impact-focused thematic funds are no longer sidelined as philanthropic capital. Instead, they are building track records of resilience by combining rigorous impact metrics with disciplined financial frameworks. Large LPs such as pension funds and endowments are under pressure to align with net-zero goals or the UN Sustainable Development Goals, and this capital demand is flowing into dedicated impact funds.

For example, BlueOrchard, one of the world’s oldest impact investment firms, has mobilized more than $10 billion across 100 countries, targeting both financial inclusion and climate resilience. Similarly, Leapfrog Investments, an emerging-markets impact investor, has consistently delivered market-rate returns while reaching over 400 million people with essential services. The data suggests that aligning with social and environmental goals does not preclude strong returns - if anything, it de-risks them.

Policy and Capital Efficiency

A key driver of thematic funds’ rise is regulatory support. In the U.S., the Inflation Reduction Act has created clear incentives for investment in clean energy and electrification, while the EU’s Green Deal has set ambitious targets for decarbonization. These policy frameworks create predictable demand and lower the risk of market adoption for startups.

At the same time, thematic funds are embracing capital efficiency in ways that generalist investors often overlook. Early-stage climate deals are smaller and more disciplined than the frothy rounds of 2021. Founders are learning to do more with less, and thematic funds, with their sector expertise, can provide not only capital but also strategic partnerships and customer access

Global Case Examples

Thematic investing is no longer confined to Silicon Valley or Berlin. In late 2023, Climactic, a new U.S. seed-stage climate VC, closed a $65 million inaugural fund led by seasoned founders, signaling confidence in early-stage climate investing despite a tougher funding environment.

In Europe, 2023 saw climate-tech investment surge to a record quarter in Q3, with $8.8 billion invested, according to Dealroom. Meanwhile, in MENA, Flat6Labs has emerged as one of the most active climate-tech investors, supporting startups in sustainable agriculture, energy, and water. These regional examples underscore the global nature of the thematic shift.

The Next Chapter

Thematic funds are proving that specialization is not just a marketing angle - it is a structural advantage. By focusing on climate, deep tech, and impact, these investors are aligning with megatrends that will define the next several decades. They are demonstrating that measuring emissions avoided, funding quantum breakthroughs, or scaling essential services in emerging markets can all be pathways to competitive returns.

The rise of thematic venture capital is a reminder that markets evolve with the world’s biggest challenges. For investors, the lesson is clear: purpose and performance are no longer at odds. The funds that marry domain expertise with disciplined execution will not only survive the current venture downturn, they will likely define the next era of growth.

How Venture Builders Reduce Startup Failure Risks

Startups often feel like walking a tightrope in a storm: one wrong step, one misstep in timing, market, or team, and everything falls. It’s no surprise that about 90% of startups fail overall. But in 2025, a different model is proving it can lower those odds: the venture builder. These are organizations that don’t just invest - they build. They nurture ideas, assemble teams, offer infrastructure, and walk alongside founders through early storms.

Here’s how venture builders are reducing failure risks - and what data and case studies show about their effectiveness.

The Stakes: Understanding Startup Risk

The numbers are stark. Many reports show failure rates over time are steep: roughly 10% of new startups fail within their first year, and between years two through five, majority of failures happen. By year ten, few survive. These aren’t just abstract stats, they represent teams who ran out of runway, misread market demand, or couldn’t piece together strong execution. That’s the baseline. Venture builders aim to shift those odds by intervening early on the common failure triggers.

What Venture Builders Do Differently

Venture builders provide what many startups struggle to assemble quickly: clarity of idea, team strength, operational support, and effective validation.

You can think of it this way: instead of solo founders trying to juggle everything - product, user-feedback, hiring, legal, finances - the builder supplies scaffolding. They often supply shared services (legal, HR, strategy), access to domain experts, and a process for iterating ideas before major investment. This means startups born inside builder models often avoid big, early mistakes.

There are multiple pieces to this, but one that researchers call out often is the capacity to test product-market fit before “going big.” Because builders usually demand early user feedback, safe prototyping, proof of concept. That early feedback loop weeds out ideas with weak demand.

Data & Case Studies: Proof in Practice

• Venture Studio Survival & Alive Ratios

A study called Big Venture Studio Research 2024 looked at hundreds of venture studios, hybrid builders, and corporate builders. They found that hybrid venture studios (those that combine venture studio activities with things like corporate building, accelerator, VC fund) have much higher survival rates: for every studio that closes, there are ~10.86 that remain alive. Corporate builders had ~9.3:1. Pure venture studios had lower survivorship: ~4.73:1.(That means builders which diversify or bring in hybrid functions tend to reduce risk further.

• Experienced Builders vs Novice Ones

McKinsey recently published findings in “The Three Building Blocks of a Successful Venture Factory” that more experienced venture builders are about twice as likely to achieve success compared to newcomer studios. Over time, with repeat efforts, their output (in revenue in fifth year) can be 12 times higher than that of novice studios. That suggests that venture builders don’t just reduce risk by the model - they get better at reducing risk as they build more companies.

• Corporate Venture Building vs Traditional Startup Paths

An article by CreativeDock noted that corporations using venture building (internally creating new startups or spin-outs) report success rates around 66% for their ventures, far above the 20-30% or so typical for venture capital backed startups or corporate ventures without structured building. They also say that venture building-born startups achieve better IRRs (~44% higher on average) compared to traditional startups, faster transitions from seed to Series A, and earlier exits (on average under 4 years) compared to 6-7 years typical elsewhere.

Human Stories Behind the Data

Consider a venture builder that continuously launches several projects per year. With the builder model, a given project might start not with a blank page, but with a research phase. Founders test assumptions: Is there demand? Can the technology or product be built affordably? Who is competition? These early experiments expose flaws early - low demand, wrong features - so adjustments are made before major investment.

Another important case is around the “business-building muscle.” McKinsey points out that entities that build many ventures develop repeated systems: standard ways to onboard teams, validate ideas, launch MVPs, spin-outs. Over time, they make fewer rookie mistakes - less duplicated effort, fewer misfires - so each new project starts from a stronger foundation.

What Failures Are Reduced

By virtue of these mechanisms, venture builders tend to reduce risk in several specific ways:

• Team risk: builders often match people with complementary skills rather than solo founders. They bring in domain experts early.

• Market risk: they test demand, refine product-market fit before big spends.

• Execution risk: shared infrastructure and expertise mean better supply chain, legal, hiring, finance practices early.

• Timing & capital risk: because builders tend to pace investment, control burn, and have staged funding, they avoid over-extension before product is solid.

These interventions don’t eliminate risk entirely. But they shift the risk curve substantially.

Broader Trends & What Investors Are Saying

Investors in 2025 say they want a higher floor - some guarantee of minimal failure, clearer paths from concept to growth. They like models where founders aren’t isolated. Where you can see how an idea was validated, how the team was assembled. Where overhead is shared and costs are lean early.

Corporations also find benefit: many large firms are adopting corporate venture building to create new growth engines. In one survey by EY-Parthenon, nearly 45% of executives from surveyed companies reported they have launched ventures in the last five years that now generate $100 million+ in annual revenue. Venture building gives them structure to do that.

Looking Ahead: What Makes a Builder Even More Robust

The data suggests certain traits make some venture builders better at reducing risk:

• Repetition: builders who launch many ventures learn faster.

• Hybrid or diversified models: studios that also do corporate venturing, VC funds, accelerators tend to have higher survival of their ventures.

• Strong validation early: demand testing before full build.

• Deep domain or technical competence: where builders understand industry/technology well, they avoid mis-positioning or under-estimating costs.

The Next Chapter

Startups will always carry risk. That’s part of what gives them upside. But a model growing in legitimacy in 2025 is one that doesn’t treat failure as inevitable, but as something to manage. Venture builders are showing how structured support, domain expertise, shared infrastructure, and repeated experience can tilt the odds in favor of survival.

For founders thinking of starting under a builder, the message is hopeful: you don’t have to brace for failure alone. For investors, it means better early signals, stronger teams, and less wasted cost.

In a world where capital is tighter and demands are higher, venture builders are proving to be more than trend - they might be the most reliable path through the startup storm.

