This post originally ran on Thomas Mensink’s blog.
Last month, both Startupbootcamp (SBC) and Rockstart announced their new ‘classes’ of startups for their Amsterdam based acceleration program. Just like I did last year, I made an analysis of the startups in order to find out how Rockstart and SBC would distinguish themselves from each other. Last year, my conclusion was:
Rockstart has more early stage startups, which have more of a B2C orientation. Compared to SBC, more Rockstart startups want to address or create new markets. The challenge for these startups lies in marketing and creativity, competences Rockstart is good at. Zazzy is the only startup that is in the new technology and new market quadrant, which could offer both risks and, at the same time, large upside potential.
The startups of SBC more often already have a product which generates revenue, and more frequently aim for B2B (sometimes in combination with B2C), which matches well with the corporate network of SBC. The startups make more use of existing technology and have less of an aim for new markets. Therefore, it seems that the risk profile of the SBC startups is smaller than that of Rockstart.
I was curious if the same analysis would yield the same conclusion this year. Hence I present:
|The 11 of Startupbootcamp:||The 10 of Rockstart:|
What stands out?
- In terms of origin, SBC has six startups from the Netherlands, Rockstart only three;
- With regard to sector, it stands out that the Rockstart startups are all active in software only, while three SBC startup combine hardware with software and one (Giaura) produces hardware only;
- Last year, SBC startups were more focused on B2B and Rockstart startups on B2C. This year, however, the business model breakdown is comparable: