For much of 2025, the narrative around European venture capital fundraising was down. But according to Dealroom, European venture capitalists raised $20.5B across 247 new funds in 2025. That’s down from the $27.1B raised in 2024. Late-stage funding in the fourth quarter totalled $66.5 billion, up slightly quarter over quarter and year over year.
Yet amid this steadying market, enthusiasm for Venture Capital as a Service (VCaaS), platforms that promise corporates instant venture arms, has cooled among Europe’s leading VCs.
In a conversation with TFN, Pierre-Eric Leibovici, co-founder & Partner at Daphni, describes its platform, which scans 80,000 startup profiles annually and uses AI scoring and filtering to narrow the list to 1,500 investment candidates.
Leibovici shares, “Transformations driven by generative AI will profoundly reshape the VC profession, expanding the way we source, review, and support entrepreneurs. Venture capital remains, above all, a people business: timing, trust, and intuition will always sit at the heart of what makes great entrepreneurs, investors, and partnerships.”
The VCaaS promise vs. Europe’s reality
VCaaS promises to modularise venture capital: deal sourcing, due diligence, and portfolio management as services. But Europe’s top VCs don’t agree.
Patrice Mesnier, Founding Partner of Oldenburg Capital Partners, shares with us: “We don’t use VCaaS today and didn’t in the past. I understand why people are interested (efficiency, access, lower entry cost), but venture investing remains too contextual for a platform approach. The main challenge is not administration; it’s judgment and alignment, something technology cannot automate.”
Siduri Poli, Partner & Chief Marketing Officer at 0TO9, adds, “Capital alone doesn’t build sustainable companies. What founders increasingly need is regulatory expertise, operational support, and patient capital that allows them to grow responsibly.”
Vauban, the Luxembourg-founded platform acquired by Carta, proves the point. It cut SPV setup from €100k and 3-6 months to automated days, with over $1B invested. However, multiple sources refer to it as “Fund-as-a-Service,” not VCaaS.
Why VCaaS can’t fix local deal flow
Europe’s venture landscape differs, with regulatory complexity (PSD2, DORA, tax fragmentation) and hyperlocal deal flow creating unique demands that generic platforms can’t meet.
Andra Bagdonaitė, Partner at FIRSTPICK, explains to TFN: “We’re seeing European VCaaS platforms gaining ground, particularly those that specialise in compliance, SPV creation, and fund administration, such as Vauban or Odin. These tools are especially useful for angel syndicates or micro-funds that want to move quickly and lower administrative barriers.
Bagdonaitė continues, “However, when it comes to full-stack venture creation or startup support platforms, the market is still fragmented, and founders often look globally for tools that best fit their needs, not necessarily by geography. “
Margaux Gregoir, Partner at Serena VC, agrees, “If the thesis is that VCaaS platforms help overcome Europe’s fragmented ecosystem, the answer is simple: only local presence solves fragmentation. In highly competitive European markets, deal flow is hyper-local: you earn access through presence, founder trust and a proprietary network. “
Gregoir adds, “That ‘secret sauce’ cannot be delegated to a platform. You cannot cover Stockholm from Milan. Any European VC with a real footprint across multiple hubs already offers corporates that ‘pan-European’ reach. We don’t see any tooling offering this. “
Data backs this. Europe’s VC market remains fragmented: cross-border flows are rare, and local bias dominates. CEE hubs (Poland, Czech Republic, Baltics) generate unicorn density despite smaller markets because they operate hands-on local models
CVC vs. outsourcing
The true binary for European corporates, however, is choosing between in-house CVC and outsourced venture operations.
Gregoir notes, “The real tension we see isn’t VCaaS versus traditional VC. It’s VCaaS versus internal CVC. Large corporations must choose whether to maintain internal CVC teams or outsource venture, fully or partially, to an external partner.”
She adds, “But from a pure VC perspective, a successful corporate venture requires: 1) alignment of interest: e.g. carried interest, often absent in CVC; 2) deep, local sourcing: you need access to top projects before they are visible; and 3) agile investment governance: if a Sunday IC is needed, you do it”
Hybrid models are emerging: corporates structure thematic funds with VC partners, but overpromising dual returns is failing.
Bagdonaitė elaborates: “The winning model will be the hybrid one: combining the scale and automation of VCaaS with the human, local, and deeply engaged approach that early-stage venture capital like FIRSTPICK continues to provide”
What’s next for Europe?
While VCaaS solves administration, it does not address Europe’s core challenges: trust, local sourcing, and regulatory navigation. Winners build proprietary tools, remain hands-on, or are hybrid partners.
Mesnier warns: “VCaaS is part of the wider ‘platformisation’ and ‘industrialisation’ of risk-taking. It creates accessibility, but sometimes detaches capital from responsibility. Venture must remain hands-on, not industrialised, nor a mass-produced product.”
