A founder building a fintech tool in London asked me whether she should “go with SGI or go with Seedcamp.” She had framed it as a fork in the road, two doors leading to the same place by different routes. It is the most understandable question in early-stage fundraising, and it rests on a misunderstanding that quietly works against founders: it treats an investor and an adviser as if they were competing for the same job.
Here is the uncomfortable truth that the comparison usually misses: Seedcamp and SGI are not on the same side of the table, and in many cases, they are not even alternatives. Seedcamp is one of Europe’s leading pre-seed and seed funds. It writes you a cheque and takes equity. SGI Consultants is an equity-free advisory and funding facilitation partner whose job is to make you investable and then connect you with investors, including funds like Seedcamp. For many founders, the honest answer to “SGI or Seedcamp” is not one or the other. It is SGI first, so Seedcamp says yes.
This piece explains what Seedcamp actually is and how it invests, why it is not really a programme you graduate from, where the genuine decision lies, and how an equity-free adviser fits into a journey that may well end with a fund like Seedcamp on your cap table. By the end, the fork in the road should look like what it really is: a sequence.
What Seedcamp actually is
The first thing to understand is that Seedcamp is not an accelerator in the Y Combinator or Techstars sense, even though it is often listed alongside them. It started with a structured programme and has evolved into a London-based seed fund with light-touch support. It invests year-round rather than in batches, so there is no cohort to join and no Demo Day to graduate toward. It describes its first cheque as typically between 350,000 and 1 million US dollars, taking equity through a SAFE or convertible at pre-seed and seed, and typically taking a board observer seat rather than a board seat. Its portfolio includes companies such as Wise and Revolut, and its network across European angels and follow-on funds is among the strongest on the continent.
The practical consequence is that Seedcamp behaves like an investor rather than a course. You do not apply to be taught. You pitch to be funded. That means the bar is a fundable company: a credible team, a large market, early evidence that the thing works, and a story that stands up to the scrutiny of a fund that sees thousands of pitches a year. Seedcamp is exceptional at backing companies that have already reached that bar. It is not in the business of getting you to the bar in the first place.
This is precisely the gap an equity-free adviser exists to fill. The SGI model charges a fixed advisory fee per deliverable, starting at 400 pounds for the entry engagement, and, where we facilitate funding, we take a success fee of 1.5 per cent of the gross sum raised, against an industry norm of 5 to 10 per cent. We take no equity. Our work is the readiness and the introductions: turning a promising but unfundable company into one a fund will take seriously, and then putting it in front of the right investors. The London fintech founder did not actually face a choice between Seedcamp and us. She faced a question about whether she was ready for Seedcamp at all, and she was not yet.
Why “SGI or Seedcamp” is usually the wrong question
The reason founders frame this as either-or is that both relationships sit near the word “funding,” and from a distance, they blur. Up close, they do different jobs at different moments.
Seedcamp’s job begins when you are already investable. Its value is capital, validation, and a network that opens follow-on rounds. If you are genuinely fundable today, you may not need much help to approach it, and a strong founder with a strong company can and should go straight to the fund. For that founder, paying an adviser to make introductions they could make themselves would be poor value, and I will say so plainly rather than manufacture a need that is not there.
SGI’s job begins earlier, when the company is promising but not yet ready, or when the founder does not know which funders are a good fit and has no warm introductions to them. The most common pattern I see is a founder with a real business and a weak investment case: a plan that does not survive a partner’s questions, financials that do not hang together, a market framed too small, or no idea which of the dozens of UK and European funds actually back companies at their stage. None of that is solved by approaching a fund and being turned down. It is solved by becoming investable first. A fund rejection is not feedback you can easily act on, because funds rarely tell you the real reason. Readiness work tells you what to do before you spend your one shot.
So the test is not which to choose. It is where you are. If you are fundable now and know who to call, go directly to Seedcamp. If you are not, or you do not, the equity-free adviser is the step that comes before the fund, not the substitute for it.
Where each genuinely fits in the journey
Think of it as a sequence rather than a contest. An Edinburgh deep-tech founder I worked with is a useful illustration of the order. When he first came to us, his technology was strong, and his pitch was not. The market was framed around a narrow first use case, the financial model assumed a smooth path that no investor would believe, and he was approaching the wrong type of fund for his stage. None of that needed capital to fix. It needed a defensible plan, a credible model, and a shortlist of funders who actually invest in companies like his. Once that work was done, the introductions became straightforward because he was finally presenting a company that a seed fund could say yes to.
That is the relationship between the two models in a single sentence: the adviser makes you the kind of company a fund like Seedcamp wants, and the fund provides the capital the adviser does not. They are complements separated in time, not competitors fighting over the same decision. The only founders for whom they genuinely overlap are those already at the bar, and those founders rarely need to ask the question in the first place.
The UK funding routes that sit alongside both
There is also a layer beneath the venture-fund conversation that many founders skip past, and an equity-free adviser will push you to consider it before you give away any equity at all.
