Bearings BetaFunding & opportunities · North West UKGet email alerts

Guides › Grants

Winning Innovate UK grants: how applications are scored, question by question

How Innovate UK scores the ten questions, the 2026 routes now Smart is closed, the odds printed on each competition, and North West winners.

FoundersSMEsResearchers26 min readChecked 18 October 2026
On this page
  1. The 2026 routes: Smart is closed, the money is themed
  2. The honest odds
  3. How assessment works, step by step
  4. The ten questions, and what a 9-10 answer contains
  5. The three answers that decide most applications
    1. Need or challenge: the issue before the idea
    2. Outcomes and route to market: who buys, who makes, who sells
    3. Added value: the five-part additionality answer
    4. The other seven in one pass
  6. North West winners, and what their public descriptions do
  7. Pitfalls
  8. Checklist
  9. Questions
    1. Are Innovate UK Smart grants coming back?
    2. What are my chances of winning an Innovate UK grant?
    3. How are Innovate UK applications scored?
    4. How long does an Innovate UK decision take?
    5. Can I apply for Innovate UK funding without an investor?
    6. Can I appeal or resubmit?
    7. Do I need a consultant to write an Innovate UK application?
  10. Sources

Innovate UK marks each scored question out of 10 against published bands and funds from the top of the ranking down. Here are the routes open now Smart is closed, the printed odds, how assessment runs, and for each question what the 9-10 band says and a skeleton to write to. Costs and match funding are in Innovate UK money; the general craft of answering is in Grant questions.

  • Smart grants are "closed for new applications" (UKRI, at 18 October 2026). The routes now: themed sector competitions, Growth Catalyst (short £25k-£50k micro-grant rounds, and grants that need an approved investor first), Contracts for Innovation, KTP, and Innovation Loans (paused until January 2027).
  • Many competition pages now print your odds: 2% to 30% across rounds open on 18 October 2026. Innovate UK's award rate for 2025-26 was 20.0%.
  • The Innovation Lead judges scope from the scope answer alone, and that decision is final. Five, three or one assessors then score every question independently; the ranking uses the average.
  • The step from 7-8 to 9-10 is evidence: for route to market the two bands differ only in "outlined with some evidence" against "identified and evidenced".
  • Interview scores replace written scores. There is no appeal, and not every competition gives feedback.

The 2026 routes: Smart is closed, the money is themed

UKRI: "Smart grants are now closed for new applications as funding is being aligned to Innovate UK's new strategic direction."1 A minister's answer of 9 December 2025 pointed to "a new £130 million 'Growth Catalyst'".2 No official page dates an any-sector replacement.

Route What it is Money and rate Status at 18 October 2026
Smart The any-sector open grant, 70% of costs on projects up to £1m Last rounds funded 2.8% (September 2024)3 "Closed for new applications"1; the last round closed 22 January 20253
Growth Catalyst Early Stage: New Innovators Micro-grant for micro or small firms with no prior direct Innovate UK funding, in five critical technologies (AI, semiconductors, advanced connectivity, quantum, engineering biology). One assessor; four questions each scored out of 25; no feedback4 £25,000-£50,000 at 100% under Minimal Financial Assistance (MFA, the £315,000-over-three-years subsidy allowance); paid 70% within a month of start, then 20%, then 10%4 Ran 7 July to 6 August 2025 (194 projects, median £49,8505); a connectivity-only round ran 7 July to 5 August 20266; nothing in the family open
Growth Catalyst Investor Partnerships Grant alongside private investment led by one of 178 approved investor partners (March 2025 directory; 16 linked to the North West or North of England)7. The investor invites you; Innovate UK asks the investor how the grant changes the investment and that "forms part of the decision"8 Investment at least 1x the grant (feasibility, industrial research) or 2x (experimental development); rates 70% micro or small and 60% medium, falling to 45% and 35% for experimental development9 Round 2 closed 3 February 2026 (13 projects, median £399,0765); sector rounds open for batteries (closes 25 November)10 and engineering biology (closes 2 December 2026)11
Sector competitions Themed rounds aligned to the Industrial Strategy: AI, batteries, engineering biology, medicines manufacturing, materials, cancer diagnosis, UK-Germany and UK-Singapore R&D, farming (ADOPT) Feasibility and industrial research up to 70%, 60% or 50% by size; experimental development 45%, 35% or 25%; no more than £3m grant to one enterprise in one competition12 30 open or upcoming competitions on the Innovation Funding Service (IFS)13
Innovation Loans Debt for late-stage R&D by single SMEs in six sectors: advanced manufacturing, clean energy, creative industries, digital and technologies, defence, life sciences £100,000-£5m, up to 100% of costs; 3.7% a year during the project plus 3.7% deferred, 7.4% in repayment; term up to seven years14 Expression-of-interest route paused from 9 October 2026 until January 202714
Contracts for Innovation (formerly SBRI) A public buyer pays 100% for R&D against a stated need; you keep the IP; no match, no profit, paid monthly in arrears15 Open contracts of £20,000-£500,000 including VAT3916 Three competitions open, closing 28 October and 4 November 202617; see Selling innovation to the public sector
Knowledge Transfer Partnership (KTP) A university-led project that embeds a graduate in your business; scored on four areas out of 10 each SMEs pay at least 33% (grant up to 67%)18 Round 4 expected to open 19 October 2026 and close 27 January 2027, with "significant changes" to the form and cost guidance1920; see KTP and the EIC Accelerator

The money is smaller. Across the 1,465 Innovate UK projects funded in 2025-26 (£1.87bn) the median grant was £89,580, down from £181,639 in 2022; projects over £1m were 7.8% of the count and 89% of the value.5 In the North West, half of SME awards offered for projects starting 2024-26 were under £74,922 and 42% were under £50,000, the small ones mostly from 100%-funded schemes such as Creative Catalyst, New Innovators and AI feasibility studies.21

Do this now

Set a Bearings alert for Innovate UK (alerts) and check the live competitions: the micro-grant rounds have stayed open for about four weeks. Book a Business Connect online briefing before you draft.

