Antler vs Entrepreneur First

Both back individuals before there is a company. Entrepreneur First takes less equity and skews towards deep tech and technical talent; Antler runs in more cities and is broader about who it admits. Neither is a sensible fallback for a team that already exists.

These two occupy a category of their own. They invest in people rather than companies and they expect you to find a co-founder inside the programme, which is a genuinely different product from an accelerator and flatters neither side of the comparison.

The residency is the part worth thinking hardest about. Both run for roughly half a year, and the opening stretch goes on matching rather than on building, which is a cost that never appears anywhere in the terms.

Side by side

Amounts and terms come from our catalog, not from this article.

ProgramFunding / equityBest forThe catch
Entrepreneur First (EF)$250,000 for 8%Technical and research-heavy individuals aiming at deep tech, who want the lower equity and the more selective room.It is a bet on the person, so the bar is high and the process is designed to be uncomfortable. Pairings that are not working get broken up rather than carried to demo day.
Antler$250,000 for 10%Founders in a city where Antler runs who want breadth of sector and background in the cohort, not only deep tech.It takes the highest equity of the day-zero programmes here, and the published investment is a range, so what you receive is negotiated rather than fixed in advance.

Last verified . Report an error

What we would actually do

Research or deep tech background, lean EF

The cohort is selected for technical depth and the equity is lower for a comparable cheque. If your edge is a paper, a patent or a decade inside a specialised field, that is the room where a potential co-founder can actually evaluate it.

Anything outside the deep tech lane, lean Antler

The sector range is wider and the city coverage is broader. That matters more than it sounds, because the entire model rests on who else happens to be sitting in the room with you for six months.

The real question is whether you want a cohort co-founder

Both are matching engines with capital attached. If you already have a co-founder you trust, you would be paying a day-zero equity price for a service you do not need, and a conventional accelerator is straightforwardly cheaper.

Not sure which you clear?

Five questions, and we check the real rules for you.

Check eligibility

Common questions

Sometimes, and it changes the maths. Both will consider formed teams, but the matching phase is the core of what the equity buys, so an existing pair should price the terms against a standard accelerator before accepting a place.

You generally leave without the investment. Both pay a stipend during the matching phase and only invest once a team and a direction exist, and that is precisely the risk you accept in exchange for being backed with nothing built yet.

Largely not, which is normal for programmes running fixed cohorts on standard paper. What does vary is the investment, particularly where the published figure is a range, so ask early what determines where inside that range you land.

Other comparisons