Comment fonctionne le modèle économique d’un Venture Studio ?

À première vue, un Venture Studio peut sembler mystérieux. Ce n’est ni tout à fait un incubateur, ni un accélérateur, ni un fonds d’investissement classique. Pourtant, il combine un peu de chacun de ces rôles, tout en ajoutant quelque chose de plus fondamental : il construit ses propres startups de l’intérieur. Alors, comment fonctionne le modèle économique de ces structures qui attirent de plus en plus d’investisseurs et de fondateurs à travers le monde ?

Pour le comprendre, il faut revenir à l’essence même du Venture Studio : sa mission est de transformer des idées en entreprises viables, en assumant une partie des risques initiaux et en mutualisant les ressources nécessaires au lancement. Mais cette promesse doit reposer sur un modèle économique robuste.

L’investissement initial : le moteur du studio

Contrairement à un fonds de capital-risque traditionnel, qui attend qu’une startup existe avant d’y investir, un Venture Studio prend l’initiative. Il commence par financer la phase zéro : la recherche d’idées, la validation des problèmes de marché, la création des premiers prototypes.

Cet investissement initial provient généralement du studio lui-même, grâce à son propre fonds ou à des partenaires financiers. Par exemple, le Venture Studio parisien Hexa (anciennementeFounders) injecte environ 800 000 € dans chaque projet dès la phase initiale. Ce capital sert à recruter une équipe fondatrice, développer un MVP (produit minimum viable) et valider les premiers retours utilisateurs. En d’autres termes, le studio prend à sa charge une étape que la plupart des startups doivent assumer seules, souvent avec des moyens limités.

Le partage d’équité : un alignement d’intérêts

L’une des spécificités du modèle économique des Venture Studios est le partage d’équité. Puisque le studio assume le risque financier et opérationnel dès le départ, il reçoit une part importante du capital de la startup en échange.

Chez Hexa, par exemple, le studio conserve environ 30 % de l’équité lorsque la startup est « spin-offée », c’est-à-dire qu’elle prend son envol comme entité indépendante. Cette part peut varier selon les studios, certains allant de 20 % à 50 % selon la taille de l’investissement initial et le niveau de ressources mises à disposition.

Ce mécanisme aligne les intérêts : le studio, les fondateurs et les investisseurs ultérieurs ont tous intérêt à ce que l’entreprise grandisse et réussisse.

Des revenus différés mais potentiellement massifs

Le modèle économique d’un Venture Studio n’est pas conçu pour générer des revenus immédiats. Contrairement à une agence de conseil qui facture ses services ou à un incubateur qui demande des frais d’entrée, un studio mise sur le long terme.

Ses revenus viennent principalement de deux sources :

1. Les exits (revente d’actions lors d’acquisitions ou d’introductions en bourse).

2. La valorisation croissante de son portefeuille à mesure que ses startups lèvent des fonds et se développent.

C’est un pari patient, mais qui peut rapporter gros. L’exemple le plus emblématique reste celui de Flagship Pioneering, un Venture Builder basé à Boston, qui a contribué à la création de Moderna. Lorsque la biotech est entrée en bourse en 2018, la valorisation a explosé, générant un retour colossal pour Flagship.

Le coût de fonctionnement : une machine bien huilée

Bien sûr, maintenir un Venture Studio implique des coûts élevés. Ces structures emploient souvent des dizaines de personnes en interne: designers, développeurs, experts en marketing, recruteurs, juristes. Ce sont eux qui fournissent les services mutualisés aux startups en construction.

Ces coûts sont couverts par le fonds du studio, parfois complété par des financements externes. En mars 2025, Hexa a ainsi levé 29 millions d’euros via un financement bancaire structuré en crédit revolving, destiné à soutenir ses activités de création et à garantir une liquidité régulière. Ce type de financement illustre bien que les studios fonctionnent comme de véritables entreprises, avec une gestion de trésorerie et une stratégie financière sophistiquées.

Une logique de portefeuille

Un Venture Studio ne mise pas sur une seule idée, mais sur un portefeuille de startups. Chaque année, il peut en lancer plusieurs, avec l’idée que toutes ne réussiront pas. Mais si une ou deux deviennent des scale-ups internationales, elles compenseront largement les échecs éventuels.

C’est ici que le modèle économique prend tout son sens : il repose sur la diversification et sur un taux de réussite supérieur à la moyenne. Selon le Global Startup Studio Network, environ 84 % des startups issues de studios réussissent à lever un seed round, et 72 % atteignent la Série A, contre environ 42 % pour les startups traditionnelles. Ces chiffres montrent que le rendement d’un portefeuille issu d’un Venture Studio est statistiquement plus élevé et plus stable.

L’intérêt croissant des investisseurs

De plus en plus de fonds traditionnels et d’investisseurs institutionnels s’intéressent aux Venture Studios. Pour eux, le modèle présente un double avantage :

• Une réduction du risque grâce à la validation précoce des projets.

• Une meilleure rentabilité potentielle grâce à la part significative du capital détenue par le studio.

Un rapport de McKinsey souligne d’ailleurs que les startups issues de Venture Builders expérimentés génèrent en moyenne 12 fois plus de revenus au bout de cinq ans que celles lancées dans un cadre classique.

Vers une industrialisation de l’innovation

En observant le modèle économique des Venture Studios, on comprend qu’il ne s’agit pas seulement d’un mode de financement alternatif. C’est une véritable industrialisation de l’entrepreneuriat. Là où les startups classiques reposent sur l’intuition d’un fondateur isolé, le Venture Studio systématise la recherche d’idées, leur validation et leur exécution.

Cette rigueur explique pourquoi tant d’investisseurs voient dans les studios un modèle du futur : ils transforment un pari incertain en une stratégie d’innovation plus prévisible.

Le prochain chapitre

Le modèle économique d’un Venture Studio est donc un pari patient : investir tôt, assumer les coûts de construction, prendre une part du capital et attendre que les pépites émergent. Cela demande des moyens, de la discipline et une vision à long terme.

Mais les chiffres parlent d’eux-mêmes : les studios produisent des startups plus solides, plus rapides à croître, et avec un risque réduit pour les investisseurs. Dans le prochain cycle d’innovation, ce modèle ne sera plus périphérique : il deviendra une infrastructure centrale de la création d’entreprises.

En fin de compte, un Venture Studio, ce n’est pas seulement une usine à startups. C’est un moteur économique où chaque idée devient une opportunité, chaque risque une expérience, et chaque succès une preuve que l’innovation peut être à la fois créative et méthodique.

Funding the Future: The Role of VCs and Sovereign Funds in Singapore’s Venture Studios

The venture studio model has redefined how startups are born. Instead of betting on lone founders, venture studios build companies from the ground up, pairing entrepreneurial talent with capital, infrastructure, and networks. But behind this model lies a critical question: who funds the future?

In Singapore, the answer increasingly comes from two powerful sources - venture capital firms and sovereign wealth funds. Together, they are shaping not just the trajectory of venture studios but the kinds of companies that will define Asia’s innovation landscape over the next decade.

Why Funding Matters in Venture Building

Traditional startups often begin with a small seed round, testing ideas with limited resources. Venture studios flip that dynamic. They require upfront investment to design infrastructure, hire operational teams, and support multiple ventures simultaneously. The model is capital-intensive, but it also increases the odds of producing sustainable startups.

This is why the involvement of venture capital (VCs) and sovereign wealth funds is so significant. They provide not only the capital but also the long-term vision needed to sustain venture studios through the uncertain early stages of building science-driven or industry-specific companies.

The Numbers Speak

In 2022, Singapore attracted more than US$11 billion in startup funding, according to Enterprise Singapore, with a growing share flowing into venture-building initiatives. The global venture studio market itself is projected to reach US$42 billion by 2027, up from around US$20 billion today, as reported by Global Startup Studio Network.

Within Singapore, sovereign wealth funds play a particularly influential role. Temasek Holdings, with assets exceeding US$287 billion, has been steadily increasing its exposure to early-stage innovation through vehicles like Xora Innovation, its venture-building arm. Meanwhile, GIC, with more than US$770 billion in assets under management, has also stepped up its participation in deeptech and sustainability-focused ventures, often co-investing alongside studios and VCs.

