This section explores binary indicators of results from corporate accelerators for startups to complement the funding-based evaluations from previous sections, which are complementary for the study. While ANOVA and regression focused on the outcome of financial performance (both from corporate accelerators and other sources), this part of the analysis expands on strategic events such as IPOs, acquisitions, company closures, and so on. They help assess whether corporate accelerators truly serve as springboards by enabling successful exits or acquisitions, or conversely, as sand traps associated with closures or stagnation. The goal is to complement the previous two results.
The data used is based on 855 startups accelerated by either Google or Microsoft and sourced entirely from Crunchbase. Binary values (0 = did not occur, 1 = occurred) are tracked over a three-year post-acceleration period.
This post represents a series of articles related to a research and dissertation called “Are corporate accelerators springboards for startups: a performance analysis of the Microsoft’s and Google’s accelerated.
Binary Performance Outcomes by Year
IPO (Initial Public Offering)
Out of 617 Google-accelerated startups, 5 (0.81%) went public within three years. Microsoft startups had no IPOs out of 238 companies (0.00%). Google-accelerated startups experienced a modest number of IPOs.
| Year | Microsoft | |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Year 2 | 2 | 0 |
| Year 3 | 3 | 0 |
Acquisitions (Being Acquired)
Out of 617 Google startups, 64 (10.37%) were acquired in the three-year period, while 18 of 238 Microsoft startups (7.56%) were acquired.
| Year | Microsoft | |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 10 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 21 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 33 | 9 |
Acquisitions Made (By Startups)
Of all Google startups, 38 (6.16%) made an acquisition, compared to 6 (2.52%) of Microsoft startups.
| Year | Microsoft | |
| Year 1 | 8 | 1 |
| Year 2 | 13 | 1 |
| Year 3 | 17 | 4 |
Closures
Business shutdowns are crucial to understand downside risks of acceleration. Google startups showed almost zero closures, Only 1 of 617 Google startups (0.16%) closed by year 3. On the other hand, Microsoft-accelerated startups showed increasing closure rates over time, 23 of 238 Microsoft startups (9.66%) ceased operations.
| Year | Microsoft | |
| Year 1 | 0 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 0 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 1 | 10 |
Additional Insights: Pre-Acceleration Indicators
Beyond post-acceleration outcomes, we examine startup characteristics before they entered Google or Microsoft programs. This helps identify whether the programs selected startups with pre-existing advantages or if there were certain bias.
Startups with Previous Acceleration
86 startups had already participated in a different accelerator before joining Google or Microsoft, suggesting layered support.
Patents Before Acceleration
The cohort registered a total of 265 patents prior to acceleration, indicating innovation potential before program intervention.
Accelerated Within First Year of Founding
152 startups were accelerated within 12 months of their founding date, showing that corporate accelerators often accept startups in their very early stages.
Operating Status
As of 2024, there were 797 startups from both Microsoft and Google accelerators that were marked as active and 58 are marked as closed.
Conclusions
Google’s accelerator appears to outperform Microsoft’s on key binary indicators of startup success. Conversely, Microsoft startups appear to have a higher risk of closure, especially by year 3. Previous results suggest that Google’s program may function more consistently as a strategic springboard, while Microsoft’s outcomes suggest greater performance volatility or selection risk. These indicators enrich our understanding of startup maturity and risk level at the time of entry into the accelerator and reinforce the importance of comparing not only funding levels but also real-world survival and growth outcomes.
These distinctions will be further interpreted in the context of accelerator design and startup selection in Section 4.5.
References
- Crunchbase. (n.d.). Crunchbase: Discover innovative companies and the people behind them. Retrieved from https://www.crunchbase.com/
- Seitz, N., Krieger, B., Mauer, R., & Brettel, M. (2023). Corporate accelerators: Design and startup performance. Small Business Economics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-023-00732-y