The Seed Enterprise Investment Scheme lets UK angels claim up to 50 per cent income tax relief on up to 200,000 pounds a year and lets a company raise up to 250,000 pounds, with the Enterprise Investment Scheme following on at 30 per cent relief for larger rounds. For some companies, a SEIS round from a small syndicate of angels is a better first step than a fund, because it is faster, less dilutive at a low early valuation, and keeps more control in your hands. There are also non-dilutive routes: Innovate UK grants for research and development and the government-backed Start Up Loans scheme, which lends between 500 and 25,000 pounds per founder, with 12 months of free mentoring, and takes no equity. A fund like Seedcamp is the right tool for venture-scale companies that need real capital and the network that comes with it. It is the wrong tool for a company that could reach its next milestone on a grant and a SEIS round without diluting at all. Knowing which you are is exactly the judgment an adviser is paid to provide, and an investor, whose business is deploying capital, has no incentive to offer.
Common mistakes founders make in this decision
The first mistake is treating a fund and an adviser as rival options rather than sequential steps. Approaching a fund before you are ready spends a scarce introduction and teaches you little, because funds rarely explain their rejections.
The second mistake is assuming venture capital is the only credible route. For many UK companies, a SEIS round, a grant, or a Start Up Loan helps reach the next milestone with less dilution and greater speed, and a fund only makes sense later, if at all.
The third mistake is approaching the wrong funds. Seedcamp backs a particular profile of venture-scale company. Pitching it as a business that does not fit that profile wastes everyone’s time, when the real task was identifying the handful of funders who actually invest at your stage and in your sector.
How to decide, in practice
Work through it in order. First, judge honestly whether you are fundable today: would your plan, model, and traction survive a partner meeting? Second, if yes, go directly to Seedcamp or the right fund, since you may not need an intermediary. Third, if no, recognise that the task is readiness, not a different funder, and that this is the step before the fund. Fourth, before assuming venture capital at all, check whether a SEIS round, a grant, or a Start Up Loan would reach your next milestone with less dilution. The founders who raise well are the ones who get the sequence right, not the ones who pick the famous name first.
Conclusion
SGI and Seedcamp are not two routes to the same destination, and forcing them into an either-or framing leads founders to approach capital before they are ready for it. Seedcamp is an excellent fund for companies that are already investable and at venture scale. SGI is the equity-free partner that makes a company investable in the first place, points it toward the right funders, and protects its equity along the way. For most founders, the question was never SGI or Seedcamp. It was whether they are ready, and what has to happen first. Get the order right, and the fork in the road turns out to be a path.
If you want an honest read on whether you are fundable today, and what would have to change before a fund like Seedcamp would say yes, the right first step is a free consultation that diagnoses your investment readiness before you pitch anyone.
Frequently asked questions
Is SGI an alternative to Seedcamp? Usually not in the way founders expect. Seedcamp is an equity-taking fund that provides capital. SGI is an equity-free adviser that makes you investable and introduces you to funders, including funds like Seedcamp. They are more often sequential steps than competing choices.
How much does Seedcamp invest, and what does it take? Seedcamp describes its first cheque as usually between 350,000 and 1 million US dollars, taking equity through a SAFE or convertible at pre-seed and seed, and typically takes a board observer seat. The exact equity depends on the terms of your round.
Do I need an adviser before approaching Seedcamp? Only if you are not yet investable or do not know which funders fit your stage. A strong, fundable founder with a warm route in can approach Seedcamp directly. The value of an adviser is greatest when the company is promising but not yet ready.
Does SGI take equity? No. SGI charges a fixed advisory fee by deliverable and, where it facilitates funding, a success fee of 1.5 per cent of the gross sum raised. You keep your full cap table.
Should I raise funds or use SEIS and grants first? It depends on your stage and capital needs. For many UK companies, a SEIS round, an Innovate UK grant, or a Start Up Loan reaches the next milestone with less dilution than a venture round. A fund makes sense when you need real capital and the network that comes with it.
What does becoming investable actually involve? A plan that survives a partner’s questions, a financial model an investor will believe, a market framed at the right scale, and a shortlist of funders who back companies like yours. That readiness work is what turns a promising company into one a fund will fund.
References
- Seedcamp, Frequently Asked Questions, seedcamp.com/faqs
- British Business Bank, What is the Seed Enterprise Investment Scheme (SEIS)?, british-business-bank.co.uk
- HM Revenue and Customs, Enterprise Investment Scheme and Seed Enterprise Investment Scheme guidance, gov.uk
- Start Up Loans Company (British Business Bank), Start Up Loans scheme overview, startuploans.co.uk
- Innovate UK, Innovation Funding Service, gov.uk
Related Posts
Kurt Graver is the founder and CEO of SGI Consultants, a business consultancy that has helped over 2,000 entrepreneurs establish successful startups using systematic business development methodologies. An accountant with an MBA and 25 years of commerce and consultancy experience, Kurt specialises in strategic planning, market analysis, and sustainable business growth