Case Study: Temasek and Xora Innovation

Temasek’s launch of Xora Innovation in 2019 was a milestone for Singapore’s venture building ecosystem. Xora focuses on commercializing breakthrough scientific research in fields like climate tech, healthcare, and advanced manufacturing. Unlike traditional VC, Xora doesn’t just invest - it co-builds, bringing together teams of scientists, operators, and entrepreneurs to create companies from scratch.
One example is its investment in Eavor, a geothermal technology startup developing closed-loop systems for renewable energy. By backing such ventures, Temasek shows how sovereign funds can align financial returns with global sustainability goals while anchoring these efforts in Singapore.

The Role of Venture Capital Firms

Venture capital firms, too, are leaning into the venture studio model. Global firms like Sequoia Capital and Vertex Ventures (the latter headquartered in Singapore) have backed startups emerging from studios, drawn by the de-risked nature of ventures that already have structured support and validation.

Antler, one of the world’s most prominent venture builders with a major base in Singapore, has partnered with VCs to scale its portfolio. Since its launch, Antler Singapore has created more than 100 startups, many of which have raised follow-on capital from leading VCs. This collaboration demonstrates a virtuous cycle: studios generate investable companies, while VCs provide the growth capital to scale them globally.

Why Sovereign Funds Matter More in Singapore

Singapore’s sovereign wealth funds bring something that private VCs alone cannot - patient capital. DeepTech, climate, and biotech startups often take years to become commercially viable. Sovereign funds like Temasek and GIC are uniquely positioned to absorb these long timelines while maintaining conviction in long-term returns.

Moreover, their participation signals confidence to the market. When a sovereign fund co-invests in a venture, it often catalyzes additional investment from global VCs, corporates, and even governments. This multiplier effect strengthens the ecosystem and accelerates the scale-up of ventures born in Singapore’s studios.

Singapore as a Regional Magnet for Capital

The presence of sovereign wealth funds also amplifies Singapore’s role as a capital hub for Southeast Asia. With over 650 million people, Southeast Asia represents one of the world’s fastest-growing digital economies, projected by Google and Temasek to reach US$330 billion by 2025. By anchoring venture studios in Singapore and funding them with sovereign-backed capital, the city-state effectively positions itself as the launchpad for ventures targeting this massive market.

The Challenges Ahead

While the alignment of VCs and sovereign funds has fueled the rise of Singapore’s venture studios, challenges remain. Venture building is resource-heavy, and not all studios will survive. There is also the question of focus: should capital prioritize moonshot DeepTech ventures with global ambitions, or scalable consumer-tech plays better suited for regional adoption?

Striking the right balance will be key. Too much emphasis on short-term gains risks diluting the transformative potential of venture building. Too much focus on moonshots without market validation risks creating science projects that never scale.

Looking Ahead: Funding the Next Decade

What’s clear is that the combination of VCs and sovereign wealth funds gives Singapore’s venture studios a uniquely powerful advantage. Venture capital brings agility and global networks, while sovereign funds provide stability and patience. Together, they create an ecosystem capable of nurturing bold ideas through the long road from concept to commercial success.

In the next decade, expect to see more sovereign-VC partnerships in Singapore’s venture building space, particularly in fields like climate tech, AI, and advanced manufacturing. These are areas where global challenges intersect with Singapore’s ambition to lead in innovation.

For founders, the message is clear: in Singapore, you don’t just get access to capital - you get access to aligned capital, designed to see you through the toughest years of building. For investors, the takeaway is equally strong: if you want exposure to the next generation of high-impact ventures in Asia, Singapore’s venture studios are where the story begins.

How to Structure a Cap Table When Building with a Studio

In the fast-evolving world of startups, Venture Studios are becoming a powerful model for company building. Unlike accelerators or incubators, studios co-create startups from the ground up, offering resources, teams, and capital in exchange for equity. As more founders choose to build with studios, one question consistently emerges: how should the cap table be structured?

A well-balanced cap table (short for capitalization table) is not just about equity allocation, it’s a reflection of trust, clarity, and shared incentives between founders, studios, and future investors. In this article, we break down how to approach cap table structuring when launching a startup within a venture studio model.

Understanding the Studio-Startup Relationship

Venture studios usually initiate the idea, assemble the initial team, and contribute significant capital, operational support, and strategic guidance. As such, their role is much deeper than that of a passive investor. Their equity share often reflects this heavier involvement in the early stages.

Startups built with studios typically go through the following early stages:

1. Ideation & Validation – The studio identifies a market gap and develops a viable solution.

2. Team Formation – A founding team is recruited, often led by the studio.

3. MVP Development – Resources like engineering, legal, and marketing are provided.

4. Spinout & Fundraising – Once validated, the startup spins out and raises external capital.

Each of these stages affects the cap table, especially how equity is allocated between the studio, founders, and early team members.

Common Cap Table Structures in Studio Models

Although there’s no one-size-fits-all formula, most cap tables in studio-born startups follow a similar pattern during the spin-out phase:

1. Studio Equity (20%–60%)

Studios generally take a larger equity stake than a traditional investor due to their active role in the company’s creation. This stake typically ranges between 30% and 50%, depending on how much the studio contributed in terms of capital, resources, and risk.

Some models may go as high as 60% in early concept-phase startups, especially where the studio also provides the CEO or core leadership team. Over time, as the startup raises capital and scales, the studio’s ownership usually dilutes.

2. Founding Team Equity (20%–50%)

Founders joining a studio venture may receive 20% to 40% equity, depending on when they join and what responsibilities they take on. A technical co-founder joining post-MVP might receive less equity than one who joins at the ideation stage.

Founders often receive their equity through a vesting schedule, commonly over four years with a one-year cliff, aligning long-term commitment with ownership.

3. Employee Option Pool (10%–15%)

Like any startup, those born from studios need to attract and retain top talent. An option pool—typically 10% to 15% of the cap table, is reserved for employees, especially during the first fundraising round.

Early hires may receive larger chunks from this pool, particularly if they are taking on key operational or product roles in the earliest stages.

4. Investor Equity (5%–30%)

If the startup raises a pre-seed or seed round soon after spinning out of the studio, the new investors’ equity will also need to be accounted for. Early-stage VCs or angel investors may take 5% to 20% depending on the round size and valuation.

This dilutes all existing shareholders, including the studio and founders. Planning for this early ensures the cap table remains fair and balanced post-investment.

Best Practices for Cap Table Planning

● Model Scenarios Early

Before finalizing equity splits, it’s crucial to model various scenarios: What happens if you raise multiple rounds? What if key founders leave early? Having these projections gives clarity and avoids surprises.

● Align Equity with Value Added

The cap table should reflect the actual value contributed. A studio that provides engineers, designers, and growth experts deserves a larger stake than one offering only desk space and mentorship. Likewise, founders driving product and sales should be fairly compensated.

● Use Vesting and Cliff Periods

To ensure long-term commitment, both studios and founders often use vesting schedules. A typical 4-year vesting with a 1-year cliff protects the company from early departures and ensures equity is earned over time.

● Create Clear Operating Agreements

Equity is only one part of the relationship. Make sure legal documents (like operating agreements, term sheets, and founder agreements) clearly outline roles, responsibilities, and equity terms. Transparency builds trust.

How to Think About Studio Involvement Over Time

One unique aspect of cap tables in studio-led startups is the evolving role of the studio. In early stages, the studio is hands-on. But as the founding team grows, external funding is raised, and operations scale, the studio often steps back.

Some studios gradually reduce involvement or maintain board-level influence. This transition should be planned in advance and reflected in vesting or advisory agreements.

Conclusion

Structuring a cap table with a venture studio requires balancing contributions, expectations, and future growth potential. While studios may take a significant early stake, the cap table must remain attractive for future investors and fair to founders who take on operational leadership. By modeling scenarios, aligning value with equity, and using legal clarity, startups can ensure their cap table empowers, not hinders, their long-term success.

As venture studios continue reshaping how startups are born, a thoughtful approach to equity is essential. A well-structured cap table is not just a spreadsheet, it’s a roadmap for shared ownership, mutual accountability, and startup resilience.

Why Corporates Are Launching Their Own Venture Studios

In today’s fast-paced innovation landscape, large corporations are realizing that traditional R&D methods are no longer sufficient to keep up with disruptive startups. As a result, many are turning to venture studios, a powerful model that combines capital, strategic support, and entrepreneurial talent to build new businesses from scratch. But why exactly are corporates launching their own venture studios, and what outcomes are they expecting?

Let’s explore how this shift is reshaping corporate innovation across Europe and beyond. 

What Is a Corporate Venture Studio?

A corporate venture studio (CVS) is an in-house or partnered entity that helps corporates build and launch startups aligned with their long-term strategic goals. Unlike accelerators or incubators that support external founders, a CVS usually creates startups internally, recruits entrepreneurs, and co-owns the ventures.

By leveraging internal resources (capital, data, customer base, infrastructure) and combining them with startup speed and culture, venture studios give corporates a faster, more agile way to explore new markets, technologies, and business models.

Why the Shift to Venture Studios?

Here are five key reasons why corporates are launching venture studios:

1. Faster Innovation Cycles

Corporates typically suffer from bureaucracy and slow decision-making. Venture studios allow them to test and launch ideas in months, not years. Studios build multiple MVPs (minimum viable products), iterate quickly, and kill bad ideas early, much like startups.

This agile experimentation drastically reduces time-to-market and enables corporates to stay ahead of disruptors.

2. Strategic Diversification

Many industries, from insurance and banking to manufacturing and healthcare, are undergoing digital disruption. Corporates can’t afford to stand still. Launching a studio lets them diversify their business models and experiment with innovations outside of their core business, all while maintaining ownership and oversight.

3. Access to Entrepreneurial Talent

Attracting and retaining top entrepreneurial talent within a corporation is notoriously difficult. But a venture studio structure is appealing to founders who want to build, scale, and exit without starting completely from scratch. Corporates are using studios to recruit founders-in-residence, giving them equity, autonomy, and a clear runway to build new ventures.

4. De-risked Corporate Innovation

Studios are designed to fail fast and cheap. Instead of risking millions on a single product that may not fit the market, corporates can spread risk across multiple experiments. When one venture succeeds, it can produce significant ROI. If others fail, they offer learning at a much lower cost than failed internal projects.

This portfolio approach is much more efficient than traditional R&D or M&A strategies.

5. IP Ownership and Strategic Alignment

Unlike investing in external startups or using accelerators, a corporate venture studio allows the parent company to retain full or partial ownership of IP, build ventures that complement their core operations, and align innovation with long-term strategy. This gives them better control over growth areas and exit options.

Real-World Examples of Corporate Venture Studios

Across Europe and globally, several corporates have launched successful venture studios:

• Allianz X (Germany) – A venture arm of Allianz, focused on building and investing in startups in insurtech and beyond.

• Engie Factory (France) – The venture studio of energy giant Engie, which co-creates cleantech startups.

• BCG Digital Ventures (Global) – Although not a corporate itself, BCGDV partners with corporates to co-found and scale ventures that fit their strategic needs.

• Bosch Startup Harbour (Germany) – Focuses on IoT and connected products that can extend Bosch’s innovation capabilities.

• Telefonica Alpha (Spain) – Launched by telecom firm Telefonica to build moonshot tech companies.

These studios often have dedicated teams of product managers, engineers, marketers, and venture architects who operate semi-independently but are strategically aligned with the parent company’s goals.

How Corporate Venture Studios Work

The typical CVS model includes the following steps:

1. Opportunity Identification: Studios analyze trends, gaps, and strategic goals to define promising venture ideas.

2. Venture Design: Teams prototype business models, develop MVPs, and test market traction.

3. Recruitment of Founders: Studios bring in experienced operators or domain experts to lead the startup.

4. Funding & Incubation: The corporate funds the startup’s early stages and provides access to distribution channels, customers, and infrastructure.

5. Spin-Out or Integration: If successful, the startup can either become a standalone company (with shared equity) or be integrated back into the corporate entity.

Common Challenges

Despite the potential, corporate venture studios face some pitfalls:

• Cultural Clashes: Corporate risk-aversion can conflict with the startup mentality.

• Decision-Making Bottlenecks: Too much red tape can slow progress.

• Talent Drain: Retaining entrepreneurial talent after a spin-out can be tough.

• Unclear Exit Plans: Without a clear commercialization or M&A strategy, studios risk building “zombie” startups that don’t scale.

That’s why successful studios build strong governance, KPIs, and incentives from the beginning.

Final Thought

As markets continue to evolve and competition intensifies, corporates can no longer rely solely on internal R&D or passive venture investments. Launching a venture studio offers a powerful way to own the innovation process, unlock new revenue streams, and drive cultural transformation.

For corporates serious about long-term growth, building a venture studio is no longer a luxury, it’s a strategic necessity.

Studio vs Accelerator: Which Model Drives Better Founder Outcomes?

In the fast-evolving startup ecosystem, founders face a fundamental question: Should I launch my startup through a venture studio or an accelerator? Both models offer unique advantages, but they cater to different founder profiles and startup stages.

This article explores the key differences between venture studios and accelerators, and which model ultimately delivers better outcomes for founders.

What Is a Venture Studio?

also known as a startup studio, company builder, or venture builder, is an organization that ideates, builds, and launches startups internally. Unlike accelerators that assist external startups, venture studios create their own concepts in-house, test them for market fit, and then recruit co-founders or CEOs to lead these ventures.

Key characteristics of venture studios include:

• Idea Generation: Studios develop startup ideas internally, based on market gaps, trends, and research.

• Validation: These ideas are tested and refined before any company is formally created.

• Founder Recruitment: Once the idea is validated, the studio brings on founders to execute and scale the startup.

• Infrastructure and Capital: The venture studio provides initial funding, legal support, design, product, HR, and technology resources, removing much of the early operational burden from founders.

This model allows founders to focus purely on execution with much less risk. Instead of starting from zero, they’re stepping into a machine that’s already moving, with a pre-validated idea, seed capital, and expert support.

What Is an Accelerator?

A startup accelerator supports early-stage companies through fixed-term programs that typically last between three and six months. Unlike venture studios, accelerators work with startups that already exist and have a founding team in place.

Features of accelerators include:

• Founders Apply With Their Own Idea or MVP: Startups need to be at the idea or product stage to be considered.

• Mentorship and Training: Accelerators offer guidance through workshops, networking, and mentor matching.

• Seed Funding: Participating startups receive small amounts of funding (e.g., $100K–$150K) in exchange for equity.

• Demo Day and Investor Access: At the end of the program, startups pitch to investors for future funding rounds.

Well-known examples include Y Combinator, Techstars, and 500 Startups. These programs often boost visibility and credibility, opening doors to venture capital and strategic partnerships.

Key Differences

Which Drives Better Founder Outcomes?

  For First-Time Founders: Venture Studios

Venture studios de-risk entrepreneurship. Founders join validated projects with funding, a support team, and a clear go-to-market strategy. This is ideal for:

• Domain experts (e.g., engineers, marketers) new to startups

• Entrepreneurs who want operational backing

• Those who prefer execution over ideation

 Example: Antler and eFounders in Europe have helped dozens of first-time founders build multi-million-dollar SaaS and fintech companies with minimal prior startup experience.

For Experienced Founders: Accelerators

Accelerators work best for founders who:

• Already have a clear idea or MVP

• Seek exposure, mentorship, and network effects

• Can leverage the accelerator’s brand to raise funding

Accelerators can supercharge momentum and lead to large seed or Series A rounds, especially in hot sectors like AI and fintech.

Example:Flutterwave (a leading African fintech unicorn) emerged from the Y Combinator accelerator and rapidly scaled after launch.

A Hybrid Approach?

Some founders even benefit from a hybrid approach: building with a studio, then joining an accelerator to scale and raise capital. As startup ecosystems mature, the lines between the two models are beginning to blur.

Final Thoughts

Both venture studios and accelerators have their place in the startup journey. The key is knowing your stage, strengths, and support needs.

