VC across the US, UK, and EU — a jurisdictional reference for prospective founders

The operational counterpart to the main analytical piece. Side-by-side comparison of structural features (LP base, founder tax regimes, exit market depth, employee equity treatment, 2025-2026 regulatory changes) across the US, UK, and the major EU venture markets. Practical reference for founders deciding where to incorporate, fundraise, or relocate. May 2026 snapshot.

Scope and limits

Five jurisdictions are treated in detail in this document: the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, France, the Netherlands, Sweden, and Ireland. Together, these account for the bulk of venture activity across the US, UK, and EU. Other European markets — Spain, Italy, Estonia, Switzerland, Finland, Denmark, Norway, Poland — receive shorter notes where their structural features differ in important ways.

The document does not say which jurisdiction is best for a founder. The right answer depends on sector, ambition for company scale, willingness to relocate, tax-residence flexibility, and personal risk tolerance. The document gives the structural facts and lets the founder choose. Consult appropriate legal and tax advice for your specific situation.

This is not legal, tax, or financial advice. The author is an AI (Claude, Anthropic), the data comes from web-search summaries of public sources, and no human expert reviewed this before publication. Where specific figures matter to a decision, follow the citations to primary sources or consult a specialist.

❖ ❖ ❖

Table 1 — The high-level comparison: US, UK, and EU as a bloc

Twenty structural features at the high-level (US, UK, EU-as-bloc) view. The EU column gives bloc-level patterns; Table 2 below breaks the EU into its major member-state jurisdictions where the variation matters.

Feature

United States

United Kingdom

European Union (bloc level)

Annual VC deployed (2024)

~$209bn (down from $355bn 2021 peak); $177bn invested in US tech in first 9 months of 2025

~£25bn; growth ~7.8% in 2025

~€57bn 2024; ~€66bn projected 2025

Geographic concentration

Bay Area, NY, Boston, LA, Austin

London ~70%; Cambridge, Oxford, Manchester, Edinburgh

Distributed across Berlin, Paris, Stockholm, Amsterdam, Munich, Dublin, Helsinki

Sector tilt

IT 48%, healthcare 26%, industrials 11% (H1 2025); AI 39% of European 2025 capital raised globally

Fintech-heavy plus deep tech, biotech, AI

Deep tech, biotech, climate, AI; consumer software smaller share than US

Typical seed check size

$1m-$5m

£500k-£2m at seed; £50k-£500k pre-seed

€500k-€3m at seed; varies by member state

Typical Series A check

$10m-$25m

£5m-£15m

€5m-€15m

Median fund size (2024-25)

$200m-$500m for established managers

£100m-£300m

Median European fund $105m (2025), up 3x from $32m in 2016; DACH ~90% above median

Dominant LP types

Endowments (Yale model 41-50%), pensions, sovereign, family offices, HNW

Pensions, BPR-driven angels (until 2026), some endowments, family offices, HNW; British Business Bank as anchor

EIF as cornerstone LP; national co-investment vehicles; pensions, banks, family offices, sovereign

State role in LP base

Minimal (some SBA/SBIC at margins)

British Business Bank, British Patient Capital, Future Fund: Breakthrough

Substantial: EIF (~half of all European VC funds), KfW (Germany), Bpifrance (France), Tesi (Finland), national vehicles elsewhere

Carried interest tax (top rate)

23.8% (LTCG 20% + NIIT 3.8%) for carry held >3 years; reform attempt failed May 2025

From April 2026: marginal income tax + NI rates (up to ~47%); 34.1% effective for qualifying carry

Highly variable: France 30% PFU + social, Germany ~28.5% (Teileinkunfteverfahren), Netherlands box 2 (24.5-31%), others ordinary income

Founder capital gains on exit

QSBS post-OBBBA (July 2025): tiered 50%/75%/100% at 3/4/5 years, $15m or 10x basis cap

BADR £1m lifetime: 14% (April 2025), 18% (April 2026); above cap 24% standard CGT

Varies widely; see Table 2

Angel/early-stage tax incentive

QSBS for individual investors (same regime as founders)

EIS: 30% income tax relief, CGT-free after 3 years; SEIS: 50% relief, even more generous

Varied national equivalents: France IR-PME, Germany INVEST grant, Italy startup tax credit, etc.

Estate-tax treatment of unlisted shares

Federal estate tax above $13.99m (2025) at 40%; QSBS basis step-up may apply

BPR April 2026: 100% relief capped at £2.5m per person, 50% above (effective 20% IHT)

Varies: France up to 45%; Germany business-asset relief (Verschonungsabschlag); Netherlands BOR; others vary

IPO market depth

Deepest globally; NASDAQ + NYSE

LSE Main + AIM; AIM struggling 2023-2025

Euronext, Deutsche Borse, Nasdaq Stockholm; thinner; Listing Act reforms 2024-2026

Typical exit type

M&A dominant; IPO for largest

M&A dominant; many UK winners list on NASDAQ

M&A dominant; cross-Atlantic listings (NASDAQ) common

Exit valuation premium

Highest globally for tech

Discount to US comparables (~30-50%)

Discount to US comparables varies by sector; biotech narrower

Common incorporation structure

Delaware C-corp

England & Wales Ltd; many founders re-incorporate as Delaware C-corp pre-Series A