The honest odds

  • 2.8% Smart, September 2024 round (46 of 1,645)3
  • 20.0% Innovate UK award rate by number, 2025-26 (16.4% in 2024-25)23
  • £89,580 median Innovate UK grant in 2025-26, against £181,639 in 20225
  • +6.0% turnover and +4.3% employment, Smart's estimated effect on funded firms (Ipsos, 2026)26

Where one Smart round's applications fell, from a Freedom of Information answer:22

Smart grants, July 2022 round
1,019Applications
881Eligible14% fell at eligibility
45Funded4.4% of the start

Many 2026 pages say "Our experience from similar competitions suggests that you could have X% chance of success", and warn: "You may be unsuccessful as your average score was not above the funding threshold or your project has not been selected under the portfolio approach".27

Competition (IFS number) Printed chance Shape of the round Closes
Frontier AI: SME Champions, Phase 1 (2584)24 2% Single SME; £150,000-£250,000 costs; 1-3 months; £3.1m pot 11 Nov 2026
Efficient, Structured and Controllable AI Systems (2582)27 4% Single SME; £50,000-£150,000 costs; 1-3 months; £1.66m pot 18 Nov 2026
FOAK Builder entry (2600)28; UK-Germany Bilateral R&D Round 5 (2583)29 10% In-kind support worth up to £315,000, with interview; UK SME with a German partner, £100,000-£350,000 grant 5 Nov; 1 Dec 2026
Sustainable Medicines Manufacturing CR&D Round 2 (2560)30; Accelerated cancer diagnosis (2527)31 15% Collaborative, £500,000-£1m grant, interview; consortia with a practising clinician, £1.5m-£4m costs 2 Dec; 28 Oct 2026
Growth Cohorts low carbon concrete (2602)32; Engineering Biology Investor Partnerships (2580)11 20% £50,000 at 100% plus cohort support, video pitch and interview; investor-led, £250,000-£2m grant 2 Dec 2026 (both)
Battery Innovation Feasibility Studies Round 3 (2571)33 25% Collaborative, £70,000-£500,000 grant, five assessors 2 Dec 2026
MDI Programme Innovation and Scale-up Hub (2588)25 30% One research-led hub, £3.8m-£4m 18 Nov 2026

Side by side, with the last Smart round:242729301133253

Printed chance of success, rounds open 18 October 2026
Smart, September 2024 (actual)2.8%
Frontier AI: SME Champions2%
Efficient AI Systems4%
UK-Germany Bilateral R510%
Sustainable Medicines CR&D R215%
Engineering Biology Investor Partnerships20%
Battery Feasibility Studies R325%
MDI Innovation and Scale-up Hub30%one research-led hub

A single-SME, open-style round is a 1-in-25 to 1-in-50 shot, like the last Smart rounds; a themed collaborative round with a named partner, clinician or investor is 1 in 4 to 1 in 7. UKRI's yearly award rate (22.5% in 2023-24, 16.4% in 2024-25) divides all awards decided by all applications assessed, so compare it only roughly.23 The funding threshold is not published; a consultancy's analysis of the 2021 Smart rounds found 57.2% of applications scored below 70%, put the average that mattered at 8.6 out of 10, and found market awareness and route to market scored lowest.34

Ipsos (July 2026) found 37% of funded Smart firms had raised private money by the end of 2024 (£3.6bn, mostly venture capital), the grants having paid for "the R&D steps that equity investors required to secure their backing"; 65% of declined applicants had abandoned the innovation or stalled for want of private investment.26

Model several applications before you commit the hours:

How assessment works, step by step

Step Who What happens What it means for you
1. Eligibility Competition manager UK registration, consortium rules, cost and duration limits, resubmission history, prior funding for the same project; failures emailed with reasons35 Read the eligibility page line by line: 14% of one Smart round fell here22
2. Scope Innovation Lead Reads "solely your response to the scope question"; borderline cases go forward; "the Innovation Lead's scope decision is final"3536 Open with the scope bullet you meet, in the brief's words
3. Scoring Five, three or one independent assessors Each marks every scored question 1-10; "Assessors are not able to see each other's scores or feedback"; unscored questions "will not be reviewed by the Assessor"35368 Write for the assessor who knows least: one confused reader pulls the average down
4. Ranking Innovation Lead, Competition Manager, Funder's Panel "a panel sheet ranks applications by average assessor score"; moderated; top applications recommended above an unpublished quality threshold35 No published weighting: a 5 on costs costs as much as a 5 on innovation
5. Portfolio Innovate UK May balance scope areas, R&D categories, durations, costs and locations, so "a proposal that scores less than yours" can win35 Quantify North West benefits in Wider impacts
6. Interview (some rounds) A panel Slides and response to feedback due two weeks before; 20 minutes and 20 slides, 30 minutes of questions, up to five attendees; "Interview scores replace the initial assessment score unless the brief states otherwise"3530 Rehearse the questions the written feedback raised; panel scores are not moderated
7. Decision By email "This decision is final and there is no right of appeal"; feedback, where given, is the assessors' own words on your IFS dashboard35 Log the feedback; a resubmission may get different assessors

Assessors "are instructed not to click links and only to assess based on the information provided", and ignore anything beyond the appendix limits.37 They "are not necessarily experts in your specific sector".38 Investor Partnerships adds a team that checks additionality and traction with your investor, and warns: "It may be the case that your project scores highly but we are still unable to fund it".9

Close to decision, from the dates on 2026 competition pages:3915273330322911

Closing date to decision, 2026 rounds
  1. Short Contracts for InnovationBattery dual-use: closes 4 Nov, notified 30 Nov; Counter-UAS: 28 Oct to 15 Dec
  2. Written-only grantsEfficient AI: 18 Nov to 20 Jan; Battery feasibility: 2 Dec to 12 Feb
  3. With an interviewSustainable Medicines: 2 Dec to 3 Feb; Growth Cohorts: 2 Dec to 10 Mar
  4. Bilateral or investor-ledUK-Germany: 1 Dec to 30 Apr; Engineering Biology Investor Partnerships: final decision 17 Aug 2027

Projects start on the first of a month after you accept the offer (accept by the 15th to start that month),40 so a November 2026 application to a written-only round starts in spring 2027 at the earliest. Plan the cash gap with Innovate UK money.