If you need structure, capital, and deep operational support, studios are the way to go.
If you already have traction and seek funding and connections, accelerators will help you scale faster.

The best model for founders depends on their experience, the idea stage, and the kind of startup they want to build.

How Venture Studios Are Redefining Early-Stage Investment in Europe

In recent years, the European startup ecosystem has witnessed a quiet revolution,one led not by individual entrepreneurs or traditional venture capitalists, but by venture studios. Also known as startup studios, company builders, or venture builders, these organizations are fundamentally transforming how startups are launched, scaled, and funded.

From Berlin to Stockholm, venture studios are redefining early-stage investment by creating startups from scratch, combining operational expertise, in-house resources, and capital, and this model is gaining significant momentum across Europe.

What Is a Venture Studio?

A venture studio is a company that creates new startups. Unlike accelerators or incubators that support existing startups, venture studios build their own ventures. They identify business opportunities internally, develop prototypes, and assemble teams to lead the new companies.

They typically provide:

• Business ideas

• Early-stage funding

• Design and development resources

• Marketing and go-to-market strategies

• Recruitment of founding teams

The goal is to reduce startup risk and increase the chances of success by providing hands-on support from day one.

The Rise of Venture Studios in Europe

While the model originated in the U.S. (with pioneers like Idealab and Rocket Internet), Europe has rapidly embraced the venture studio approach, adapting it to local contexts.

Some notable venture studios in Europe include:

• Founders Factory (UK)

• Antler (Pan-European)

• eFounders (France & Belgium)

• Zebra Labs (Germany)

• Rainmaking (Denmark)

The rise of these studios aligns with Europe's growing appetite for innovation, digital transformation, and scalable tech-driven solutions,particularly in sectors like fintech, insurtech, and AI.

Why Venture Studios Are Gaining Ground

1. De-risking Early-Stage Investment

Traditional early-stage investment is risky. Many startups fail due to team mismatches, lack of product-market fit, or execution issues. Venture studios address these challenges by:

• Carefully selecting problems worth solving

• Testing ideas before significant capital is deployed

• Bringing in proven operational teams

• Providing institutional knowledge and repeatable processes

This de-risks early-stage investment, making it more attractive for investors who want exposure to innovation without shouldering all the volatility.

2. Combining Capital and Execution

Venture studios provide more than just money, they bring in execution. Studios typically invest capital alongside deep operational support in product development, marketing, legal, and hiring.

3. Faster Time-to-Market

With in-house resources and processes, studios can launch startups in months rather than years. Time is money in the startup world , and venture studios know how to save both.

4. Stronger Founder Matches

Studios recruit and match founders to ideas after validating those ideas. This approach ensures founders work on something with traction, not just personal passion. It increases the likelihood of founder-market fit.

Case Studies: Success Stories from European Venture Studios

eFounders: Reinventing the Future of Work

Paris-based eFounders has launched over 30 companies in the SaaS space, including:

• Spendesk – a corporate expense management platform

• Front – a shared inbox for teams

• Aircall – cloud-based phone systems

With a portfolio now valued at over $2 billion, eFounders is a prime example of how studios can build repeatable, scalable, and high-value businesses.

Founders Factory: Partnering with Corporates

Founders Factory, headquartered in London, takes a collaborative approach by partnering with corporates like Aviva, L’Oréal, and easyJet to co-create new ventures. This model blends industry expertise with startup agility, resulting in better distribution and exit opportunities.

Challenges for the Venture Studio Model

While the benefits are significant, venture studios also face key challenges:

1. High Operational Costs – Running a studio with multiple teams, developers, and resources is expensive.

2. Talent Bottlenecks – Finding experienced, entrepreneurial founders is not easy, especially for niche industries.

3. Ownership Structures – Studios often retain significant equity in startups they build, which can sometimes discourage later-stage investors or founders.

4. Scalability Issues – Unlike VCs who can deploy capital across dozens of deals, studios require hands-on involvement, making scaling slower.

Yet, many of these challenges are being overcome with better models, diversified funding sources, and growing demand for startup building.

The Future: What’s Next for Venture Studios in Europe?

The next decade looks bright for venture studios in Europe.

1. Niche Studios Will Emerge

Expect to see industry-specific venture studios in areas like:

• HealthTech

• ClimateTech

• InsurTech

• Food and Agriculture

These studios will leverage sector expertise and regulatory knowledge to build highly targeted solutions.

2. More Corporate-Backed Studios

Corporations looking to innovate outside their core business are increasingly turning to studios. This trend will grow as legacy firms in banking, insurance, and logistics face digital disruption.

3. Studio-VC Hybrids

Some studios are evolving into studio-VC hybrids, combining the company-building model with traditional fund investing. This allows them to back external founders while still building in-house ventures.

4. More Government and EU Support

As European governments continue to promote entrepreneurship and innovation, expect more support for venture studios via grants, incubator partnerships, and regulatory incentives.

Final Thoughts

Venture studios represent a powerful shift in how startups are built and funded in Europe. By reducing risk, providing hands-on support, and accelerating time-to-market, they are making early-stage investing more efficient and effective.

As innovation becomes a priority across sectors, and the demand for high-quality startups continues to rise, venture studios are well-positioned to become a central pillar of Europe’s startup ecosystem.

Why Do Venture Studios Attract Investors?

Methodology: Understanding Investor Interest Through Models, Outcomes, and Market Signals

This article is based on an analysis of venture studio performance data, institutional investor trends, and commentary from founders and fund managers across Europe and the U.S. It examines why LPs and corporate partners are increasingly backing the venture studio model, and how it aligns with capital-efficient innovation and risk mitigation.

In Brief: What’s Driving Interest?

• Venture studios reduce startup risk through internal ideation, shared operations, and early product-market fit support.

• Investors are drawn to the repeatable nature of the studio model and its portfolio optionality.

• Studios often deliver higher ownership stakes, clearer paths to scale, and shorter time to value realization.

• The model aligns well with corporate innovation strategies and emerging markets.

• Studio economics are evolving to appeal to both traditional LPs and hybrid backers.

The Studio Model Offers a More Controlled Startup Building Process

Unlike traditional VCs that back external founders, venture studios originate and launch companies in-house, providing founding teams, initial capital, and operational resources. From day one, the studio has owned a significant equity position and maintains strategic oversight.

For investors, this structure reduces early-stage chaos. Ideas are pressure-tested before teams are formed. Hiring, product development, and GTM are handled with experienced operators.

This disciplined approach to entrepreneurship improves the odds of success and makes capital deployment more predictable.

Portfolio Construction: More Shots on Goal, Less Waste

Venture studios are built for portfolio logic. Instead of betting big on a single founder or product, they launch multiple companies in parallel, iterate fast, and shut down underperformers early.

For investors, this reduces downside risk. Studios can reallocate capital, reuse talent, and recycle insights across ventures. A single studio may create 10–20 startups over a few years, all from a shared knowledge base and infrastructure.

This portfolio optionality is appealing to LPs looking for high upside with downside protection.

Ownership and Exit Potential Are More Attractive

Because studios are co-founders, they often retain 25–50% equity stakes in their startups at launch, significantly higher than typical VC-backed models.

This concentrated ownership means that when a studio-backed company succeeds, the returns are larger and more direct. For investors in the studio itself, this structure translates into more meaningful exit participation per win.

Moreover, studios often guide startups to exit-readiness faster. With shared legal, hiring, and product resources, time-to-Series A (and beyond) is compressed.

Alignment with Corporate and Institutional Capital

Studios are also uniquely suited for corporate venture partnerships and family office co-building.

Corporates like the model because it offers them a front-row seat to innovation without the risk of internal R&D. For family offices, studios provide a way to co-create meaningful, values-aligned businesses without needing to incubate from scratch.

The model’s transparency, governance, and strategy-first approach make it easier to manage risk while fostering long-term engagement.

Studios Are Building in Emerging and Underserved Markets

Studios are increasingly being used to catalyze innovation in emerging markets, where capital is scarce but talent is abundant.

By controlling startup formation centrally, studios reduce the operational risk of building in fragmented or early ecosystems. They also attract LPs interested in impact investing, climate solutions, and regional development without sacrificing returns.

