In 2025, European venture capital investment totalled €66.2 billion, just 22% of the amount invested in the US [1], despite the two economies being roughly the same size. Between 2015 and 2024, the cumulative gap reached $1.21 trillion [2]. European firms attracted 0.2% of GDP in VC annually over that period. The US: 0.7%.
But here's the thing: European VC now outperforms North American VC over 10 and 15 year horizons [3]. Cambridge Associates data published by Invest Europe puts it at 20.77% net IRR over ten years versus 18.18% for North America. Europe raises less money, but it does more with what it has. For emerging managers willing to build properly, the inefficiencies that created the gap are the opportunity.
Where the gap comes from
The cultural piece is real but slow-moving. Silicon Valley has decades of compounding network effects: serial founders, angel money, failure tolerance baked into the social fabric. Mario Draghi put it bluntly in his 2024 competitiveness report: "no EU company with a market capitalisation over €100 billion has been set up from scratch in the last fifty years" [1]. All six US companies valued above €1 trillion were venture-backed.
The institutional capital picture is worse than most people realise. EU institutional investors provide only 30% of VC funds compared to 72% in the US [4]. American pension funds put roughly 11% into PE and VC. European pensions and insurance companies, hemmed in by Solvency II and national rules, allocate far less. That means smaller funds, fewer follow-on rounds, and more good companies that can't raise locally.
Then there's regulation. Twenty-seven member states, each with its own legal system, tax code, and employment law. A US fund operates in one jurisdiction. A European fund doing cross-border deals is juggling several. GDPR alone cut EU venture capital investment in technology by 26% relative to the US since it was introduced [5].
Tax incentives tilt the field further. Carried interest taxation, QSBS exemptions, and state-level programmes in the US have no real European equivalent. The UK's EIS and SEIS schemes are the main exception, and they've worked, which makes you wonder why more countries haven't copied them.
Capital concentration is also part of it. In the US, the top 10 funds captured over a third of all capital raised in 2024. In Europe, that was 17% [6]. Capital is more distributed, but no European fund has the gravitational pull of a Sequoia or Andreessen. European fundraising was particularly weak in 2025, even as deal volume recovered.
Where Europe is catching up
Deep tech is the standout. European deep-tech VC funding is up over 80% since 2020 [7], bucking the broader VC contraction. 8% of the world's deep-tech unicorns were European in 2024, double the 4% in 2021 [8]. Quantum, advanced materials, synbio, climate. European universities are producing the science, and capital is finally starting to follow.
Climate tech is closely related. The four largest European tech deals in 2023 all went to climate-tech companies. European LPs (pension funds, insurers, development finance institutions) are more willing to back impact strategies than their American counterparts. That capital tends to be less price-sensitive, which helps emerging managers who can't compete on valuation alone.
Fintech has been strong for a while. London, Berlin, and Stockholm have all produced companies that compete globally. PSD2 and open banking created regulatory infrastructure that the US still hasn't matched. Sometimes complexity breeds innovation.
Defence tech is the newest opening. The "America First" shift has forced Europe to think seriously about self-reliance in national security [1]. Europe's legacy defence contractors aren't well-positioned for the next generation of threats, and new ventures are stepping into that gap. It's early, but the money is moving.
Returns tell a different story
The investment gap doesn't mean a returns gap, and this is the part most people get wrong. Cambridge Associates data shows European VC at 20.77% net IRR over 10 years versus 18.18% for North America [3]. Over 15 years, Europe still leads: 16.57% to 16.09%. The 2011 vintage was exceptional: TVPI of 7x, IRR of 37%.
US funds do return capital faster though. LPs get their money back in 4.5 years on average versus 6.7 in Europe. And the 2021-2022 vintages look grim on both sides of the Atlantic, with TVPI around 1x, IRR near 1% for European funds of those years.
State Street tells a different story over even longer horizons: 8.6% annual returns for European venture versus 14.6% for the US. The discrepancy comes down to dataset differences: Cambridge covers 223 European funds, State Street uses a broader but differently weighted sample. What both agree on: top-quartile European managers compete with top-quartile US managers. The gap lives in the middle and bottom of the distribution.
Regulatory tools that actually help
The EU regulatory machine that creates complexity is also producing some useful tools. EuVECA gives qualifying VC managers a marketing passport without needing a full AIFM licence. ELTIF 2.0 opens private market access to retail and semi-professional investors with simpler distribution rules. Sub-threshold AIFM registration lets smaller managers operate with lighter regulatory overhead. None of these are magic bullets, but they lower the barrier for first-time European managers in ways that didn't exist five years ago.
The operational gap is the real opportunity
Here's what we see every day that doesn't show up in the macro data: most European emerging managers still run on spreadsheets, manual processes, and cobbled-together tools. In the US, institutional-quality operations are table stakes for raising a fund. In Europe, they're a differentiator.
A manager who shows up with digital onboarding, automated reporting, and real-time data stands out immediately to LPs, especially international LPs who are comparing European options against American ones. The PitchBook Q2 2025 European Venture Report confirmed this: European managers who meet US-standard operational expectations during due diligence convert at notably higher rates [9].
Multi-jurisdiction as a moat
Europe's fragmented regulatory landscape is a pain, but it's also a moat for anyone who actually figures it out. A fund manager who can operate across the UK, Germany, Austria, and Cayman with proper compliance in each jurisdiction? That impresses international LPs, because most managers can't.
This is why we built Infra One as a multi-jurisdiction platform from day one. The admin complexity of operating across European jurisdictions should be handled by your infrastructure, not by your deal team.
If you're building a European fund practice and want to talk through your operational setup, book a call with our team.
DISCLOSURE: This communication is on behalf of Infra One GmbH ("Infra One"). This communication is for informational purposes only, and contains general information only. Infra One is not, by means of this communication, rendering accounting, business, financial, investment, legal, tax, or other professional advice or services. This publication is not a substitute for such professional advice or services nor should it be used as a basis for any decision or action that may affect your business or interests. Before making any decision or taking any action that may affect your business or interests, you should consult a qualified professional advisor. This communication is not intended as a recommendation, offer or solicitation for the purchase or sale of any security. Infra One does not assume any liability for reliance on the information provided herein. © 2026 Infra One GmbH All rights reserved. Reproduction prohibited.