Pitching investors? Know which side of the Atlantic you’re on

Ask any founder who has been through a fundraising round and they’ll tell you: preparing a pitch deck can feel like guesswork dressed up as strategy.

You polish your numbers, rehearse your story, anticipate objections and still walk into the room unsure exactly what will make an investor say yes. Is it the market size? The team? The pre-money valuation?

Too often, founders have to rely on half-informed assumptions about “what VCs really want”, rather than evidence about how investors make decisions.

That uncertainty is compounded for startups founders raising money internationally. A pitch that lands well in Berlin may fall flat in San Francisco, and one tuned for Paris may miss the mark in London. Until now, founders have had little more than anecdote and instinct to guide them on how and why investor expectations shift across borders.

Research I conducted along with some European colleagues helps fill that gap.

Drawing on the largest survey of European venture capitalists to date (611 managers across 396 firms, collectively representing €130 billion in AUM), the study offers the clearest picture yet of how European VCs actually think, and how they differ from their US counterparts, with UK VCs appearing to sit closer to the US model than to the continental European one.

Same returns, different investment playbooks

The first finding should reassure Europe’s startup ecosystem. European VCs achieve returns comparable to those in the US. That challenges a familiar assumption, often repeated as fact, that the American venture model is simply better.

Now we know, the data suggests otherwise. Europe is not necessarily underperforming: it is just operating differently. 

European VCs work with a narrower deal flow than their US peers, meeting around 17 management teams for every deal they close, compared to 28 in the US. They also run fewer partner reviews and shorter due diligence processes – though both regions issue a similar number of term sheets per deal.

So, in other words, European investors make decisions using a less exhaustive process than their US counterparts. 

What investors value and how they price it

Investors on both sides of the Atlantic broadly agree on one point: the team matters most.

The majority (95%) of EU and US VCs cited the founding team as a key factor in investment decisions. After that, however, the picture starts to diverge. US investors put more weight on business fundamentals, with 83% citing the business model, 74% the product, and 68% the market size.

Among European VCs, the business model and strategic fit carried much less weight, at 43% each. 

That distinction extends to what investors consider an “ideal” founder. In Europe, VCs tend to back individuals prizing passion, drive and personal commitment. In the US, the focus shifts to the team as a unit: cohesion, organisational structure, interpersonal dynamics and the collective ability to scale.

Valuation is another area where the two markets part company. European VCs tend to stay closer to the present: current market conditions, comparable deals and the ownership stake they want to secure. US investors are more likely to look further ahead, pricing companies on expected growth and possible exit value.

Put simply, the pricing logic is different. Europe tends to reward realism; the US is more willing to price ambition. For founders, getting that distinction wrong can have real consequences. It can mean pitching the wrong number, weakening the negotiation or losing the deal altogether.

Even the mechanics of syndication tell a story. European syndicates are often built around access to expertise and networks bringing in co-investors for what they know and who they know, not merely to spread financial risk.

It’s a more relational model of dealmaking, one where a syndicate partner’s connections may matter as much as their cheque size. US VCs, by contrast, tend to prioritise raising capital and spreading risk.

What this means for founders

The same pitch deck should not be doing double duty on both sides of the Atlantic. A pitch that works well in the US – built around scale, market size and financial potential – may not land in the same way in Europe, where credibility, commitment and the quality of the founding team can matter more.

A founder walking into a Silicon Valley meeting needs to lead with market opportunity, scalability and the the story of how big this gets. A founder pitching in Paris, Madrid or Berlin needs to lead with credibility – the story of why they, specifically, are the right person to build this, backed by a valuation grounded in comparable reality rather than speculative upside.

This is not about telling a story dishonestly. It is about knowing which parts of the real story to bring to the fore and recognising that “impressive” can mean different things depending on who is sitting across the table.

When pitching in the US, founders should highlight the strength of their business model, market size, and credible financial projections. US VCs want to know how big this can become and how fast.

In Europe, there’s more emphasis on the person behind the project – the founder’s passion, commitment and experience matter just as much, along with realistic, comparable-based valuations. They are betting on the person as much as the plan.

So, the practical takeaway for founders is straightforward. Know which side of the Atlantic you’re on and pitch accordingly.

Do your homework on the specific investors and market you’re approaching. Lead with growth potential and market size in the US. Lead with your own track record and grounded valuation logic in Europe. And build your syndicate not just for capital but, especially for in Europe, for the expertise and doors it can open.

Raising funds will never be easy but it doesn’t have to stay a guessing game. The data is finally catching up with what many founders have long suspected instinctively: there is no single “right” pitch, only the right pitch for where you’re standing.