The ten questions, and what a 9-10 answer contains

Each scored question is marked 1 to 10 against bands in that competition's assessor guidance on the IFS. The bands below are quoted from the Growth Catalyst Investor Partnerships Round 2 guidance, where questions 1 to 7 are unscored compliance gates. Sector competitions use the same wording but renumber and merge questions, so download your round's PDF before you draft.8 The standard form allows 400 words per question and no URLs;10 some rounds stretch a question to 600 or 800 words or add one, such as the Efficient AI round's 400-word IP and freedom-to-operate question.27 The skeletons are our synthesis, not Innovate UK templates.

Question 9-10 band (quoted) What drags it to 5-6 or lower (quoted) Answer skeleton (synthesis)
1. Need or challenge "There is a compelling business motivation for the project. There is a clear understanding of any similar innovation identified and its current limitations... Any wider factors influencing this opportunity are clearly identified." 5-6: "The project motivation is good, but there is a lack of understanding of the nearest innovation identified or wider factors influencing this opportunity." 1-2: "little or no business drive" Problem in one sentence with a number; who has it and why now (regulation, market shift, dates); two or three nearest alternatives, each with a quantified limit; your prior work and results; wider drivers; one line tying it to the scope in the brief's words
2. Approach and innovation "Evidence is presented to show how the innovations and project outputs will differentiate from those of competitors. The project is significantly innovative either commercially or technically... Evidence is presented to substantiate the level of innovation and freedom to operate." 5-6: "The level of innovation or freedom to operate is not strongly backed up with evidence." 3-4: "poorly defined with an unclear link to the need or challenge identified" The approach in plain English, tied to Q1; "The innovation is..." stated outright; a benchmark table against the nearest rival on three to five metrics; freedom to operate (FTO, the right to use your technology without infringing others' IP): who searched, when, result, and the IP plan; outputs, such as a prototype at a stated technology readiness level (TRL)
3. Team and resources "well placed to carry out the project and exploit the results. There is a clear plan to obtain all the resources... strong evidence that the project team will work well." 3-4: "significant gaps in the project team, with little or no information about how these will be filled" Table of name, role, % time, the achievement that proves capability, work package led; each gap named with the hire, partner or adviser and the month; why each subcontractor is essential; facilities and access. See The team
4. Market awareness "The target market size, drivers and dynamics are fully quantified and evidenced. Any barriers to entry are identified and addressed. Where the market is new or unexplored, possible routes are identified based on precedents." 5-6: "general market size and dynamics are understood but the addressable market is poorly quantified" Bottom-up TAM, SAM and SOM with dated sources; segments and growth rate with a time frame; value chain and your place in it; barriers and how you clear them; the UK position; secondary markets in a line. See Know your market
5. Outcomes and route to market "Target customers are identified along with the value proposition to them. The routes to market and how profit, productivity and growth will increase is identified and evidenced." 7-8 is the same text "outlined with some evidence": the step up is evidence Named target customers, with letters of intent (LOIs) where you have them; value in £ saved or earned; who makes, sells and supports it; revenue, jobs and productivity at years 1, 3 and 5 with assumptions stated; IP and exploitation; the next step after the project
6. Wider impacts "Expected regional impacts are described with compelling evidence to justify claims. Any possible negative impacts are fully mitigated where appropriate." 1-2: "no information about how the project might impact others" Separate short headings: customers, supply chain, industry, UK economy, environment (positive and negative, with mitigation), regional (North West jobs and suppliers, quantified), social and inclusion
7. Project management "The project work packages are outlined with the research category, lead partner and total cost provided for each one... The plan is designed to meet the objectives of the project in a realistic and efficient way." 5-6: "The plan seems reasonable but is not tailored to the objectives of the project." Work-package table (lead, research category, months, cost, milestone, deliverable); dependencies; tools and reporting lines; the mandatory Gantt chart appendix
8. Risks "fully considered and mitigated. Critical inputs to the project are identified... The risk analysis is appropriate and professional." 1-2: "superficial with minimal mitigation" The mandatory risk register appendix: technical, commercial, managerial, environmental and regulatory risks, each with probability, impact, mitigation, owner and post-mitigation rating; critical inputs named; several genuinely high technical risks
9. Added value "There is a compelling case for the positive difference funding will make. Alternative sources of support are described with an explanation of why they are discounted or used in conjunction with the grant funding. The project will significantly increase the R&D activities of the organisations involved during the project and afterwards." 5-6: "the difference made by the grant will be modest". 1-2: "no justification for public funding and no reason why the applicant should not fund the work" The five-part additionality answer below
10. Costs and value for money "entirely appropriate and represent excellent value for money... The partners have a clear idea of how they will finance their contribution. The balance of costs and grant between partners, and use of subcontractors, is justified and reasonable for the proposed project." 3-4: "costs appear to be too high or too low... The partners have not been clear on how they will finance their contribution... inappropriate use being made of subcontractors" Total costs and grant per partner; where your share comes from (cash at bank, investor, revenue), with evidence; the big items justified; why each subcontractor; a return ratio (forecast revenue or GVA per £ of grant); what else you would spend the money on. See Innovate UK money

Three rules apply across the form.

The three answers that decide most applications

Business Connect's tests include "Is it at the right stage of development? It must be market driven, rather than predominantly a research project." and "Why should public money be used?"38 Need, route to market and added value carry them.