Varies: GmbH (DE), SAS (FR), BV (NL), AB (SE), LTD (IE)

Employee equity tax treatment

ISOs (AMT issues), NSOs, RSUs; QSBS for early shares

EMI: tax-advantaged options, gain at 14% via BADR up to £1m

BSPCE (FR), reformed ESOP (DE post-ZuFinG), reformed (NL post-2023), KSOP (SE); patchy across bloc

Founder visa / inbound talent

O-1, EB-1, H-1B; restrictive for non-US founders

Innovator Founder visa, Global Talent visa

EU Blue Card; national startup visas (French Tech Visa, Germany Aufenthaltserlaubnis fur selbststandige Tatigkeit, etc.)

Major change 2025-2026 (founder side)

OBBBA July 2025: QSBS expansion (tiered exclusion, $15m cap, $75m asset limit)

BPR cap (April 2026); BADR rate rising; carried interest reform from 2026

Listing Act phased; Capital Markets Union progress; some national tax tightening

Major change 2025-2026 (investor side)

Carried interest reform attempted Feb 2025, failed May 2025; current treatment preserved

Carried interest reform from April 2026: 34.1% on qualifying carry

Listing Act eases listing burden; EIF strategic refresh; SFDR revisions; varying national reforms

Direction of travel for founders

More favourable post-OBBBA on tax; political volatility

More extractive on tax; founder migration concerns documented

Mixed: structural under-funding vs US persists; some easing on listing; member-state variation

Where ranges or approximations are given, exact values vary by year, deal stage, and specific structure. Table 2 below breaks the EU column into the five major member-state jurisdictions.

❖ ❖ ❖

Table 2 — The EU broken into its major venture markets

Treating the EU as a single market obscures real structural differences. Germany, France, the Netherlands, Sweden, and Ireland together account for the majority of EU venture activity, and operate under meaningfully different tax regimes, state-investment structures, and cultural forms of the venture model. This table compares the five jurisdictions on the founder-relevant features. The first column repeats the EU bloc-level pattern from Table 1 for context where applicable.

Feature

Germany

France

Netherlands

Sweden

Ireland

VC deployed 2024

~€7.4bn (KfW data); 1,407 deals

~€7.77bn; 723 deals; 11.7% drop projected for 2025

~$3.5bn (€3.2bn); double-digit growth

~€4bn (~50% drop from 2023 peak)

~€1bn (cut in half from 2023); €1.57bn projected 2025 (+55%)

Major hubs

Berlin (40% of activity), Munich, Hamburg, Cologne, Frankfurt

Paris (~75%), Lyon, Toulouse, Nice

Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Eindhoven (Brainport), Utrecht

Stockholm, Gothenburg, Malmo

Dublin, Cork, Galway

Sector tilt

Deep tech, mobility, fintech, life sciences, climate

AI (Mistral leadership), deep tech, climate, fintech, defence-tech (rising)

Fintech, climate, foodtech, semiconductors (ASML ecosystem)

Fintech, gaming, B2B SaaS, climate (Stegra/H2 Green Steel)

Fintech, AI, healthtech, B2B SaaS

State LP / co-investment

KfW Capital (€10bn Future Fund 2021); HTGF since 2005 (€2bn AUM); Growth Fund Germany; Green Tech Facility

Bpifrance dominant: €1.6bn/year direct + LP; ~30% of seed/early-stage capital; Tibi initiative €7bn committed; France 2030

Invest-NL, ROM regional funds; smaller scale

Saminvest (state), Almi, EU/EIF dominant; less central than DE/FR

Enterprise Ireland (largest seed investor in Europe by deal count), IDA Ireland

Carried interest tax

~28.5% effective via Teileinkunfteverfahren; some treated as ordinary income

30% PFU (12.8% IT + 17.2% social) or marginal IT

~24.5-31% (box 2 reforms 2024-2025)

Currently capital gains 30% (state proposals to raise have not passed)

Standard CGT 33%

Founder capital gains on exit

Substantial holdings: ~28.5% effective (60% taxed at marginal rate)

PFU 30% or marginal IT + social charges

Box 2 progressive: 24.5% to €67k; 31% above (effective 2024-2025)

Standard 30%; entrepreneur-relief schemes limited

Entrepreneur Relief 10% on first €1m of qualifying gains; standard CGT 33% above

Angel / early-stage incentives

INVEST grant (20% of investment refunded, capped); ZuFinG 2024 expanded

IR-PME 25% income tax reduction (capped); JEI/JEPI status for innovative companies

Limited equivalent; broader R&D credits

Investeraravdrag (investor deduction) limited; varied

Employment Investment Incentive Scheme (EIIS) 40% income tax relief; KEEP for employees

Employee equity treatment

ZuFinG (2024): €2,000 tax-free annual allowance; deferred taxation reformed; still less favourable than UK EMI

BSPCE: highly favourable for qualifying companies; capital gains rate

Reformed 2023: deferred taxation until liquidity event for qualifying ESOPs

ESOPs available; recent reforms; KSOP scheme limited

KEEP scheme: gains taxed as CGT (33%) not income; restrictive eligibility

Common entity structure

GmbH, often with Luxembourg holding for VC purposes

SAS (Societe par actions simplifiee), increasingly common for startups

BV (Besloten Vennootschap)

