The complete Sesamers guide to European defence technology: where the money went, who is building and funding it, the three questions the sector cannot agree on, and how to get in.
Any company building technology for defence, security or resilience applications – drones and autonomous systems, secure communications, munitions and counter-drone systems, cybersecurity for defence and critical infrastructure, and dual-use deep tech. We include dual-use companies serving both civilian and military markets and exclude pure cybersecurity companies with no defence-specific positioning, which are filed under Cybersecurity.
Family
Deep tech
Coverage since
2022
Desks
3
Reviewed
20 Sep 2026
The desks
Each one is a live page – this pillar is the way in
Most European VCs had explicit exclusion policies against defence and weapons-adjacent technology, leaving the vertical funded almost entirely by government contracts.
2022-23
The reframing begins
Russia's invasion of Ukraine forced a rapid reassessment. Funds began distinguishing defensive and dual-use technology from combat weapons, and new dedicated defence funds launched.
2024-26
Institutional capital arrives at scale
The NATO Innovation Fund and national sovereign vehicles now co-invest alongside traditional VCs, and defence tech is one of the fastest-growing venture categories in Europe by round count.
Three open questions
Where informed people in this sector genuinely disagree
Should mainstream venture capital invest in defence technology at all?
Many LPs and funds still maintain formal exclusion policies against defence and weapons-adjacent investment, even as dedicated defence funds raise larger rounds.
The case forEuropean security is now a matter of continental survival, not abstract policy, and technology built to defend against aggression is categorically different from offensive weapons – excluding it wholesale ignores that distinction and cedes the category to less values-aligned capital.
The case againstThe line between defensive and offensive dual-use technology is genuinely blurry in practice, and many institutional LPs have legitimate ethical or reputational constraints that a fund cannot simply override because the narrative has shifted.
Where we land: The exclusion-policy debate is becoming a distinction question, not a binary one. Funds that can articulate a clear line – infrastructure and defensive systems yes, offensive weapons no – are attracting capital that a blanket defence-tech fund could not.
Is the current funding surge durable, or tied to the war in Ukraine and will fade if the conflict resolves?
A large share of the vertical's growth in rounds and capital has coincided directly with the war in Ukraine.
The case forThe underlying drivers – European rearmament commitments, NATO spending targets, and a structural reassessment of continental security – predate and will outlast any single conflict's resolution.
The case againstPolitical will and public spending on defence has historically proven cyclical, and a durable peace settlement could rapidly cool both government contracts and the venture enthusiasm currently riding alongside them.
Where we land: The spending commitments (NATO targets, national rearmament budgets) are multi-year and largely locked in regardless of how any single conflict resolves. The venture enthusiasm layered on top is more cyclical and could cool faster than the underlying government demand.
Can a startup actually out-innovate established defence primes, or does procurement structurally favour incumbents?
Traditional defence procurement processes are built around multi-year contracts with a small number of established prime contractors.
The case forUkraine has demonstrated that fast-iterating startups can out-innovate slow-moving primes on cost and speed for specific categories – drones and software being the clearest examples – and several European governments are actively reforming procurement to let startups compete directly.
The case againstProcurement reform moves slower than the technology, and most European defence budgets still flow overwhelmingly to established primes with existing relationships, security clearances and manufacturing scale a startup cannot easily replicate.
Where we land: Startups win in fast-moving, software-heavy categories (drones, decision support, secure comms) where iteration speed beats manufacturing scale. Primes retain the advantage in hardware-heavy, long-cycle categories where procurement relationships and manufacturing depth still dominate.
How to get in
Three audiences, three short lists
If you are building
Decide early where you sit on the defensive-to-offensive spectrum – it determines which investors will even take the meeting.
Get a government or defence-adjacent pilot or contract early; it is the closest thing to independent validation this sector has.
Understand export control and security clearance requirements before they become a blocker to fundraising or hiring.
Build relationships with both traditional VCs willing to invest and dedicated defence funds; the investor base is still forming.
If you are investing
Be explicit internally about where your fund's ethical line sits – defensive versus offensive – before you start meeting founders.
Ask for the actual contract or pilot status, not just government interest; defence sales cycles are notoriously long.
Underwrite the durability of government spending commitments, not just current conflict-driven enthusiasm.
Use the funding desk to see who actually led rounds in the last 24 months.
If you are buying or partnering
Map your actual procurement pathway and security clearance requirements before you engage a startup.
Ask for a reference deployment with a comparable government or defence customer.
Understand the export control implications of any technology you are sourcing or co-developing.
Use the startup desk for a shortlist; verify security and compliance claims directly given the stakes.
Who to know
Start on the desks – profiles update as we verify them
Technology with both civilian and military applications – a common positioning for defence-adjacent startups seeking mainstream venture capital.
NATO Innovation Fund
A deep tech venture fund backed by 24 NATO allies, investing in defence, security and resilience technology independently of any single government.
Export controls
Government regulations restricting the sale or transfer of certain technologies to specific countries or entities, a major compliance factor for defence tech companies.
Prime contractor
A large, established defence company holding the primary contract with a government for a major defence programme, often subcontracting to smaller specialists.
Counter-drone systems
Technology designed to detect, track and neutralise unauthorised or hostile drones, a fast-growing sub-category given rising drone warfare.
Why does this vertical have no dedicated events desk yet?
No European trade show has yet been verified with confirmed defence-tech-specific programming to the bar this site requires. Sourcing one is a priority.
Is this the same as cybersecurity?
They overlap heavily – secure communications and cyber defence companies are often tagged to both – but defence tech specifically covers technology built for or marketed toward defence and security buyers.
How often does this page change?
The numbers come from the desks and move weekly. The written analysis is reviewed quarterly and the review date at the top is the honest one – if it is stale, the analysis is stale.
Can I suggest a company or fund for the desks?
Yes. Use the suggest links on each desk. We verify before publishing; paid placement does not get you onto a ranking or directory.
Counts are generated from the desks and refresh weekly. The written analysis is editorial and reviewed quarterly. Corrections and additions: contact the desk
· editorial standards
The Circuit
Every event, round and deadline worth your calendar.
Get the weekly briefingEurope's rounds, founders & events - every Monday, in five minutes.
Cookies
We use analytics cookies to understand which stories are read and how people find them. With your consent, we also use advertising cookies (Meta, LinkedIn) to measure our campaigns. Decline and the site works exactly the same. How we use cookies