Need or challenge: the issue before the idea

"Poor responses talk too much about the solution without first describing the issue." A strong answer "explains why that market need exists (what is driving it) and what is required to meet it before describing how it will be addressed."38

Weak (hypothetical)

Our innovative AI platform will revolutionise the events industry and has huge market potential. Venues everywhere struggle with scheduling, and our unique technology solves this problem once and for all.

Strong (hypothetical)

Venue managers spend about 6 hours a week rebooking cancelled slots by phone (our survey of 23 Merseyside venues, May 2026); an unfilled weekday slot costs a 200-capacity room about £450 in lost hire. The two scheduling tools those venues use list availability but cannot re-fill a slot without a person, and neither handles deposits across venues. Our prototype (TRL 4) has been tested on one venue's 2025 booking log. This project takes it to a pilot in five venues (TRL 7) by month 12, measured as a 50% cut in rebooking time against each venue's baseline. It answers the brief's scope bullet on productivity tools for the visitor economy.

Outcomes and route to market: who buys, who makes, who sells

The route-to-market bands climb on evidence alone:8

Outcomes and route to market, band by band
  1. 39-10routes to market and growth "identified and evidenced"
  2. 27-8routes to market and growth "outlined with some evidence"
  3. 15-6"Target customer types are described but the value proposition to them is less clear"

"If you cannot explain how your product will be made, who will retail it, or your sales/service model, you will be marked down."38 "Many projects fall down on the route to market aspect and don't demonstrate that they have engaged likely customers or manufacturers."37

Weak (hypothetical)

We will sell the panel to trailer manufacturers and fleet operators across the UK and Europe through direct sales and distributors. The market is worth £2bn and growing, and we expect to capture 5% within three years.

Strong (hypothetical)

Our first customers are UK trailer builders. Two of the five largest (named in the full answer) have signed letters of intent for trial batches of 40 panels each at £310 a panel once the panel passes the flexural fatigue test in work package 3; one quotes its 2027 build plan of 1,800 trailers. We make the panel on our existing press in Blackburn (6,000 a year on one shift) and the resin supplier is under contract. We sell direct to builders (sales lead in post); fleets buy through the builder, so no distributor is needed before year 3. Revenue: 1,200 panels in year 1 (£372,000) and 4,800 in year 3 (£1.49m at £310), assuming both LOIs convert and one more builder signs; our 2025 panel margin is 31%. Design rights are registered; the resin formulation stays a trade secret.

Climb one rung of demand evidence before you submit (Prove the business):

Evidence of demand
  1. 5Signed contractstrongest
  2. 4Paid pilotthe customer gives money
  3. 3Unpaid pilotthe customer gives time
  4. 2Letter of intent with a volume and pricea figure the assessor can check
  5. 1Verbal interestcontext only

Added value: the five-part additionality answer

The guidance asks "what other routes of investment or means of support you have already engaged with and why they were not suitable", "what your project would look like without public funding", and "how this project would change the R&D activities" of the organisations involved.8 The answer assessors want "usually relates to risk: i.e. it is too risky for commercial investors".37

Added value (additionality), five parts
1. Without the grant: [scope] over [years], funded by £[x] of our own money; [what is dropped]
2. Routes tried: [VC / bank / own cash], when, and why unsuitable (too early, no security, committed)
3. With the grant: £[y] of [investor / own funds] alongside it, and how the two fit
4. R&D change: spend from £[a] to £[b] a year during the project; £[c] a year afterwards
5. Time: [months] sooner than [named competitor] in [market]

Weak (hypothetical)

Without grant funding this project would not go ahead. We are a small company and cannot afford R&D on this scale. The grant will allow us to accelerate development and grow faster.

Strong (hypothetical)

Without the grant we would run only work package 1 (the bench prototype) over 24 months from retained profit of about £60,000 a year, and drop the field trial; first sale would move from 2028 to 2030. Two seed funds we approached in spring 2026 asked for field data before investing; our bank will not lend against R&D with no security. Our 2025 R&D spend was £85,000; with the grant it rises to £240,000 a year for 18 months, and we keep two of the three new engineers afterwards, funded by the trial customer's £120,000 pre-order. The trial removes the risk the investors named, bringing the seed round forward by about two years. Two competitors (named) are 12 to 18 months behind on this sensor class.

Low risk loses twice

"One of the most common mistakes we see in applications is an understating of the risk... rating the risks overall as low will mark down your score – the question arises why you need public support to de-risk the project if it is already low risk." Technical risk is "good" risk; the "bad" risks are poor management, a weak consortium and a vague route to market.37

The other seven in one pass

Question The mark you lose The fix
Approach and innovation Freedom to operate "not strongly backed up with evidence"8 "results of patent searches, literature surveys and competitor analyses"38; see Intellectual property and Your moat
Team Gaps "evident but are not identified or mitigated" (Smart, 4-5 band)42; a missing CV caps the Efficient AI team score at 527 "Be upfront about the gaps and explain your plan to fill them"37: gap, hire or partner, month, cost
Market awareness Addressable market "poorly quantified"8; "wildly optimistic projections"38 Bottom-up count of UK customers by segment, sourced and dated; growth with a time frame
Wider impacts "If the assessor judges that your project is potentially damaging, and that you haven't considered this, it will negatively impact your score"37 Economic, social, environmental and regional benefits38; each negative with its mitigation
Project management No cost or research category per work package8 Per package: number and name, partners, months, activity, milestone; "a handful of tasks is too little, but breaking down every week is too much"37
Risks "Many proposals ignore or give scant attention to commercial and environmental risks and are marked down because of it"37 Columns: risk, probability (1-3), impact (1-3), rating (P × I), mitigation, rating after, owner37
Costs and value for money "The partners have not been clear on how they will finance their contribution"8 Evidence the source of your share (bank statement, investor letter); reconcile labour days with work packages
Partners (any question) "project partners included in the consortium but not mentioned throughout the bulk of the proposal"37 Give every partner an essential role in Need, Approach, Team, Project management and Costs

North West winners, and what their public descriptions do

Innovate UK publishes no winning answers. Its funded-projects dataset gives company, competition, award offered and a public description for every project, "subject to grant offer and conditions being met".21 Unless a source says otherwise, no reason for winning is published, so each note ties the record to the bands.