This makes the model a compelling vehicle for mission-aligned funds, development finance, and global innovation networks.

Final Thought: Studios Offer a New Kind of Investor Alignment

The rise of venture studios isn’t just about better startup outcomes. It’s about better alignment between capital, creators, and customers.

Studios combine the creativity of entrepreneurship with the structure of private equity. For investors, this means fewer surprises, more visibility, and a clearer path from idea to exit.

As more LPs rethink how they allocate to early-stage innovation, the venture studio model will continue to gain traction not as a trend, but as a tool for sustainable, scalable company building.

Venture Studio vs. Incubator vs. VC Fund: What Are the Differences?

In the startup world, founders have more pathways than ever to launch and grow their businesses. Venture studios, incubators, and VC funds are some of the most common models, but they’re often confused. Each plays a different role in a startup’s journey, and understanding how they work can help you choose the right support at the right time.

After reviewing real-world examples, startup reports, and founder experiences, this article breaks down how each model works, how they differ, and when they are most useful.

Venture Studios Create Startups From Scratch

Venture studios don’t wait for external founders to pitch them ideas. Instead, they come up with startup concepts internally and build them in-house. The studio handles early research, product development, branding, and even hires founding team members.

The goal is to create multiple startups each year, test them quickly, and scale the most promising ones. Studios usually retain a large share of equity in the companies they build and stay involved long term. This model offers strong support but less ownership for incoming founders.

Example: Atomic is a top venture studio that co-founded companies like Hims and Bungalow. It provides full support, from engineering to legal, giving startups a strong foundation.

Venture studios are still relatively new compared to incubators and VC funds. Globally, there are estimated to be 500–700 venture studios, while there are thousands of VC funds and incubators. This model shows how investors are moving earlier into the startup lifecycle, often building startups from scratch so that investment and company creation happen simultaneously. Venture studios also reflect a growing trend of investors getting involved earlier in the innovation process, from the ideation phase onward. Unlike traditional VC funds that invest after a product or business model is validated, venture studios combine capital and company creation at the same time. This trend shows how the line between ‘builder’ and ‘investor’ is increasingly blurred.

Incubators Help Early-Stage Founders Shape Their Ideas

Incubators are designed for individuals or teams that already have a startup idea and need help turning it into a viable business. They typically offer mentorship, training sessions, office space, and sometimes small amounts of seed funding.

Most incubators run structured programs that last a few months. Founders join a cohort, attend workshops, get access to experienced mentors, and leave with a more developed product and pitch. The equity taken is usually minimal, and the focus is more on growth than ownership.

Example: The Founder Institute helps first-time founders get started by providing a step-by-step curriculum, access to a network of mentors, and feedback from experienced entrepreneurs.

VC Funds Invest in Startups That Are Ready to Grow

Venture capital funds work differently. They invest money into startups that already have a product, some traction, or a proven business model. VC funds are made up of pooled capital from outside investors called Limited Partners (LPs), and they typically take minority ownership in startups.

VCs don't build startups or run structured programs. Instead, they provide funding, advice, and connections to help companies grow faster. Founders usually seek out VC funding when they need to scale operations, expand into new markets, or hire aggressively.

Example: Andreessen Horowitz is a leading VC firm that has invested in companies like Airbnb and Coinbase. It provides both capital and high-level strategic support.

Key Differences Between Venture Studios, Incubators, and VC Funds

When they get involved:

• Venture studios come in at the idea stage. They build startups from zero, often without an external founder involved at first.

• Incubators support startups that are just beginning and need help shaping their ideas.

• VC funds invest in startups that are already operating and need capital to grow.

How they operate:

• Venture studios act like co-founders. They are deeply involved in building the company and typically stay long term.

• Incubators act as mentors and program hosts. They guide founders through the early stages but usually step back after the program ends.

• VC funds act as investors. They fund startups, join boards, and provide access to additional resources.

What they offer:

• Venture studios provide internal resources, team members, capital, and strategic direction.

• Incubators offer mentorship, training, and sometimes small funding or services.

• VC funds offer larger amounts of capital and help with scaling strategies, fundraising, and hiring.

Equity expectations:

• Venture studios usually take a significant equity stake, often ranging from 30 to 80 percent depending on how much they contribute.

• Incubators take a small equity stake, often around 5 to 10 percent.

• VC funds typically take between 10 to 30 percent, depending on the round and valuation.

Which Model Is Right for You?

The right model depends on where you are in your startup journey.

If you want to build a company but don't yet have an idea or team, a venture studio could be your best option. You’ll get full support, but you’ll share more equity.

If you have a startup idea but need help turning it into something real, an incubator is a great choice. You'll learn, build, and grow with peers, while keeping most of your ownership.

If your product is live and you're looking for funding to expand, a VC fund is the natural next step. You’ll raise larger sums in exchange for equity and get access to high-level strategic support.

Final Thoughts

Venture studios, incubators, and VC funds all aim to build successful startups, but they approach that goal in very different ways. Choosing the right one depends on your stage, goals, and how much ownership or involvement you’re willing to trade for support.

For founders who understand these differences, the startup journey becomes clearer and more strategic, and the chances of building something meaningful increase significantly. As more investors move upstream, the choice of partner; whether studio, incubator, or VC, is more strategic than ever.

Les KPIs clés pour mesurer la performance d’un venture studio

Les venture studios gagnent du terrain dans l’écosystème entrepreneurial, en créant des startups de manière itérative et structurée. Contrairement aux fonds d’investissement ou aux incubateurs, leur modèle repose sur la création interne d’entreprises. Un studio n’est pas qu’une machine à startups, c’est aussi un acteur de transformation. Mais comment mesurer leur réussite ? Quels indicateurs permettent d’évaluer leur performance au-delà des simples sorties financières ?

Dans cet article, nous explorons les principaux KPIs (indicateurs clés de performance) qui permettent de suivre et d’analyser l’efficacité d’un venture studio.

Le taux de création de startups est un indicateur fondamental

Un premier KPI essentiel est le nombre de startups créées sur une période donnée (souvent annuelle). Ce chiffre reflète la capacité du studio à générer, valider et transformer des idées en projets réels.

Il ne s’agit pas seulement de quantité. Le ratio entre idées explorées et startups réellement lancées permet de mesurer l'efficacité du processus de validation en amont.

Le taux de survie des startups montre la solidité du modèle

Créer une startup, c’est bien. Mais assurer sa survie dans les 12 à 36 mois, c’est mieux. Le taux de survie mesure le pourcentage de startups du studio toujours actives après une période définie. Il témoigne de la qualité de l’accompagnement, de la pertinence du produit, et de l’adéquation au marché.

Un bon venture studio ne se contente pas de lancer des projets : il les structure pour qu’ils tiennent la route.

La vitesse de mise sur le marché reflète l’agilité du studio

L’un des grands atouts des venture studios est leur capacité à aller vite. Le time-to-market — soit le temps entre l’idéation et le lancement public du produit — est un KPI clé.

Un cycle de développement court indique que le studio sait mobiliser ses ressources (design, produit, développement, juridique) pour accélérer la croissance des projets.

Les levées de fonds externes mesurent l’attractivité des projets

Lorsque les startups issues d’un studio réussissent à lever des fonds externes, cela valide non seulement leur potentiel, mais aussi la crédibilité du studio aux yeux des investisseurs.

Le montant levé, le nombre de tours de financement réussis, et la qualité des investisseurs impliqués sont autant d’indicateurs de la valeur créée par le studio.

Le retour sur investissement global reste un KPI incontournable

Même si les studios ne fonctionnent pas comme des fonds VC classiques, ils doivent générer un retour sur investissement (ROI) à long terme. Cela peut inclure les exits (reventes), les dividendes perçus, ou encore l’augmentation de la valorisation du portefeuille global.

Ce KPI est souvent analysé sur un horizon de 5 à 10 ans, le temps que les startups atteignent leur maturité.

L’efficacité opérationnelle interne fait aussi la différence

Au-delà des performances des startups, la productivité de l’équipe du studio est aussi un KPI à suivre. Combien de projets un chef de produit ou un développeur peut-il gérer par an ? Le coût moyen par startup créée est-il optimisé ? Ces données permettent de piloter le modèle comme une entreprise à part entière.