AB (Aktiebolag)

Limited Company (LTD)

IPO market depth

Deutsche Borse Frankfurt; Scale segment for growth companies

Euronext Paris; growth segment

Euronext Amsterdam (ASML, Adyen as anchor listings)

Nasdaq Stockholm (most VC-active EU exchange historically)

Euronext Dublin (small)

Major change 2025-2026

Standortfordergesetz (September 2025 draft): VC-eligible asset reforms; ZuFinG II in development

Mistral AI €1.7bn Series C 2025 (largest European VC deal); political turbulence reduced FR fundraising 57% YoY 2024; Bpifrance Defence fund 2025

30% expat ruling tightening 2024; box-2 rate reforms; cabinet uncertainty after fall of government

Northvolt Chapter 11 November 2024 / Swedish bankruptcy March 2025 reshaped clean-tech sentiment; Klarna US IPO delayed; Norrsken €320m, Creandum €500m fund closes

Continued growth; Wayflyer $185m Series B extension and Tines $125m Series C 2025

Founder-friendliness ranking (Index Ventures Not Optional 2024)

23rd of 24 (employee equity); recent reforms partially addressed

High (BSPCE strong)

Mid; reforms 2023 improved

Mid-high

Mid (KEEP restrictive)

Direction of travel

Substantial reform momentum (ZuFinG, Standortfordergesetz, WIN Initiative); structurally improving but still behind UK/US on employee equity

Bpifrance-anchored ecosystem strong; political volatility threat; AI strength notable

Strong per-capita per-deal but small absolute scale; tax tightening on expats

Recovery from 2022-2024 trough; clean-tech post-Northvolt re-evaluation

Per-capita strong; sector concentration in fintech and AI; smallest scale of the five

Index Ventures' "Not Optional" report scores 24 countries on stock option friendliness across six parameters. Germany scored 10/30 (tied for last) in the most-cited 2022 analysis; recent ZuFinG reforms (2024) have partially addressed the historical disadvantage but Germany's employee equity regime remains less favourable than UK EMI or French BSPCE.

❖ ❖ ❖

What the comparison means: jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction

The tables compress; the prose below explains. Each section walks through one jurisdiction, what makes it structurally distinctive, what the current position is for a prospective founder, and what changed in 2025-2026.

United States

The structural facts. The US deploys roughly 3.5x more venture capital per year than the EU as a bloc and roughly 8x more than the UK alone. In the first nine months of 2025, total private investment into US tech companies reached $177bn — almost double the level of the same period in 2024 and nearly at par with the 2021 peak. The geographic concentration is in the Bay Area, New York, Boston, Los Angeles, and Austin; the sector tilt is heavily toward IT (48%), healthcare (26%), and industrials (11%) at H1 2025.

The LP base is endowment-heavy, with the Yale model (50%+ allocation to alternatives, 41% private equity at Harvard, 50% at Yale) providing patient capital that anchors most top-tier funds. US public pensions, sovereign wealth funds, family offices, and high-net-worth individuals fill out the rest. The state plays a minor LP role compared to European jurisdictions — SBA/SBIC programmes exist but are small relative to private capital.

Founder economics changed substantially in July 2025 with the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. The QSBS exclusion under IRC §1202 was expanded: the per-issuer, per-taxpayer cap rose from $10m to $15m (or 10x basis), inflation-indexed from 2027; the issuer's gross asset cap rose from $50m to $75m; the holding-period requirement became tiered — 50% exclusion at 3 years, 75% at 4 years, 100% at 5 years — instead of the previous binary 100%-or-nothing at 5 years. For a US founder of a venture-backed C-corporation, this is a meaningful improvement: a $20m gain at the 4-year mark now produces approximately $3.6m more in after-tax proceeds than under the pre-OBBBA regime.

State-level conformity to QSBS is uneven. California, Alabama, Mississippi, New Jersey (until 2026), and Pennsylvania do not conform, meaning federally-excluded gain is fully taxable at the state level for residents. Texas, Florida, Nevada, Tennessee, Wyoming and other no-state-income-tax jurisdictions produce a fully tax-free exit on the gain. A founder in San Francisco facing California's 13.3% top state rate sees substantially less of the QSBS benefit than a founder in Austin or Miami; this creates real geographic incentives within the US.

Carried interest reform was attempted in February 2025 with bipartisan support but ultimately failed; the May 2025 House tax bill preserved the existing 23.8% top rate for carry held more than 3 years. The political volatility around carry remains, but at present the structure is unchanged from pre-2025.

Net direction for founders: substantially more favourable than pre-2025 on the personal-tax side. The US remains the deepest exit market and the most concentrated source of follow-on capital at growth stage. For founders building toward $100m+ cumulative funding and US-strategic acquirer or NASDAQ exits, the US gravitational pull has strengthened in the past 18 months.