Wilbo's Blends, Manchester: the one case with reported scores

"Better food for all: nutrition Mid Stage" collaborative R&D with two NHS trusts and the University of Manchester: £183,256 of £261,795 (70%) to the company, £279,608 across the consortium, 2023 to 2026, for a prescription-ready real-food tube feed.43 GrantTree, which reviewed the bid, reports every answer scored at least 8 out of 10 (its "over £300,000" does not match the dataset).44 The public description opens with the population ("Over 1 million individuals in the EU and North America (>70,000 people in the UK) require long-term tube feeding") and the cost ("Commercial formula is expensive, costing the NHS more than £200million/year"): the Need band's "compelling business motivation" in two sentences.

Agreka Build, Nantwich: four awards in two years

Smart April 2024: £344,482 of £492,117 (70%) for WHEATEX, insulation made from waste wheat straw, from January 2025. Then Contracts for Innovation: Resource Efficient Construction Impacts, £153,816 at 100% (2025); National Materials Innovation Programme feasibility study, £99,985 of £142,836 (2026); Growth Catalyst Investor Partnerships Round 2, £198,512 of £283,588 (2026).21 No reason is published; the record shows one material and one need carried through four routes, the last needing an approved investor to commit at least the grant amount.

Watercycle Technologies, Manchester: the grant and the round in the same month

Investor Partnerships SME round 6: £698,950 of £998,500 (70%) from 1 November 2024, for pilot-scale extraction of rare earth elements from UK brines.21 On 25 November 2024 the University of Manchester spin-out announced a round led by Par Equity with Greater Manchester Combined Authority, Aer Ventures and the Innovation Factory, "with an Innovate UK Investor Partnership grant" linked to it (amount undisclosed).45 The grant funds the technical step the investor needs to see.

Imperagen, Manchester: grant, seed, investor-led grant

ICURe follow-on funding of £291,481 (2023) and Engineering Biology CR&D Round 2, £244,539 of £349,342 (2024); a £5m seed led by PXN Ventures with IQ Capital and Northern Gritstone (£2.5m) on 21 May 2026; then Growth Catalyst Investor Partnerships Round 2, £692,518 of £989,312 (70%), starting 1 July 2026, six weeks after the seed.214647 Grants under £300,000 bought the evidence; the investor then made the larger grant possible.

New Innovators in Cumbria, Lancashire and Liverpool: £25,000-£50,000 at 100%

Ross Innovation (Carlisle), £49,771 for LYRA, a modular robotic arm for confined, hazardous spaces such as aircraft wings and nuclear decommissioning cells; Photarix (Lancaster), £48,326 for quantum-ring single-photon LEDs for quantum-secure communications; Aerix (Liverpool), £49,523 for AI optimisation and security of Open RAN 5G for smaller telecoms providers. All started 1 November 2025.21 Each summary names the user, the environment and the technical step in one sentence: what a single assessor had to find fast.

The last Smart rounds in the North West

MedicSensors (Liverpool), Smart September 2023, £347,550 of £496,500, needle-free wearable drug delivery by ultrasound; Onunda (Carlisle), Smart November 2024, the final round, £346,496 of £494,994, removing the environmental harm of treating sewage biosolids.21 Smart averaged about £315,000 a project (£531m across 1,688, our division of Ipsos figures).26 Nothing open today funds a single SME at that size without a theme or an investor.

  • No named local Business Connect staff: call 03333 403250 or email enquiries@iukbc.org.uk; briefings are online.4849 Scope questions go to support@iuk.ukri.org (0300 321 4357).50
  • Knowledge Transfer Advisers by patch: Susan Suttle (Liverpool, Manchester, East Lancashire and Salford); Jonathan Abra (Lancashire and Cumbria); Mick Card or Chris Woods (North Wales, Merseyside and West Cheshire; both are listed).1951 Call them before a KTP.
  • Approved investor partners with a northern focus (March 2025 directory): GC Angels (Greater Manchester, or willing to relocate within six months), LCR Ventures/Lyva Labs (Liverpool City Region, £25,000-£250,000), Praetura Ventures (Manchester; now PXN Investments), DSW Venture Capital (Manchester, up to £1m a round), Fearless Adventures, EHE Venture Studio (AI, Northern England), Baltic Ventures (Liverpool) and Northern Gritstone (university spin-outs); Lifted Ventures and Northern Investor Hub introduce across the North.7 "Not every investor may respond to your approach."52
  • Made Smarter North West (the Growth Company): up to 50% match funding, capped at £20,000, for manufacturing or engineering SMEs adopting digital technology; a separate programme, not an Innovate UK competition.53
  • Innovate UK Business Growth, the free one-to-one specialist service (Inventya in Warrington is a delivery partner54), is paused to new requests "as part of the current planning cycle"; existing clients and those bundled with a grant continue.55

Pitfalls

Pitfall Why it costs Fix
Out of scope "If the assessors don't think the project is in scope they will reject it. It doesn't matter how strong you've made the rest of the application."38 Ask the helpdesk before you draft; quote the scope bullet in your first line
Ineligible 14% of one Smart round never reached an assessor22; New Innovators barred firms "already directly funded by Innovate UK"4; MFA is capped at £315,000 over three financial years56 Check the eligibility page, your Companies House record and your subsidy history
Technology before problem Assessors suspect "technology push" rather than "market pull"38 Write the need first, with numbers
No named customers Route to market stalls at 7-8 without evidence8 LOIs with volumes and prices; a named manufacturer and channel
Risks rated low Marks down the Risks score and undercuts additionality37 Several high technical risks, each with a mitigation and an owner
Passenger partners Partners "not mentioned throughout the bulk of the proposal"37 Give every partner an essential role in every relevant answer
Costs that do not match the plan "costs appear to be too high or too low"; unclear match source8 Reconcile labour days with the work-package table; evidence your share
Evidence behind a link or only in an appendix Not read37 Put the number and its source in the answer itself
Generic text Assessors "increasingly flag generic, undifferentiated language" (a consultancy's report)57 Names, numbers, dates and sources in every paragraph
Inconsistency Prices, volumes or dates that differ between answers are "heavily penalised" (the same consultancy)57 One fact sheet for the whole bid; check it last
Late or wrong version Deadlines are 11am; only the last upload is assessed1837 Submit the day before; re-open and read the final version

Checklist

Questions

Are Innovate UK Smart grants coming back?