Le réseau d’experts et de talents est un levier stratégique

Enfin, un KPI souvent sous-estimé concerne le réseau activé par le studio. Cela inclut les fondateurs recrutés, les experts impliqués, les partenariats industriels ou commerciaux. La richesse et la diversité de cet écosystème renforcent l’effet de levier du studio.

Un studio performant attire des talents de qualité, mobilise des mentors engagés et crée des synergies entre les startups.

L’impact sectoriel ou thématique : un KPI à considérer

Certains venture studios choisissent de se spécialiser dans des secteurs clés comme la santé, le climat, ou la tech sociale. Dans ce cas, il peut être pertinent de mesurer leur influence spécifique sur ces écosystèmes, par exemple à travers le nombre de brevets déposés, les partenariats noués avec des grands groupes industriels, ou encore leur contribution à la transition numérique ou écologique. 

Conclusion : mesurer, c’est piloter

La performance d’un venture studio ne se mesure pas uniquement à travers les succès visibles. Derrière chaque startup lancée, il y a des processus, des paris, des ajustements. En suivant des KPIs adaptés, à la fois quantitatifs et qualitatifs — les studios peuvent affiner leur stratégie, prouver leur impact, et construire un modèle durable.

Dans un écosystème en constante évolution, les venture studios qui savent se mesurer sont ceux qui savent durer.

Corporate Venture Building : un levier stratégique pour les conseils d’administration

À l’ère du digital, la survie des grandes entreprises dépend de leur capacité à innover rapidement. Alors que l'espérance de vie moyenne d'une entreprise est passée de 90 ans en 1935 à un peu plus de 10 ans aujourd’hui, les conseils d’administration doivent désormais jouer un rôle actif dans la transformation de leurs organisations.

Le Corporate Venture Building : une réponse stratégique

Le Corporate Venture Building (CVB) s’impose comme un levier stratégique puissant pour créer de nouvelles sources de revenus tout en renforçant la résilience de l’entreprise. Ce modèle hybride permet de :

• Tirer parti des actifs internes (clients, données, expertise sectorielle…)

• Reproduire l’agilité des start-ups

• Réduire les risques tout en accélérant l’innovation

Selon les experts, les entreprises qui adoptent ce modèle peuvent multiplier par 14 leurs chances de bâtir un business à forte croissance par rapport aux start-ups classiques.

🎯 4 leviers clés pour réussir un programme de Corporate Venture Building

Fixer des objectifs clairs et ambitieux

Définir une vision long terme, des axes de développement prioritaires, et des indicateurs de performance (OKR) est essentiel. Le conseil d’administration doit aussi statuer tôt sur la stratégie : spin-in (intégration au cœur de l’entreprise) ou spin-out (filiale autonome).

Adopter une logique de portefeuille et de financement progressif

Plutôt que de miser sur un seul projet, les entreprises les plus performantes adoptent une approche portefeuille, avec des décisions d’investissement basées sur des étapes clés (stage-gates). Cela permet d'optimiser le capital investi tout en réduisant les risques.

Mettre en place une gouvernance agile

L’un des freins majeurs à l’innovation est la lenteur des processus décisionnels. Pour réussir, il faut donner aux équipes une réelle autonomie, instaurer un cadre clair, et s’inspirer des meilleures pratiques des fonds de capital-risque.

Attirer et fidéliser les meilleurs talents entrepreneuriaux

Le succès d’un corporate venture repose sur ses fondateurs. Il faut savoir attirer des profils entrepreneurs/intrapreneurs et mettre en place des systèmes d’incentives inspirés des start-ups (participations, phantom shares, autonomie stratégique…).

📌 Leçons du terrain : le cas Axiata Digital

Le groupe télécom Axiata a lancé son programme de CVB en 2014. Résultat : des filiales comme Boost (wallet), ADA (data & marketing) ou Aspirasi (micro-financement) ont levé plus de 100 millions de dollars et généré des relais de croissance majeurs.

Leur recette du succès ?
👉 Une gouvernance claire, un capital dédié, des équipes autonomes, et une approche rigoureuse du portefeuille.

✅Pourquoi les conseils d’administration doivent s’impliquer dès aujourd’hui

Dans un monde où l’innovation est une question de survie, les conseils d’administration doivent :

• Challenger la vision long terme

• Soutenir l’investissement dans des projets disruptifs

• Créer un environnement favorable à l’expérimentation et à la prise de risque contrôlée

Le Corporate Venture Building est bien plus qu’un buzzword. C’est une stratégie d’innovation structurée, mesurable et scalable, capable de transformer en profondeur les modèles économiques.

How Bending Spoons is Rebuilding Digital Classics: A Blueprint for European Innovation Powerhouses

Case Study: Exploration into Bending Spoons’ Acquisition Strategy and Product-Led Growth Model

This case study draws from verified public sources, press coverage, product updates, and leadership statements surrounding Bending Spoons’ acquisition of Evernote and other well-known consumer apps. The analysis highlights strategic patterns, core principles, and actionable insights for ecosystem builders, founders, and digital product operators exploring innovation through acquisition.

In Brief: What You’ll Learn

• Bending Spoons is a Milan-based tech company building world-class digital products through strategic acquisitions and operational excellence.

• In 2023, it acquired Evernote, one of the most recognizable productivity apps, and has since rebuilt it from the ground up.

• Its model combines deep product expertise with centralized operational infrastructure.

• The company manages a portfolio of widely-used apps like Remini and Splice, reaching over 200 million monthly users.

• This case offers a proven roadmap for scaling software companies through bold acquisitions and thoughtful integration.

---

Bending Spoons quietly built one of Europe’s most downloaded app portfolios, then acquired Evernote

Founded in 2013 and headquartered in Milan, Bending Spoons spent years outside the spotlight building a portfolio of globally used mobile applications. Known for hits like Remini (AI photo enhancement), Splice (video editing), and 30 Day Fitness, the company had become a quiet juggernaut in the consumer tech world.

Then, in late 2022, Bending Spoons made a bold move: it acquired Evernote, the note-taking pioneer that helped define modern productivity. The acquisition was completed in early 2023, marking a turning point, not just for Evernote, but for Bending Spoons’ position in global tech..

It acquired Evernote to reimagine a product millions still rely on

By the time of acquisition, Evernote was no longer top of mind for many users. Once a category-defining app, it had suffered from technical issues, lagging updates, and rising competition from Notion, OneNote, and others.

Bending Spoons didn’t see a legacy product; they saw a foundation worth rebuilding. They immediately began reengineering Evernote’s infrastructure, launching performance upgrades and revamping the user experience. It wasn’t a brand reboot, it was a full product overhaul aimed at returning Evernote to form.

Bending Spoons combines product obsession with an operator-first model

What sets Bending Spoons apart is its ability to operate like a modern tech company and a disciplined acquisition firm all in one.

Its Milan-based team is engineering-led, product-centric, and deeply analytical. When it acquires a product, it doesn’t just rebrand or bundle it reinvests. From core code to monetization mechanics, the company takes ownership of every layer. It centralizes operations, HR, marketing, and infrastructure, to allow product teams to focus.

It’s this blend of operational control and creative freedom that has made it possible to run multiple high-performing apps with small, efficient teams.

Evernote was just one move in a bigger playbook, and more are coming

The Evernote acquisition wasn’t a one-off bet. It was part of a larger strategy. Bending Spoons now manages a portfolio with more than a dozen active products and over 200 million monthly users. These include:

In 2024, Reuters reported that Bending Spoons had raised capital at a $2.55 billion valuation and was considering a U.S. IPO. It now sits among Europe’s most valuable and profitable consumer app builders.

Bending Spoons moves quickly, reinvests deeply, and builds for longevity

Key advantages of the Bending Spoons model:

• Centralized operations: Core functions like finance, HR, and data science are shared across apps.

• Deep product refactoring: Legacy apps are rebuilt to perform like new.

• Cohesive team culture: Hiring is rigorous, and most team members work from the Milan HQ.