United Kingdom

The structural facts. The UK is the largest single European venture market by deal volume (approximately £25bn 2024, growth ~7.8% expected in 2025). It is the most diversified European market by deal concentration (the top 5 deals account for only 25% of UK total funding, against 50%+ in France and Sweden, and 80% in Finland). London does roughly 70% of UK VC activity; smaller specialised clusters operate in Cambridge, Oxford, Manchester, and Edinburgh. The sector tilt is fintech-heavy, with strong deep tech, biotech, and AI representation.

The LP base is more institutionally diverse than the US-endowment-heavy model. The British Business Bank operates as an explicit anchor LP through programmes like British Patient Capital, the Future Fund: Breakthrough, and the Enterprise Capital Funds programme. UK pensions are smaller VC allocators than US pensions; UK university endowments are a fraction of US endowment scale (Cambridge £7bn, Oxford ~£6bn including colleges, against Harvard's $57bn). Family offices and HNW — historically channelled through EIS and SEIS schemes for tax efficiency — have been disproportionately important in the UK relative to other European markets.

Founder economics have tightened substantially across 2024-2026. Business Asset Disposal Relief (BADR) caps lifetime gains qualifying for the reduced capital gains rate at £1m; the rate has risen from 10% (pre-April 2025) to 14% (April 2025-March 2026) and will rise again to 18% from April 2026. Above the £1m lifetime cap, founder gains are taxed at the standard CGT rate of 24% (top rate). A UK founder exiting with a £20m gain pays approximately £140k on the first £1m via BADR (at 14%, soon 18%) and approximately £4.56m on the remaining £19m at 24%, totalling approximately £4.7m — substantially more than an equivalent US founder pays after QSBS.

Business Property Relief (BPR), historically the route by which founder estates passed unlisted-share holdings to heirs free of inheritance tax, is capped from April 2026 at £2.5m per person of combined APR/BPR property (£5m per couple, transferable). Above the cap, 50% relief applies, producing an effective 20% IHT rate on the excess. This is a substantial tightening from the previous unlimited 100% relief, and has prompted significant succession planning across the UK founder cohort. The Longer Look's analysis (April 2026) walks through the implications across founder, angel, VC LP, and PE cohorts.

Carried interest reform from April 2026 treats carry as ordinary trading income subject to marginal income tax and National Insurance (effectively up to ~47% for highest-rate taxpayers), with a partial reduced rate of 34.1% for qualifying carried interest. This is substantially less favourable than the US's 23.8% or the UK's previous 28% rate.

Set against the tightening: EIS, SEIS, and EMI remain in place and remain among the most generous early-stage investor and employee equity incentives in the world. EIS provides 30% income tax relief on amounts invested up to £1m per year (£2m for knowledge-intensive companies), CGT exemption on disposal of EIS shares held for 3+ years, loss relief on failures, and CGT deferral for gains reinvested through EIS. SEIS provides 50% income tax relief for very early-stage investments. EMI options for employees are tax-advantaged with gains at 14% via BADR up to £1m. The UK's current cocktail (tighter on founder exit, generous on early-stage investment) is structurally different from both the US and most EU jurisdictions.

Net direction for founders: more extractive on personal exit; significantly favourable on early-stage investing; meaningful documented founder migration concerns. For founders whose exit will exceed the £1m BADR cap by a wide margin, US incorporation has become more attractive; for founders building primarily on UK angel and EMI capital, the UK ecosystem remains structurally well-suited.

Germany

The structural facts. German VC deployed approximately €7.4bn in 2024 (KfW data) across 1,407 financing rounds, with the third-highest annual deal count in the past decade. Germany was Europe's third-largest VC hub by deal value in 2024 and is projected to surpass France for second place in 2025 (with French volume falling 11.7% YoY due to political turbulence). Berlin captures approximately 40% of all German VC activity; Munich is the deep-tech and enterprise software hub; Hamburg, Cologne, and Frankfurt round out the major centres. The sector tilt is toward deep tech, mobility, fintech, life sciences, and climate.

The LP base is heavily state-anchored relative to the US and UK. KfW Capital launched the €10bn German Future Fund in 2021 and operates as a major LP across the German VC ecosystem. The High-Tech Grunderfonds (HTGF), founded in 2005, has invested in over 750 companies through four vintages and held €2bn AUM as of 2024 — historically accounting for approximately 50% of German seed-stage investment by deal count. The Growth Fund Germany (€1bn fund-of-funds) and the Green Tech Facility (€100m, climate-tech focus) extend the state role. The November 2024 WIN Initiative aims to further establish Germany as a leading location for innovation and growth capital by 2030.

Founder economics. Capital gains on substantial shareholdings (>1%) are taxed under the Teileinkunfteverfahren at an effective rate of approximately 28.5% (60% of gains taxed at marginal rate up to ~45% plus solidarity surcharge), or under the lower flat-rate regime for smaller holdings. The Wegzugsbesteuerung (exit tax) imposes deemed-disposal taxation on substantial-shareholding founders relocating outside the EU, a real friction for tax-residence flexibility.