Not on any official page at 18 October 2026. UKRI says Smart grants "are now closed for new applications"; the December 2025 ministerial answer pointed to the £130m Growth Catalyst. Set an alert rather than wait.

What are my chances of winning an Innovate UK grant?

Competition pages open in October 2026 print 2% for a single-SME AI round and 20% to 30% for themed collaborative or research-led rounds. The last Smart rounds funded 2.8% to 4.4%; Innovate UK's 2025-26 award rate was 20.0%.

How are Innovate UK applications scored?

After eligibility and a pass-or-fail scope check, five, three or one assessors independently mark each question 1 to 10 against published bands. The average ranks the application; funding runs from the top above an unpublished threshold, with a portfolio adjustment.

How long does an Innovate UK decision take?

Four to seven weeks from closing for a short Contracts for Innovation round, eight to eleven for a written-only grant, nine to fourteen with an interview (2026 pages). Allow three to five months from closing to first spend.

Can I apply for Innovate UK funding without an investor?

Yes: sector competitions, Contracts for Innovation, KTP and Innovation Loans (reopening January 2027) need none. Investor Partnerships needs an approved investor to invite you and commit one to two times the grant.

Can I appeal or resubmit?

There is no appeal. You may resubmit where the competition allows, possibly to different assessors. Not every competition gives feedback, and Innovate UK will not discuss it afterwards.

Do I need a consultant to write an Innovate UK application?

No. Business Connect's briefings and helpline are free, and the bands are published. One consultancy quotes a minimum £1,750 set-up fee plus a success fee, and estimates 80 to 200 hours to write a bid in-house; consultancies' success rates cover their chosen clients, not the competition.57

Sources

  1. UKRI, Innovate UK guidance for applying to specific funds, Smart section, read 18 October 2026. https://www.ukri.org/councils/innovate-uk/guidance-for-applicants/guidance-for-specific-funds/ ↩↩

  2. UK Parliament written question 96113 (Dame Chi Onwurah), answered 9 December 2025 by Kanishka Narayan, DSIT. https://questions-statements-api.parliament.uk/api/writtenquestions/questions/1859144 ↩

  3. Myriad Associates, "UK's SME grant scheme paused for evaluation", 30 January 2025, citing Innovate UK's September 2024 statistical breakdown. https://www.myriadassociates.com/resources/news/2025/uk-s-sme-grant-scheme-paused-for-evaluation/ ↩↩↩↩

  4. Innovation Funding Service, competition 2220, Growth Catalyst Early Stage: New Innovators (closed 6 August 2025). https://apply-for-innovation-funding.service.gov.uk/competition/2220/overview/bcfd2780-f307-4434-be32-46889a239024 ↩↩↩

  5. UK Grant Funding (Mark Clayton), "Are Innovate UK Smart grants coming back?", 25 August 2026, analysing UKRI's funded-projects dataset of 10 August 2026. https://ukgrantfunding.co.uk/are-innovate-uk-smart-grants-coming-back/ ↩↩↩↩

  6. UKRI opportunity 2513, Advanced Connectivity Technologies: New Innovators (7 July to 5 August 2026). https://www.ukri.org/opportunity/2513-advanced-connectivity-technologies-new-innovators/ ↩

  7. UKRI, Innovate UK Investor Partners directory, March 2025 edition (two PDFs; 178 profiles), publication updated 8 May 2025. https://www.ukri.org/publications/innovate-uk-investor-partners/ ↩↩

  8. Innovate UK, Growth Catalyst Investor Partnerships Round 2 assessor scoring guidance (IFS competition 2360 download). https://apply-for-innovation-funding.service.gov.uk/competition/2360/download/26392 ↩↩↩↩↩↩↩↩↩↩↩↩↩

  9. Innovation Funding Service, competition 2360, Growth Catalyst Investor Partnerships Round 2 (closed 3 February 2026). https://apply-for-innovation-funding.service.gov.uk/competition/2360/overview/37d8f6e1-5600-4e9e-bbfc-11bc320f8808 ↩↩

  10. Innovation Funding Service, competition 2595, Investor Partnerships: Battery Innovation Programme. https://apply-for-innovation-funding.service.gov.uk/competition/2595/overview/f2b849f6-0fb3-4012-be1b-a41813c93085 ↩↩

  11. Innovation Funding Service, competition 2580, Engineering Biology Investor Partnerships Round 1. https://apply-for-innovation-funding.service.gov.uk/competition/2580/overview/8881af18-31f4-4db3-9483-cbb047163164 ↩↩↩↩

  12. Innovation Funding Service, competition 2542, Engineering Biology Collaborative R&D Round 3. https://apply-for-innovation-funding.service.gov.uk/competition/2542/overview/b687b240-4dff-4149-889b-308e61447460 ↩

  13. Innovation Funding Service, competition 2505, Innovation Loans Expression of Interest, with its 28 September 2026 pause notice. https://apply-for-innovation-funding.service.gov.uk/competition/2505/overview/8ef63f10-ea07-4ffd-9812-e944542751b6 ↩↩