• Focus on long-term retention: Rather than chase installs, apps are optimized for subscriber lifetime value.

• Selective M&A: The company acquires only when it sees lasting product potential.

This model gives acquired products like Evernote a true second life, not just a rebrand, but a re-foundation.

Bending Spoons offers a powerful case for European tech leadership

In a world where most top consumer apps are based in the U.S. or China, Bending Spoons is a standout. It's proving that European tech companies can scale globally without leaving their principles or their headquarters behind.

Its approach is neither flashy nor growth-at-all-costs. It's deliberate, product-led, and relentlessly operational. For other tech ecosystems looking to nurture world-class innovation, Bending Spoons offers a blueprint grounded in smart talent, long-term thinking, and conviction around product excellence

Conclusion: Bending Spoons isn’t chasing headlines; it’s rewriting playbooks

What’s most impressive about Bending Spoons isn’t just what it’s built, it’s how quietly and intentionally it has done it.

While others chase blitz-scaling or viral hype, this Milanese firm is quietly transforming well-known software products and returning them to best-in-class quality. And it’s doing so while building a company that’s profitable, disciplined, and increasingly global.

The future of consumer software doesn’t belong only to Silicon Valley. And if Bending Spoons has anything to say about it, the next great productivity revolution may just start in Milan.

Why Traditional Insurance Companies Should Embrace Venture Studios: Insights from Mandalore Partners

The insurance industry, traditionally characterized by caution and risk aversion, is facing unprecedented challenges from technological advancements and changing consumer expectations. To remain competitive, insurance companies must innovate—and venture studios offer a compelling pathway.​

The Need for Innovation in Insurance

Emerging technologies, such as artificial intelligence and blockchain, are disrupting traditional insurance models. Consumers now demand personalized, digital-first experiences, and new entrants are capitalizing on these trends. To keep pace, insurers must explore innovative solutions.​

Mandalore Partners provides a Venture Capital-as-a-Service (VCaaS) model that enables insurance companies to incubate startups focused on insurtech solutions. This approach allows insurers to experiment with new products and distribution channels without disrupting core operations.​

Real-World Applications: Success Stories

Several insurance companies have successfully engaged with venture studios:​

• AmFam Ventures: Developed by American Family Insurance, this venture studio focuses on insurtech innovations, providing both minority investments and majority ownership in startups to better serve stakeholders.

• ARK Venture Studio: Combining a venture studio, think tank, and venture fund, ARK builds insurance-enabled businesses to tackle systemic risks to people and the planet.

Strategic Advantages for Insurers

Engaging with a venture studio offers multiple benefits:​

• Accelerated Innovation: Rapid development of new products and services.​

• Risk Management: Controlled experimentation minimizes potential disruptions.

• New Revenue Streams: Venture studios allow exploration of adjacent business models.

• Future-Proofing: Adapting to tech shifts before they become industry standards.

For insurers looking to thrive in a fast-evolving landscape, venture studios represent not just a trend—but a strategic imperative.

From Paris to Singapore: Mandalore Partners' Cross-Border Approach to Venture Building

In an increasingly interconnected world, the ability to navigate diverse markets is crucial for startup success. Mandalore Partners leverages a cross-border approach to venture building, fostering innovation that transcends geographical boundaries.​

The Importance of Cross-Border Collaboration

Cross-border collaboration enables startups to tap into new markets, access diverse talent pools, and leverage varied regulatory environments. By understanding and adapting to different cultural and business contexts, venture studios can create solutions with global relevance.​

Mandalore Partners operates from Paris to Singapore, embodying this global perspective. Their partnerships, such as with Temasek's Menyala, highlight the benefits of cross-border collaboration in accessing new markets and talent pools.​

Real-World Applications: Success Stories

Several venture studios have successfully implemented cross-border strategies:​

• X, The Moonshot Factory: Formerly Google X, this venture studio focuses on ambitious projects with global impact, such as self-driving cars and delivery drones.

• FasterCapital: This venture studio emphasizes cross-border partnerships, enabling startups to scale across borders by aligning with overseas partners and tapping into diverse markets. 

Strategic Advantages of a Global Approach

Adopting a cross-border approach offers multiple benefits:​

• Market Diversification: Reducing dependency on a single market.​

• Talent Acquisition: Accessing a broader pool of skills and expertise.​

• Innovation Synergy: Combining diverse perspectives to foster creativity.​

• Regulatory Navigation: Understanding and leveraging different regulatory environments.​

The Future of Global Venture Building

As globalization continues to shape the business landscape, venture studios like Mandalore Partners are well-positioned to drive innovation that resonates across borders, fostering startups that are both locally grounded and globally scalable.​

Beyond Capital: How Mandalore Partners Drives Value Creation in Venture Studios

While capital investment is a cornerstone of startup development, the venture studio model offers a more holistic approach to value creation. By providing strategic guidance, operational support, and access to networks, venture studios like Mandalore Partners play a pivotal role in nurturing startups from inception to success.​

The Comprehensive Support of Venture Studios

Unlike traditional venture capital firms, venture studios are deeply involved in the day-to-day operations of startups. They assist in assembling founding teams, refining business models, and navigating market challenges. This hands-on approach ensures that startups are well-equipped to achieve product-market fit and scale effectively

Mandalore Partners exemplifies this model by offering a suite of services beyond funding. From strategic mentorship to market insights and talent acquisition, Mandalore ensures that each project is poised for success.​

Real-World Applications: Success Stories

Several venture studios have demonstrated the value of comprehensive support.
High Alpha: Combining company building with venture funding, High Alpha partners with corporations to bring ideas to market, providing resources and support needed for growth. 

• FutureSight: This venture studio focuses on forming new ventures, creating significant equity value through its operation as a co-founder, and providing strategic and operational support.

Strategic Advantages for Startups

Engaging with a venture studio offers multiple benefits:​

• Accelerated Development: Streamlined processes from ideation to execution.​

• Expertise Access: Guidance from seasoned entrepreneurs and industry experts.​

• Resource Optimization: Efficient allocation of resources and capital.​

• Network Leverage: Connections to potential partners, customers, and investors.

The Future of Value Creation

As the startup ecosystem becomes increasingly competitive, the comprehensive support offered by venture studios like Mandalore Partners will be instrumental in driving sustained growth and innovation.​

The Art of Venture Building: Lessons from Mandalore Partners in Healthcare Innovation

The healthcare sector is undergoing a transformative shift, driven by the need for patient-centric solutions and the integration of technology. Traditional models often struggle to keep pace with these demands, leading to the rise of venture studios as catalysts for innovation.​

Venture Studios: A New Paradigm in Healthcare

Venture studios systematically create startups by combining internal resources, entrepreneurial talent, and capital. In healthcare, this model enables the rapid development and deployment of solutions that address pressing challenges.​

Mandalore Partners exemplifies this approach, leveraging its Venture Capital-as-a-Service (VCaaS) model to collaborate with healthcare providers, payers, and tech innovators. By focusing on preventive care, telemedicine, and personalized treatment plans, Mandalore ensures that new healthcare solutions are both clinically effective and economically viable.​

Real-World Applications: Success Stories

Several venture studios have made significant strides in healthcare innovation:

• Redesign Health: This venture studio specializes in launching transformative healthcare companies, addressing systemic issues through innovative solutions. ​

• Terrarium: Partnered with Wellstar Health, Terrarium focuses on building companies and spinning them out, conducting proof-of-concepts and pilots to address major healthcare problems. 

• Atlantic Health System's Venture Studio: Part of a four-pronged approach to innovation, this studio supports new ideas and strategies from within, understanding that technology is a tool, not a solution.

Strategic Advantages for Healthcare

Adopting a venture studio approach offers multiple benefits:​

• Accelerated Innovation: Rapid development and testing of new ideas.​

• Risk Mitigation: Controlled experimentation minimizes disruptions.​

• Talent Acquisition: Access to innovative thinkers and specialized skills.​

• Market Expansion: Exploration of new markets and customer segments.​

The Future of Healthcare Innovation

As the healthcare landscape continues to evolve, venture studios like Mandalore Partners are at the forefront, driving innovation and ensuring that patient outcomes and operational efficiency go hand in hand.​