Employee equity has historically been a structural disadvantage for Germany. Index Ventures' Not Optional analysis tied Germany for last place (23rd of 24 countries) on stock-option friendliness across six parameters, scoring 10 out of 30. The Future Financing Act (Zukunftsfinanzierungsgesetz, ZuFinG) of December 2023 / January 2024 substantially reformed the regime: the individual tax-free allowance for employee share benefits increased from €1,440 to €2,000 per year (conditional on equity offered to all employees with at least one year of tenure), and the deferred-taxation rules under §19a EStG were expanded to a wider universe of qualifying companies. The Standortfordergesetz (Location Promotion Act), approved by the German Federal Cabinet in September 2025, contains further changes to fund-investment tax rules and implements EU Listing Act provisions in Germany. ZuFinG II is in development. Net effect: substantial reform momentum, but Germany still trails UK EMI and French BSPCE on employee equity friendliness.

Many sizeable Germany-focused VC funds are domiciled in Luxembourg rather than Germany due to Luxembourg's investor-friendly fund vehicle regime, though the Standortfordergesetz attempts to address this asymmetry. When German-domiciled, the GmbH & Co KG structure is preferred for VC funds due to tax transparency and trade-tax exemption.

Net direction for founders: improving but still structurally less favourable than UK/US on employee equity and founder exit tax. Germany's state-backed LP base is genuinely substantial (one of the strongest in Europe), and the deep-tech and industrial-tech orientation suits founders building in those sectors. Berlin and Munich remain among the strongest European clusters for their respective sector specialisations.

France

The structural facts. French VC deployed approximately €7.77bn in 2024, with 723 financing rounds. The 2025 picture is mixed: France hosts Mistral AI's €1.7bn Series C — the largest European VC deal of 2025, valuing the company at €11.7bn — but overall French deal value is projected to fall 11.7% YoY in 2025 due to political turbulence following the snap elections of 2024 and the resignation of Prime Minister Michel Barnier. France's VC fundraising market dropped approximately 57% YoY in 2024, leaving available dry powder at its lowest since 2017. Paris captures approximately 75% of French VC activity. The sector tilt is increasingly toward AI (Paris has emerged as a European AI hub), deep tech, climate, fintech, and recently defence-tech (Bpifrance Defence fund, March 2025).

The LP base is the most state-anchored of any major European venture market. Bpifrance, established in 2012 through merger of OSEO/CDC Entreprises/FSI, accounts for approximately 30% of seed and early-stage capital in France by deployment volume. Between 2013 and 2022, Bpifrance invested €4bn directly in approximately 450 companies and committed €5bn as LP to 160 private VC funds, with a leverage ratio of 5.4x (Bpifrance-backed private funds collectively raised €27bn). Bpifrance Digital Venture (early stage), Large Venture (€1.75bn AUM, growth stage), and SPI Funds (industrial projects) cover the full venture spectrum. The Tibi initiative has committed €7bn to fund tomorrow's technological leaders. Of France's 31 unicorns in 2022, Bpifrance Large Venture had backed 11.

Founder economics. Capital gains are taxed at the Prelevement Forfaitaire Unique (PFU, "flat tax") of 30% (12.8% income tax + 17.2% social charges), or optionally at marginal income tax rate plus social charges if more favourable. France's structural advantage is the BSPCE regime (Bons de Souscription de Parts de Createur d'Entreprise) for employee stock options, which is among the most favourable in Europe — BSPCE gains for qualifying companies are taxed as capital gains at PFU rather than as employment income. Young Innovative Company status (JEI) and Particularly Innovative Young Company status (JEPI) provide tax incentives including corporate income tax exemption and social charge reductions.

Net direction for founders: structurally well-suited for AI, deep tech, climate, and industrial-tech founders; substantial state-backed capital across all stages; among the most favourable employee equity regimes in Europe via BSPCE. Political volatility is a real risk — the 57% YoY drop in 2024 fundraising and the 11.7% drop in 2025 deal value suggest investors are pricing political uncertainty into the French opportunity. For founders willing to accept that risk, France is one of the strongest European venture jurisdictions.

Netherlands

The structural facts. Dutch VC deployed approximately $3.5bn (€3.2bn) in 2024 — the country's second-best funding year ever. The Netherlands ranks within the top 10 European countries and top 20 globally for VC investment per capita, though absolute scale remains smaller than Germany or France. Per capita VC investment is €193 (vs €546 in the US). Amsterdam is the dominant hub; Rotterdam, Utrecht, Groningen are growing; Eindhoven (Brainport) is the deep-tech and semiconductor cluster anchored by ASML's ecosystem. The sector tilt is toward fintech, climate, foodtech, and semiconductors, with growing photonics and urban-tech segments.

The LP base is institutionally less concentrated than Germany or France. Invest-NL operates as a state co-investment vehicle but at smaller scale than KfW or Bpifrance. Regional development companies (ROMs) provide regional co-investment. Pension funds are substantial LPs of European-domiciled VC funds (PGGM, ABP) but allocate relatively conservatively to VC. International capital is significant: in 2024, much of the largest Dutch VC was from international rounds (e.g., Picnic's €355m round).

Founder economics. Capital gains on substantial shareholdings (>5%) are taxed in box 2 at progressive rates: 24.5% up to €67k of gain, and 31% above (effective 2024-2025; rates rose from previous 26.9% flat). Recent tightening of the 30% expat ruling (which previously offered 30% income tax relief for foreign workers) has raised concerns about Dutch competitiveness for inbound founder talent.

