The Impact of Accelerators on Startup Performance

This section explores the mixed academic perspectives on the impact of accelerators on startup performance, indicating how different accelerator models influence innovation outcomes by measuring funding, survival, and other variables.

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.

Introduction

The impact of accelerators on startup performance is heavily discussed and analysed aspects in entrepreneurship literature and its environment. It is also one of the central questions of this dissertation indeed. Accelerators, as mentorship and networking environments, have the potential to boost growth, provide access to investment, facilitate market entry, and providing with innovative or enhanced products and services (value). Yet, whether these programs generate a lasting competitive advantage or only a temporary push remains in scrutiny.

Startup Success Metrics and Performance Indicators

Startup performance is a complex concept that has been approached using a variety of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs). These indicators serve as tangible metrics to evaluate whether accelerator participation has been beneficial:

• Funding rounds and investment growth: Startups that go through accelerator programs are expected to have more visibility and access to investors (the world moves by contacts), potentially attracting more and higher-quality or better conditions for funding (Seitz et al., 2023).
• Survival rate and acquisition potential: Some studies investigate whether accelerated startups are more likely to survive and reach acquisition or IPO stages than non-accelerated ones (Sarto et al., 2022).
• Innovation output and technology adoption: The number of registered patents or the implementation of advanced technologies are often used to assess long-term competitiveness (Assenova & Amit, 2024).

These metrics form the core of the empirical analysis that this dissertation undertakes (in later chapters), using the dataset of startups that participated in Google’s and Microsoft’s accelerator programs

Evidence from Independent Accelerators

The earliest studies on accelerators focused on independent programs such as Y Combinator and Techstars, which served as models for evaluating the potential of the accelerator structure. These programs demonstrated that early-stage funding, structured mentorship, and investor demo days could increase the likelihood of follow-on investment and acquisition. However, researchers such as Woolley and Macgregor (2022) argued that these results could be skewed by selection bias, as accelerators tend to accept startups that are already promising and have higher probabilities of succeeding.

Moreover, findings by Mishigragchaa (2017) support that mentorship quality and access to investor networks (core elements of traditional accelerators) play a fundamental role in how much value a startup actually collect from participation. Simply going through a program is not a guarantee for future success; what matters is how effectively startups engage with what is offered and how the opportunity is seized according to its context and situation.

The Corporate Accelerator Debate

While traditional accelerators showed signs of adding value, corporate accelerators (CAs) brought an additional layer of complexity. Backed by established firms, CAs such as Google for Startups and Microsoft for Startups offer not just capital and mentorship, but also access to proprietary technologies, brand prestige, and global distribution channels.

According to Hallen et al. (2022), some startups experience a “springboard effect” from participation in CAs, which includes improved investor trust, stronger industry connections, and accelerated product development. This effect is attributed to the status spillover effect (i.e. to the phenomenon where a startup benefits from the reputation and credibility of the accelerator or corporation backing it) from being associated with globally recognised brands. However, the performance impact remains controversial.

Others argue that these programs may act as “sand traps”, where startups become over-reliant on corporate resources, lose their autonomy, or fail to scale after program completion.

Fehder (2023) further notes that the founding ecosystem of a startup significantly influences how much value is captured from acceleration. Startups from strong innovation hubs (e.g., Silicon Valley) may already have access to high-status networks, making the benefit of an accelerator marginal smaller. Conversely, startups from weaker ecosystems might benefit disproportionately.

Short-Term Boost or Long-Term Impact?

In order to understand the impact of accelerators on startup performance is whether the benefits of sticking around of their “knowledge and pragmatism”, has a strong and durable influence or are they just short-lived? Several studies argue that accelerators often provide a “boost effect”—a rapid increase in funding visibility, media exposure, or product development shortly after graduation. However, there is skepticism about whether this momentum translates into long-term strategic advantage or sustainable business growth.

Chowdhury and Audretsch (2023) caution that while accelerated startups may look promising early on, many of them may struggle to maintain performance once the formal program ends. They refer to this phenomenon as the “post-acceleration plateau.” Conversely, programs that maintain post-graduation support—especially CAs—could lead into creating extended value if the relationship evolves into a commercial partnership (Seitz et al., 2023).

To understand the contrasting views, the table below presents a comparative summary:

Dimension	Short-Term Boost	Long-Term Impact
Funding & Investment	Increased visibility attracts seed or Series A funding soon after graduation	Follow-on funding depends on revenue growth and market proof post-acceleration
Market Access	Exposure to investors, demo days, and media coverage	Requires sustained business development and customer acquisition efforts
Mentorship & Guidance	Structured sessions and expert coaching during the program	Limited or no formal support after the program ends with exceptions
Corporate Partnership	Brand association with large corporations creates credibility	Lasting impact only if the startup becomes a supplier, partner, or acquisition target
Innovation Performance	Fast prototyping and MVP (minimum viable product) development	Longevity depends on the startup’s internal team and ability to adapt and evolve

In essence, accelerators act as catalysts, not guarantees. For some startups, they open doors that wouldn’t otherwise exist. For others, especially those without follow-through, accountability or scalable models, the boost fades quickly.

Conclusion

The literature on the impact of accelerators on startup performance offers mixed insights. While the short-term benefits in terms of funding, mentorship, and visibility are consistently observed, the long-term implications vary depending on the startup’s origin, the accelerator’s design, and the quality of engagement. For corporate accelerators, the trade-off between strategic support and dependency risk remains critical. This dissertation will explore these themes by analysing the performance of startups accelerated by Google and Microsoft, helping to clarify whether these programs serve as launchpads or merely create the illusion of momentum; an uncertainty by evaluating post-acceleration data, seeking evidence on whether the support received created enduring value or just mere spikes of an early-stage performance.

References

1. Assenova, V., & Amit, R. (2024). The impact of accelerator participation on startup performance: An empirical assessment. Entrepreneurship Development Program.
2. Chowdhury, F., & Audretsch, D. B. (2023). Paradoxes of accelerator programs and new venture performance: Do varieties of experiences make a difference? Small Business Economics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-023-00778-y
3. Fehder, D. C. (2023). Coming from a good pond: The influence of a new venture’s founding ecosystem on accelerator performance. Administrative Science Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.1177/00018392231204839
4. Hallen, B. L., Cohen, S. L., & Park, S. H. (2022). Are seed accelerators status springboards for startups? Or sand traps? Strategic Management Journal, 1-37. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.3484
5. Mishigragchaa, B. (2017). Accelerators as a tool to support startup ventures: Assessing their performance and success factors. Proceedings of the International Entrepreneurship Forum.
6. Sarto, N. D., Cruz Cazares, C., & Di Minin, A. (2022). Startup accelerators as an open environment: The impact on startups’ innovative performance. Technovation, 113, 102425. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2021.102425
7. 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
8. Woolley, J. L., & Macgregor, N. (2022). The influence of incubator and accelerator participation on nanotechnology venture success. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 46(6), 1717–1755. https://doi.org/10.1177/10422587211024510