A great investment proposition isn't enough to get you funded in 2026

Every successful fundraise depends on three things: targeting the right investors, developing a strong investment proposition, and executing an effective campaign. These pillars haven't changed in the sixteen years Duet has been advising early-stage companies. What has changed - dramatically - is their relative importance.

A decade ago, developing the proposition was the hardest part. Understanding what investors wanted (the specific investment criteria) was genuinely difficult. The information wasn't public. Founders who could articulate their opportunity through an investor's lens had a meaningful edge. A reasonable weighting of relative difficulty across our three factors might have therefore been: 30% investors; 40% proposition; 30% campaign.

Today, based on patterns observed across more than seventy client engagements and recent shifts in the market, our assessment shows these weightings have significantly changed:

• Investors: 30% → 45%
• Proposition: 40% → 10%
• Campaign: 30% → 45%

The visible landscape of self-help support that has erupted in recent years - podcasts, newsletters, LinkedIn posts, pitch deck templates etc. - relates almost entirely to the proposition-building pillar, the factor that now matters least as the knowledge gap has reduced. The problem is that founders absorb this content, assume most of the hard work is done, and walk into a process they're unprepared for. The illusion is that fundraising has become easier – but of course we all know that it hasn't.

The key to increasing the probability of funding success now sits heavily within the other two pillars: targeting the right investors and executing an effective campaign. By sharing our understanding of how these have changed we hope founders will be better prepared to conquer the funding challenge of 2026.


Why the investment proposition dropped

The investment proposition hasn't become unimportant. It remains the foundation. But the gap between a great proposition and a good one has narrowed because the playbook is now public. Every founder knows they need a clear problem-solution thesis. Every founder knows investors want evidence of product-market fit. Every founder has seen the Y Combinator application questions and the Sequoia pitch deck framework.

This democratisation of what investors want to see is genuinely positive - it has raised the floor for all founders. But it has also eliminated the differentiation that proposition quality once provided. When everyone has access to the same frameworks, executing them well no longer sets you apart. It simply prevents you from being screened out in the first three minutes.

The proposition is now the entry ticket, not the race. Founders who over-invest here, believing they're building competitive advantage, are optimising the wrong variable.


The investor targeting challenge

While founders focused on proposition-building, the investor landscape transformed. Not only has the universe of potential backers expanded dramatically - angels, VCs, corporate venture arms, family offices, sovereign wealth funds, specialist sector investors - but so too has the geography in which these investors are located.

A decade ago, the vast majority of investors supporting early-stage rounds in the UK, particularly at Seed and Series A, were domestically based. Overseas investors existed but they were in the minority and rarely led deals. Today, that picture has changed entirely. Institutional Seed and Series A transactions now regularly feature participation from investors across Europe, Asia, and the US - with overseas investors increasingly willing to lead these early rounds. The funding landscape has become truly global.

Simultaneously, the post-2021 correction triggered a sharp contraction in who is actually deploying capital. European VC fundraising hit a record low in 2025, with many funds that raised during the boom now fully deployed or in extended holding periods.

The result is a paradox: more theoretical options across a wider geography, but fewer investors actively writing cheques. Founders face a vast and increasingly global menu of investor types while struggling to identify who has capital available, whose thesis genuinely aligns, and who is actively making new commitments in their sector and stage. This requires research and analysis at a scale most founders aren't equipped to undertake - which is precisely why advisory firms now invest so heavily in investment market intelligence.

The founders who succeed are those who treat investor targeting as a rigorous discipline. They use market intelligence to guide every aspect of the campaign.


The campaign execution gap

Competition for capital has intensified to a degree that many founders underestimate until they experience it. Global VC deal count fell to a five-year low in 2025, even as deal value held steady - meaning capital is concentrating into fewer transactions. More founders are competing for a shrinking number of funding slots. Early-stage rounds have been hit hardest, with deal counts declining more sharply than later stages.

But the shift in campaign difficulty isn't just about competition. It's about the nature of what a campaign now requires. Capital raising is no longer an isolated event - a discrete project that starts when runway gets short and ends when the round closes. It has become a strategic capability that must be woven into the fabric of how the business is built.

Founders who succeed are thinking across multiple rounds, not just the next one. They consider how to build the right capital base at each stage - not merely raising enough but raising from investors who position the company for what comes next. They think about syndicate structure: which cornerstone investors will attract others, and in what sequence. They align their milestones to the evidence thresholds that their target investors require, not the metrics they hope will impress. And increasingly, they consider the geographic dimension - identifying investors in locations that provide strategic leverage for business expansion, not just capital.

This is a fundamentally different discipline from managing a transactional process. It requires founders to see the capital strategy as inseparable from the business strategy. Many discover too late that winning the current round while damaging their position for the next is no victory at all.


The interdependency problem

And there is one final twist. It now becomes clear that these three pillars no longer operate in isolation - either from each other or from the broader business strategy.

A decade ago, founders could build an investment proposition first and then hunt for investors. That sequence no longer works. The investment proposition cannot be properly tailored without first understanding the target investor audience. Which sectors are they focused on? What stage? What thesis? What do they publicly say they're looking for - and what do they actually fund? Only with this intelligence can the proposition be shaped to land.

But the interdependency now runs deeper than sequencing. When capital raising becomes a strategic capability rather than an isolated event, the entire funding approach must be integrated with business strategy. The geographic placement of investors affects where the company can expand and which partnerships become possible. The milestone plan must reflect what future investors will require as evidence - not just what feels like progress internally. Syndicate composition at one round influences who will be attracted to the next. The funding strategy doesn't run parallel to the business plan. It shapes the business plan.

This is systems thinking, not checklist execution. Founders who treat investor targeting, proposition development, and campaign execution as separate workstreams to be completed in sequence are working with an outdated model. Those who see them as an integrated system - embedded within and inseparable from their business strategy - have a significant advantage. The difficulty is that very few founders have been coached to think this way.


Where is your gap?

The 45/10/45 framework reflects patterns observed across many years of client engagements. But every founder's experience is different. Some struggle most with identifying who to approach - they know their investment proposition is strong but can't find investors who genuinely fit. Others find investor targeting manageable, but the process defeats them - conversations that seemed promising go cold, timelines stretch indefinitely, momentum never builds. And some, despite all the available advice, still haven't developed an investment proposition that resonates - though they may not yet realise it.

Understanding what it will take to successfully raise capital - and being honest about it - is the first step to addressing it. If you weighed these 3 factors for your own business - targeting the right investors, developing a strong investment proposition, and executing an effective campaign – how would you judge their relative difficulty? Would you align with Duet's assessment of 45/10/45, or does your own experience suggest a different distribution? The answer may reveal where your next fundraise will be won or lost.

 
Let's talk.