  14. Innovation Funding Service, competition 2570, Contracts for Innovation: Counter UAS Demonstrations in Prison Environments. https://apply-for-innovation-funding.service.gov.uk/competition/2570/overview/f33d0d62-4658-43fd-ae3d-b6362ebff0f0 ↩↩

  15. Innovation Funding Service, competition 2573, Contracts for Innovation: Innovation in play to improve child outcomes (contracts £200,000-£500,000). https://apply-for-innovation-funding.service.gov.uk/competition/2573/overview/0260e1f5-c985-4858-aee3-57a9e56f19fe ↩

  16. Innovate UK Business Connect, Contracts for Innovation programme page, read 18 October 2026. https://iuk-business-connect.org.uk/programme/contracts-for-innovation/ ↩

  17. Innovation Funding Service, competition 2398, KTP 2026-27 Round 2 (closed 24 June 2026, 11:00am). https://apply-for-innovation-funding.service.gov.uk/competition/2398/overview/318a8834-930f-4577-9069-26459a0def93 ↩↩

  18. Innovate UK Business Connect, Knowledge Transfer Partnerships page, read 18 October 2026. https://iuk-business-connect.org.uk/programme/knowledge-transfer-partnerships/ ↩↩

  19. Innovate UK Business Connect, KTP Round 4 changes: competition briefing webinar, 15 October 2026. https://iuk-business-connect.org.uk/events/ktp-round-4-changes-competition-briefing-webinar/ ↩

  20. UKRI, Innovate UK funded projects since 2004 (Excel file FY2016/17 to present, updated 3 September 2026; page updated 12 October 2026). North West figures are Bearings' analysis of the "Address Region" and "Award Offered (£)" columns for projects starting 2024-26. https://www.ukri.org/publications/innovate-uk-funded-projects-since-2004/ ↩↩↩↩↩↩↩

  21. GrantTree, "New data reveals fierce competition for Smart grants", 4 April 2023, reporting a Freedom of Information response on the July 2022 round. https://granttree.co.uk/blog/grant-funding/new-data-reveals-fierce-competition-for-smart-grants ↩↩↩

  22. UKRI, "UKRI investments and outputs, April 2015 to March 2026", 16 July 2026, data tables, Table 2.2 Funding decisions by decision owner (applications assessed, awards and award rate by number, by year of decision). https://www.ukri.org/publications/ukri-investments-and-outputs/ ↩↩

  23. Innovation Funding Service, competition 2584, Frontier AI: SME Champions, Phase 1. https://apply-for-innovation-funding.service.gov.uk/competition/2584/overview/4c7afb5d-4572-4ef2-9507-73ef2dec8ec8 ↩↩

  24. Innovation Funding Service, competition 2588, MDI Programme Innovation and Scale-up Hub. https://apply-for-innovation-funding.service.gov.uk/competition/2588/overview/acbd9666-c1df-4635-b86f-fa426100c876 ↩↩

  25. Ipsos for Innovate UK, Smart Grant Impact Evaluation Report, July 2026. https://www.ukri.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/IUK-140726-SmartGrantImpactEvaluationReport.pdf ↩↩↩

  26. Innovation Funding Service, competition 2582, Efficient, Structured and Controllable AI Systems (question list with word limits and the CV rule). https://apply-for-innovation-funding.service.gov.uk/competition/2582/overview/9fdb47a5-011c-4c47-ac5e-c426e295fe89 ↩↩↩↩↩↩

  27. Innovation Funding Service, competition 2600, FOAK Builder: Programme Entry Expression of Interest. https://apply-for-innovation-funding.service.gov.uk/competition/2600/overview/0c422454-a8af-4c24-a74a-565426f42395 ↩

  28. Innovation Funding Service, competition 2583, UK-Germany Bilateral Collaborative R&D Round 5. https://apply-for-innovation-funding.service.gov.uk/competition/2583/overview/852abf67-ada4-49d3-b512-cf7c5ec6ac71 ↩↩↩

  29. Innovation Funding Service, competition 2560, Sustainable Medicines Manufacturing Innovation CR&D Round 2, including its interview format. https://apply-for-innovation-funding.service.gov.uk/competition/2560/overview/45acacd5-746b-46ee-8051-d764f929cca3 ↩↩↩↩

  30. Innovation Funding Service, competition 2527, Advancing innovation in accelerated cancer diagnosis. https://apply-for-innovation-funding.service.gov.uk/competition/2527/overview/d48f61f8-2bd5-4067-9c05-29dd08487623 ↩

  31. Innovation Funding Service, competition 2602, Growth Cohorts: Next-gen low carbon concrete cohort entry Round 2. https://apply-for-innovation-funding.service.gov.uk/competition/2602/overview/607351e2-798f-450b-b77d-3131912bcbef ↩↩

  32. Innovation Funding Service, competition 2571, Battery Innovation: Feasibility Studies Round 3. https://apply-for-innovation-funding.service.gov.uk/competition/2571/overview/f45e5f00-e663-4c9e-a2e7-562a696561d7 ↩↩↩

  33. Olaf Swanzy, PNO Innovation, "Only the top 3.13% survive", 10 February 2022 (a consultancy's analysis of Smart scoring data). https://www.pnoinnovation.com/uk/insights/only-the-top-3-13-survive-read-olaf-swanzys-insight-into-getting-smarter-about-smart-innovate-uks-highly-competitive-open-funding-programme/ ↩

  34. UKRI, "What happens after you have submitted your application", Innovate UK general guidance, updated 7 May 2026. https://www.ukri.org/councils/innovate-uk/guidance-for-applicants/general-guidance/what-happens-after-you-have-submitted-your-application/ ↩↩↩↩↩↩↩

  35. Innovate UK Business Connect, "Grant application review process", read 18 October 2026. https://iuk-business-connect.org.uk/how-we-help/innovation-funding-and-support/grant-application-review-process/ ↩↩