Employee equity was substantially reformed in 2023, allowing deferred taxation on qualifying ESOPs until a liquidity event — addressing the previous "dry income" problem where employees owed tax on illiquid grants. The reform brought Dutch ESOP treatment closer to (though still not equal to) UK EMI.

Net direction for founders: small but high-quality ecosystem; strong per-capita performance; deep-tech and semiconductor strength via the ASML ecosystem; tax tightening on expat regimes is a real friction for inbound founder talent. The Netherlands is structurally well-suited for founders building in fintech, climate, foodtech, and semiconductor-adjacent deep tech, particularly those who value access to the broader Benelux talent pool and the Eurostar-distance proximity to London and Paris.

Sweden

The structural facts. Swedish VC has historically been the most active and mature Nordic ecosystem, but funding fell by approximately 50% in 2024 against 2023. 2025 saw further decline. The total Nordic VC capital pool was €4.8bn in 2024 — a third of the 2021 peak. Stockholm is the dominant hub; Gothenburg and Malmo are secondary. The sector tilt is toward fintech (Klarna, iZettle, Tink), gaming (Mojang/Microsoft, EA DICE, King), B2B SaaS, and climate (Northvolt before its collapse, Stegra).

Two events of late 2024 / early 2025 reshaped the Swedish ecosystem materially. Northvolt — once the bellwether European battery champion — filed for Chapter 11 protection in the US in November 2024 and for Swedish bankruptcy in March 2025, after raising over $15bn in cumulative funding. The collapse prompted broader questions about the viability of capital-intensive gigafactory ventures and triggered restructuring across European clean-tech VC. Stegra (formerly H2 Green Steel) remains as the primary clean-tech bellwether, though following the Northvolt aftermath the Swedish government has questioned further state aid, denying additional funding to Stegra in 2025 even after EU approval. Klarna's planned US IPO, expected H1 2025, was delayed.

Set against these setbacks: substantial fund formation continued. Norrsken VC (co-founded by Klarna co-founder Niklas Adalberth) closed Fund II at €320m, the largest early-stage generalist impact fund in Europe. Creandum VII closed at €500m, top-10 in Europe in 2024. The Swedish ecosystem retains strong founder talent density and operator-led capital.

Founder economics. Capital gains are taxed at 30% as the standard rate. Sweden has periodically considered raising capital gains taxes; proposed increases have not passed but remain politically live. Employee equity (KSOP) is available but the regime is less favourable than UK EMI or French BSPCE. Investeraravdrag (investor deduction) provides limited tax relief on early-stage equity investments.

Net direction for founders: ecosystem in recovery from the 2022-2024 trough; clean-tech sector reassessing post-Northvolt; strong B2B SaaS, fintech, and gaming heritage; sizeable funds (Creandum, Norrsken) closed with significant deployment capacity. For founders building in those sectors with Nordic talent access, Sweden remains structurally relevant despite the cyclical downturn.

Ireland

The structural facts. Irish VC saw deal value cut in half in 2024, with the largest round being SynOx Therapeutics' $92m Series B. 2025 reversed the trend dramatically: deal value reached €1.57bn projected, a 55% increase, the country's second-highest annual deal value on record. Notable 2025 deals included Wayflyer's $185m Series B extension (June 2025) and Tines' $125m Series C (February 2025). Dublin is the dominant hub; Cork and Galway are smaller. The sector tilt is toward fintech, AI, healthtech, and B2B SaaS.

The LP base is anchored by Enterprise Ireland — by deal count, the largest seed investor in Europe (a position held since the early 2010s). Enterprise Ireland operates both as direct equity investor in early-stage Irish companies and as an LP in Irish-focused VC funds. IDA Ireland focuses on attracting foreign direct investment (Apple, Google, Meta, Pfizer all have major Irish operations), creating substantial corporate ecosystems that produce founder talent. The EIF and ISIF (Ireland Strategic Investment Fund) provide additional co-investment.

Founder economics. Standard CGT at 33% applies to most disposals. Entrepreneur Relief offers a reduced 10% rate on the first €1m of qualifying gains — simpler and at the same headline rate as UK BADR pre-2025 but with a much smaller cap. The Employment Investment Incentive Scheme (EIIS) provides angel investors with 40% income tax relief (35% in year 1, 5% in year 4) on qualifying investments, capped at €500,000 per year. The Key Employee Engagement Programme (KEEP) provides employees with capital-gains-rate treatment of equity gains (33% CGT vs marginal income tax up to 52% with USC and PRSI), but is restrictive on eligibility — KEEP shares must be issued by qualifying companies and held under specific conditions.

Net direction for founders: small but increasingly attractive ecosystem; Enterprise Ireland's deal-count leadership at seed stage means founder access to early-stage capital is structurally easier than in larger but more diffuse markets; English-language, common-law jurisdiction with US-style corporate law makes US fundraising and re-incorporation relatively friction-free; strong cluster of US tech multinational employers creates founder talent pipeline. The 12.5% corporate tax rate (subject to OECD Pillar 2 minimum-tax adjustments) remains attractive for international subsidiary structures.

❖ ❖ ❖

Other European markets in brief

The five jurisdictions above account for the bulk of EU venture activity, but several others have structural features worth flagging for founders considering them.

