Single PI or consortium? Choosing between ERC, EIC Pathfinder and Pillar II

Selecting the right European instrument is a strategic decision that should be based on your ambition, the maturity of your evidence and how each programme evaluates proposals. This article offers a pragmatic framework to decide between ERC (individual, frontier research), EIC Pathfinder (consortia, high-risk/high-gain proof-of-principle), and Horizon Europe Pillar II (policy-driven collaborative R&I). It closes with a concise eligibility/fit checklist and go/no-go criteria, so you can commit early and execute with confidence.

---

What is each instrument for

ERC (Starting/Consolidator/Advanced) funds individual Principal Investigators to pursue frontier, curiosity-driven research. Panels judge excellence only, with the PI’s intellectual leadership and track record central. The scientific leap is the story; downstream application is optional. Consortia are not required; one host institution anchors the grant and collaborators can be added as needed.

EIC Pathfinder (Open/Challenges) funds consortia pursuing science-towards-technology breakthroughs with a credible proof-of-principle (PoP) as the near-term objective. It explicitly rewards high-risk/high-gain and platform potential. Panels weigh Excellence, Impact and Implementation, expecting measurable objectives, risk engineering and early exploitation thinking (IP, regulation, stakeholders).

Horizon Europe Pillar II (Clusters, Missions, Partnerships) funds topic-driven collaborative projects aligned with EU policy priorities. Calls specify expected outcomes, indicative TRL ranges and boundary conditions (standards, regulation, stakeholder uptake). Evaluation balances Excellence, Impact and Quality & Efficiency of Implementation, with strong emphasis on external relevance, credible pathways to outcomes and a well-governed consortium.

Decision framework: ambition, evidence, evaluation

Ambition & narrative. If your central promise is a fundamental scientific advance led by a single PI, especially one that changes how a field thinks, ERC is the natural home. If your promise is a technological paradigm shift enabled by new science, with a first PoP you can specify and test, EIC Pathfinder fits. If your promise is to deliver outcomes framed by a policy topic (e.g., validated pilots, reference architectures, consented datasets, standards contributions) with multi-actor uptake, aim for Pillar II.

Evidence & maturity. ERC tolerates earlier-stage, theory-heavy or exploratory work if the idea and PI are outstanding. Pathfinder expects enough preliminary signals to make a PoP plausible (even if risky), plus quantified targets. Pillar II typically expects higher operational readiness in planning, robust stakeholder integration and a line of sight to deployment or policy impact appropriate to the topic.

Evaluation emphasis. ERC panels ask, “Is the science breathtaking and is the PI capable of delivering it?” Pathfinder asks, “Is this a genuine high-risk/high-gain route to a new technology platform, and is the plan engineered to prove it?” Pillar II asks, “Does this consortium have the right composition and governance to achieve the topic’s expected outcomes, with credible impact pathways?”

Eligibility/fit checklist (rapid scan)

• Applicant shape: ERC = single PI + host; Pathfinder = 3–6 tightly complementary partners typical; Pillar II = broader consortia reflecting the value chain and users.

• Goal & outputs: ERC = new knowledge; Pathfinder = PoP of a breakthrough concept; Pillar II = topic-defined outcomes (pilots, methods, standards, datasets, policy frameworks).

• Evidence baseline: ERC = intellectual boldness + calibre; Pathfinder = preliminary feasibility + measurable thresholds; Pillar II = stakeholder commitments, access to data/pilots, credible implementation.

• TRL logic: ERC = agnostic; Pathfinder = low TRL to PoP; Pillar II = topic-specified TRL trajectory.

• Impact logic: ERC = scientific impact; Pathfinder = technology platform potential + early exploitation; Pillar II = policy/market/societal outcomes per topic.

• Governance load: ERC = PI-centric; Pathfinder = structured WPs, risk and IP plans; Pillar II = full project governance (advisory boards, ethics, data, standards, exploitation).

  
  

Go/no-go criteria (make the call early)

• ERC go if a single PI can credibly lead a field-defining leap without needing a heterogeneous consortium to be convincing. No-go if the idea’s credibility depends on multiple external testbeds or industrial infrastructure.

• Pathfinder go if you can state a falsifiable breakthrough claim, define a decisive PoP (comparators, success thresholds, fallbacks) and assemble a small, surgical consortium mapped to that PoP. No-go if your concept is incremental, or if you cannot specify what “success at PoP” looks like.

• Pillar II go if your concept directly delivers a call’s expected outcomes and you can mobilise the right ecosystem (end-users, standardisers, regulators, civil society where relevant). No-go if you are trying to “fit” a curiosity-driven idea into a prescriptive topic or you lack access to the deployment context.

  
  

Typical pathways (illustrative)

• Frontier to technology: ERC (new knowledge, tools) → EIC Pathfinder (turn a concept into PoP) → Pillar II R&I Action (integrate and validate) → deployment instruments as appropriate.

• SME-led deep tech: Pathfinder (with academic/industry mix) to establish PoP → Pillar II Innovation Action or other scale-up instruments for pilots/uptake, depending on domain and readiness.

  
  

Common missteps to avoid

Forcing a single PI idea into a policy-heavy topic; building oversized consortia “for optics” rather than capability; vague objectives without quantified thresholds; ignoring stakeholder access or regulatory constraints until late; treating open science, data, ethics or sustainability as compliance boxes instead of design constraints.

Need a second opinion, or a fast track to a fundable plan?

Bee Granted helps teams choose the right instrument and then write to win: opportunity mapping, concept shaping, score-aligned drafting, governance and budget design, and red-team reviews. Through the Beehive, our partner-matching portal, we maintain a large database of PIs and companies across a wide range of expertise to close capability gaps quickly and credibly. Get in touch and let’s align your ambition with the instrument that will reward it.