  36. KTN (now Innovate UK Business Connect), Good Application Guide, October 2020. https://iuk-business-connect.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/KTN-Good-Application-Guide.pdf ↩↩↩↩↩↩↩↩↩↩↩↩↩↩↩

  37. Innovate UK Business Connect, Good Application Guide 2024 (Kezia Williamson, Head of Place), March 2024. https://iuk-business-connect.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/Business-Connect-Good-Application-Guide_2024.pdf ↩↩↩↩↩↩↩↩↩

  38. Innovation Funding Service, competition 2587, Contracts for Innovation: Battery innovation for dual use and defence, Phase 1 (contracts £20,000-£50,000). https://apply-for-innovation-funding.service.gov.uk/competition/2587/overview/aafc825c-421e-47ea-bd56-d5d1cd50e513 ↩↩

  39. UKRI, "What happens if you receive a funding offer", Innovate UK general guidance, updated 8 September 2026. https://www.ukri.org/councils/innovate-uk/guidance-for-applicants/general-guidance/what-happens-if-you-receive-a-funding-offer/ ↩

  40. Innovate UK Business Connect, "Write a winning grant application", read 18 October 2026. https://iuk-business-connect.org.uk/how-we-help/innovation-funding-and-support/write-a-winning-grant-application/ ↩

  41. Innovate UK, Smart Assessor Scoring Guidance, September 2023, question 6 "Delivering your project". https://www.ukri.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/IUK-290923-SmartAssessorScoringGuidanceSeptember2023.pdf ↩

  42. UKRI Gateway to Research, project 10068044, "Developing the first 100% real food solution for tube feeding that is prescription ready" (Wilbo's Blends Limited, lead), and the UKRI funded-projects dataset row for the same project. https://gtr.ukri.org/projects?ref=10068044 ↩

  43. GrantTree, Wilbo's Blends case study (a commercial bid-review firm's account of its client's scores), read 18 October 2026. https://granttree.co.uk/resources/wilbos-blends-case-study/ ↩

  44. University of Manchester Innovation Factory, "Watercycle Technologies secures funding", 25 November 2024. https://www.uominnovationfactory.com/news/wct-funding/ ↩

  45. PXN Investments, "Imperagen secures £5m to power next-gen enzyme engineering", 21 May 2026. https://www.pxninvestments.co.uk/resource-centre/insights/imperagen-secures-5m-to-power-next-gen-enzyme-engineering ↩

  46. Northern Gritstone, "Northern Gritstone invests in Imperagen seed", read 18 October 2026. https://www.northern-gritstone.com/news/northern-gritstone-invests-in-imperagen-seed ↩

  47. Innovate UK Business Connect, North West England place page, read 18 October 2026. https://iuk-business-connect.org.uk/place/north-west-england/ ↩

  48. UKRI, "Support for you and your application", Innovate UK general guidance, 16 June 2026. https://www.ukri.org/councils/innovate-uk/guidance-for-applicants/general-guidance/support-for-you-and-your-application/ ↩

  49. Innovate UK Business Connect, "Crafting a winning project proposal", read 18 October 2026. https://iuk-business-connect.org.uk/how-we-help/innovation-funding-and-support/crafting-a-winning-project-proposal/ ↩

  50. Innovate UK Business Connect, experts directory, North West filter, read 18 October 2026. https://iuk-business-connect.org.uk/people/?_sft_uk_regions=north-west ↩

  51. Innovate UK Business Connect, Investor Partnerships programme page, read 18 October 2026. https://iuk-business-connect.org.uk/programme/investor-partnerships/ ↩

  52. Made Smarter, North West adoption programme page, read 18 October 2026. https://www.madesmarter.uk/adoption/in-my-region/north-west/ ↩

  53. Inventya Ltd, Warrington, home page stating it is a service partner for Innovate UK Business Growth, read 18 October 2026. https://www.inventya.com/ ↩

  54. Innovate UK Business Connect, Innovate UK Business Growth page and FAQs, read 18 October 2026. https://iuk-business-connect.org.uk/business-growth/ ↩

  55. UKRI, Innovate UK funding rules, updated 12 May 2026 (Minimal Financial Assistance "up to a maximum of £315,000 over a rolling three financial year period"). https://www.ukri.org/councils/innovate-uk/guidance-for-applicants/general-guidance/funding-rules/ ↩

  56. GrantUp, "How to win" and "About" pages (a commercial bid-writing firm; fees and claims self-reported), read 18 October 2026. https://grantup.co.uk/how-to-win ↩↩↩

Written for businesses, founders and researchers in the North West of England and checked against the sources listed above on 18 October 2026. Funders change their rules, so always read the current call before you apply. Spotted something out of date? Tell us.

Prove the businessProve the business, not just the product: evidence that convinces assessors and investorsA 12-week workbook for proving people will pay: desk research, Mom Test interviews, letters that count, paid pilots, and where each funder lets you show it.21 min readGrantsThe questions every grant application asks, and how to answer each one wellThe dozen questions every grant form asks under different names, what each funder really wants, a skeleton for each, and the limits, timelines and templates.22 min readGrantsInnovate UK money: costs, match funding, cash flow and life after the awardWhat Innovate UK pays and what you pay, the cost rules, the cash you need to carry a grant claimed against spend, the 5/30/90-day set-up, claims and audit, Innovation Loans and the tax interplay.22 min readGrantsKTP and the EIC Accelerator: the high-odds route and the hardest oneA KTP pays 67% of a university-led project in your firm; the EIC Accelerator funds about 6% of full proposals, grant only for UK firms. Scoring, odds, North West examples.22 min readPeople and relationshipsThe team: what funders and investors look for, and why naming your gaps winsWhat every assessor, reviewer and investor tests in a team, quoted from their own scoring bands, and a team answer to copy. Naming your gaps scores higher than hiding them.14 min read

Put it to work

Find live opportunities → Get email alerts All guides