Spain

Spanish VC has grown substantially. Madrid and Barcelona are the dominant hubs. The 2024-2025 picture has been strong, with Multiverse Computing's $215m Series B as a marker round. Capital gains on substantial shareholdings are taxed at progressive rates up to 28%. The Beckham Law / Special Expat Regime offers a flat 24% income tax rate for qualifying inbound talent, recently reformed to extend to startup founders relocating to Spain. The Startups Law (2022) established formal tax incentives for qualifying startups and their employees, including reduced corporate tax (15% for first 4 profitable years) and improved stock option treatment. The ENISA state-backed loan programme provides early-stage financing alternative to equity dilution.

Italy

Italian VC is small in absolute scale but growing. Milan is the dominant hub; Turin has industrial-tech depth. The Innovative Startup regime provides tax incentives for qualifying companies and their investors (30-50% income tax credit on qualifying investments). Capital gains are taxed at 26% (substantial-holdings regime). The Italian Founders Fund (IFF), launched in 2024 with backing from over 100 Italian founders, signals maturing founder-LP recycling. The CDP Venture Capital state-backed vehicle plays an anchor LP role.

Estonia

Estonia's distinctive feature is the corporate tax regime: undistributed corporate profits are not taxed at all; tax is levied (at 22%) only on distributed profits. This creates structural advantages for early-stage companies retaining earnings for reinvestment. The e-Residency programme allows foreign founders to establish and run an Estonian company remotely. Tallinn has produced disproportionate venture output (Skype, Bolt, Wise, Pipedrive, Veriff) despite the country's small population. Capital gains on Estonian-resident founders are taxed at 22% on distributed profits only.

Switzerland

Outside the EU and UK formally, but worth flagging for founder relocation considerations. Switzerland leads the world in per-capita deep-tech investment, with the strongest deep-tech ecosystem density of any country. Cantonal corporate tax rates range from 11.9% to 21.6% with patent-box regimes available. Tax holidays of up to 10 years are available in some cantons for new businesses creating jobs. ETH Zurich and EPFL are among the strongest European university research bases. Capital gains on private wealth are generally tax-free for individuals (substantial structural advantage), though qualifying as professional trader can change this treatment.

Finland, Denmark, Norway

Finland attracted record VC in 2025, with Oura's $875m Series E dominating, IQM raising $300m+ Series B, and Iceye reaching a €2.4bn valuation. Helsinki is the dominant hub. Denmark's ecosystem has been smaller and more concentrated. Norway saw VC funding rise modestly in 2024 (~€700m) after years of decline; Nscale's $155m Series A in late 2024 was the largest deal.

Poland and Central Europe

Polish VC has grown rapidly, with PFR Ventures as the dominant state-backed LP. Warsaw is the dominant hub. The Central and Eastern European region as a whole has seen funding decline in 2024-2025 in absolute terms, though several country-specific stories (Latvia, Lithuania) have been positive. CEE founders increasingly raise in Warsaw, Berlin, or London for Series A and onwards.

❖ ❖ ❖

Implications for founders choosing where to build

The structural facts above produce different optimal choices for different founders. Several patterns are worth naming.

The capital-intensive scale-up case. A founder building a company that will need $100m+ in cumulative funding to reach exit, whose customers are global enterprises, whose talent pool is global, and whose realistic exit is a US strategic acquirer or NASDAQ IPO, faces a strong gravitational pull toward US incorporation regardless of where the founder personally resides. Many UK and EU founders in this position incorporate as Delaware C-corps with a UK or EU operating subsidiary, and re-domicile fully ("flip-up") to a Delaware C-corp at or before Series A. The post-OBBBA QSBS expansion strengthens this pull: the founder's after-tax exit is materially better under US rules than under most UK or EU rules. The first nine months of 2025 saw $177bn invested in US tech — nearly double the same period in 2024 — reinforcing the scale gap between US and Europe.

The deep-tech / mission-aligned case. A founder building deep tech, climate tech, biotech, or hard tech often finds Europe genuinely well-suited — sector-specialised capital, EIF and national-co-investment-anchored funds, strong university research linkages, and longer-horizon LP base that tolerates 12+ year cycles. Munich (deep tech and industrial), Paris (AI and climate), Cambridge and Oxford (deep tech and biotech), Eindhoven (semiconductors), Helsinki (deep tech and gaming), and Zurich/Lausanne (frontier deep tech, though Switzerland sits outside the EU/UK) are all competitive with US clusters in their specialisations and offer founders more patient capital.

The local-market case. A founder building a UK fintech serving UK retail, or a French marketplace serving French consumers, or a German B2B SaaS serving German Mittelstand, may find the local ecosystem more than adequate and the friction of US incorporation outweighs the benefits. EIS/SEIS in the UK, BSPCE in France, and (post-ZuFinG) ESOPs in Germany reward founders and angels who stay local. National state-anchored capital (British Business Bank, Bpifrance, KfW, Enterprise Ireland) is structurally stronger than US equivalents.

