Startups: The Right Accelerator Is Worth Its Weight in Gold
Not all accelerators are good for startups. And, above all, not for all startups. This is the core message of one of the most extensive studies ever conducted on the relationship between founders, accelerators, and financial investors, authored by Simone Santamaria and Stefano Breschi, respectively from the National University of Singapore and Bocconi University. Published in Organization Science, the study is based on a sample of over 6,800 startups in 15 countries, analyzed through the Crunchbase and LinkedIn databases, and offers robust evidence: the right combination of team type and investor type is crucial for creating value.
“Accelerators are an ideal match for teams that are strong from a technological point of view but weak in terms of business,” explains Stefano Breschi, professor of Applied Economics at Bocconi. “In these cases, the training and mentoring typical of acceleration programs fill crucial gaps. Conversely, when entrepreneurs already have solid managerial skills, the effect of the accelerator is minimal or even nil.”
The starting point is simple but little explored: startups do not choose investors solely for the capital they offer, and investors do not select solely on the basis of the business idea. Both parties seek a “fit,” a match between resources and skills that maximizes the potential for growth. Santamaria and Breschi apply a two-sided matching model to this process, a methodology derived from bilateral market theory, capable of identifying complementarities or substitutions between resources.
“We wanted to understand,” continues Breschi, “if and when the skills offered by accelerators add to or overlap with those already present in the teams. Our results show that value comes from complementarity, not redundancy.”
The numbers of complementarity
Statistical analysis confirms the theoretical intuition. Startups with founders from STEM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics) backgrounds but without an economic or managerial background raise on average 37% more funding in later stages if they go through an accelerator, compared to similar startups funded by purely financial investors. When, on the other hand, there is at least one founder with a business degree or MBA in the team, the positive effect of the accelerator disappears completely.
The paper defines this as the “substitution effect”: the training and mentoring offered by the accelerator become redundant for those who have already internalized market and management logic. For these companies, it is better to focus on investors such as venture capitalists or business angels, who are more focused on expansion and scalability.
The sample is impressive: over 1.9 million possible startup-investor matches were analyzed to reconstruct the implicit selection criteria. Among the most prominent accelerators in the dataset are well-known names such as Y Combinator, Techstars, 500 Startups, MassChallenge, and Start-Up Chile. The average age of the founders is just over 30, and almost half of the teams have at least one PhD or master's degree.
Accelerate, yes, but with a method
The result overturns a widespread belief in the ecosystem: that participating in an acceleration program is always positive. “The effect depends on who you are and what you need,” summarizes Breschi. “If you are an engineer or developer with a promising idea but little market experience, the accelerator is a perfect training ground. But if you already have a strong entrepreneurial identity, it risks being a hindrance.”
The research also highlights how the matching process is not always efficient. Despite the strong complementarity observed, geographical location and sector proximity remain the factors that most often determine who invests in whom. “This means,” notes Breschi, “that many startups do not end up with the most suitable investor in terms of complementary resources. A better understanding of these mechanisms could avoid wasting value and increase the likelihood of success.”
Implications for policy and investors
In addition to its academic impact, the study offers insights for industrial policy and the innovation ecosystem. At a time when governments and universities are investing heavily in acceleration programs, understanding who they really work for is crucial. The model developed by the two economists suggests a “targeted” approach: allocating training and mentorship resources to startups with business gaps, leaving financial investors to support those who are already market-ready.
“It's not enough to simply multiply accelerators,” concludes Breschi. “Teams must be selected based on their actual needs and the resources they lack. Only in this way can value creation be maximized and the dispersion of human and financial capital be reduced.” In other words, accelerating doesn't just mean running faster: it means starting from the right block.