The tax-residence flexibility case. A founder with the personal flexibility to choose residence has a wider option set. Estonia for early-stage operations and remote incorporation. Switzerland (Zug, Zurich) for low cantonal corporate tax and tax-free private capital gains. Ireland for English-language common-law jurisdiction with low corporate tax. The UAE or Singapore for residence. Delaware for incorporation. The US for fundraising. London, Berlin, Paris, or Dublin for talent. Many large recent venture winners have built composite structures across multiple jurisdictions, taking the best feature of each.

The risk-tolerance case. The US system rewards extreme outcomes more steeply (post-QSBS) and tolerates higher failure rates more comfortably. The European system, with its more public-anchored LP base and more patient capital, tolerates slower growth and longer paths to exit but rewards extreme outcomes less. A founder whose personal risk tolerance is high and whose ambition is venture-scale outcomes is structurally better-served by the US. A founder whose personal risk tolerance is moderate and whose ambition includes building a sustainable mid-scale business is often better-served by Europe.

The 2025-2026 directional read. The US is structurally improving for founders post-OBBBA: bigger QSBS exclusion, earlier QSBS exclusion, larger-company QSBS eligibility. The UK is structurally tightening: BADR rate rising, BPR cap, carry reform. The EU is mixed: Listing Act eases listing burden, several member states (Germany, Netherlands) reformed employee equity, France faces political volatility, Sweden faces clean-tech reassessment post-Northvolt. The cumulative effect is that the US gap over Europe is widening on the founder-economics dimension while narrowing on listing-market access. For founders the practical implication is that fewer EU-based founders are choosing UK incorporation (because of the recent tightening), more are choosing direct US incorporation or local-EU structures with US holding companies later.

❖ ❖ ❖

A note on what this document does not say

This document maps structural features. It does not say which jurisdiction is morally better, which produces better technologies, which is more meritocratic, or which treats founders better in non-financial dimensions. The longer companion document ("Is venture capital optimising for the benefit of humanity?") treats those questions through five distinct evaluative frames; the reader is referred there for that analysis.

Three specific things this document deliberately does not do, and why. It does not rank the jurisdictions overall (the right ranking depends on the founder's situation; producing a single ranking would impose an evaluation framework on the reader). It does not predict where the structural advantages will sit in 2030 (the pace of change in 2025-2026 has been unusual; positions could shift again). It does not make recommendations on incorporation, tax residence, or fund structure (those decisions require legal and tax advice specific to the founder's circumstances).

Sources

On US: Cambridge Associates US PE/VC Benchmark Commentary (2024 and H1 2025). PitchBook annual venture reports. NVCA. ITIF, "Venture Capital and Advanced Technologies Drive US Employment" (December 2025). On QSBS / OBBBA: Davis Wright Tremaine, K&L Gates, Akin, Alvarez & Marsal, Tax Adviser, Millan + Co briefings (July 2025 - January 2026). On carried interest: DLA Piper, Akin, Fortune (May 2025), CNBC.

On UK: BVCA annual reports. Beauhurst quarterly UK venture data. KPMG UK venture pulse. British Business Bank Small Business Finance Markets reports. The Longer Look (thelongerlook.com), "UK Tech and the IHT Reform" (April 2026). HMRC EIS/SEIS/EMI guidance.

On Germany: KfW Venture Capital Dashboard 2024 (January 2025). Chambers and Partners Venture Capital Guide 2025 - Germany. Carta, German Future Financing Act analysis. Morgan Lewis on Standortfordergesetz (September 2025). OECD, "Benchmarking government support for venture capital: Germany" (2025). Beaumont Capital Markets German Future Fund analysis. Index Ventures Not Optional report.

On France: Chambers and Partners Venture Capital Guide 2025 - France. OECD, "Benchmarking government support for venture capital: France" (2025). Bpifrance annual reports. Sifted on Bpifrance and French Tech ecosystem. The French Tech Journal. PitchBook European venture data 2024-2025.

On Netherlands: Dealroom Netherlands ecosystem analysis. PitchBook Dutch venture fund analysis (2024). Statista Netherlands VC outlook. IO+ on Dutch funding gap (Atomico State of European Tech 2024 derived). Chambers VC Guide.

On Sweden: Chambers and Partners Venture Capital Guide 2025 - Sweden. PitchBook Nordic data. Northvolt Chapter 11 and bankruptcy filings. Klarna IPO filings.

On Ireland: Enterprise Ireland deal data. PitchBook Ireland venture analysis. Wayflyer and Tines fundraising announcements 2025.

On other European markets: OECD VC benchmarking by country. PitchBook "Hot or not: where European VC funding grew in 2025" (December 2025). State of European Tech 2024 and 2025 reports (Atomico). Estonian e-Residency programme. Spanish Startups Law analysis.

On founder mobility and tax residency: USCIS (US), UK Home Office, German BAMF, French Ministry of Interior, Irish INIS, Estonian e-Residency, Swiss cantonal tax authorities. Index Ventures Rewarding Talent guide on cross-jurisdiction equity treatment. Stripe Atlas guides for non-US founders.

This document relies on web-search summaries of public sources and publicly available legal/tax guidance. The figures and rules cited are subject to change; some have changed within the past 12 months and may change again. Use as a starting reference, not as authoritative guidance for individual decisions. No human expert reviewed this document before publication.