Has the Forschungszulage Public Funding Become More Technical — or Has the State of the Art Simply Shifted?
Summary
The Forschungszulage has not fundamentally become more technical. It has always been tied to technical criteria: novelty, uncertainty, and a systematic approach. What has changed is the state of the art — companies today need to show more concretely why their project goes beyond established solutions.
The Forschungszulage has not fundamentally "become more technical." It has always been tied to technical or scientific criteria: novelty, technical or scientific uncertainty, and a systematic approach. What has changed over the years is mainly the technical benchmark: the state of the art keeps evolving. As a result, companies today need to show more concretely why their project goes beyond established solutions.
What We Observe in the Market
In conversations with companies, we repeatedly see the same pattern: many firms are doing genuine research and development, but internally they call it "product development," "automation," "AI feature," or "process optimization."
For the Forschungszulage, what matters is not how innovative a product sounds in the market. What matters is whether there is a technical risk and whether the project goes beyond the current state of the art.
The Forschungszulage remains highly attractive: according to publicly available statistics, the project-based success rate of the BSFZ has remained relatively stable in recent years, at around 71% to 78%; on average, it was approximately 74.55%. These figures show two things at once: the Forschungszulage works very well in practice — but rejections are not an exception.
At dieforschungszulage.de, the success rate of our supported applications is over 92% in practice. The difference does not come from "bypassing" the criteria, but from a cleaner technical argument: current state of the art, specific technical targets, traceable uncertainties, and consistent documentation.
A particularly large number of applications come from IT services and mechanical engineering — precisely the areas where the state of the art keeps shifting and where precise technical differentiation can determine approval or rejection.
The application process has two stages. We explain the details in our application process guide.
The Most Important Shift: The State of the Art Keeps Moving
The state of the art is not static. What was considered an unsolved technical problem two or three years ago may today already be addressed by known methods, frameworks, papers, or standard architectures.
A good example is AI projects. A few years ago, hallucinations in Large Language Models could more often be described as a technical uncertainty. Today, there are more established approaches such as RAG, self-check methods, or graph-based systems. That does not mean AI projects are no longer eligible for funding. But it does mean: the application must explain why these existing methods are not sufficient in the specific use case.
Weak would be:
Our AI should hallucinate less.
Stronger is:
Existing RAG and self-check approaches reduce hallucinations in the general case, but they are not sufficient for our domain-specific use case because data structure X, latency requirement Y, and error tolerance Z cannot technically be achieved at the same time. We are therefore testing a new approach with the following technical risk.
What Is More Likely to Pass Today
Successful applications usually follow a clear technical thread:
- State of the art: What is technically possible today?
- Technical target: Which measurable target value should be achieved?
- Path to get there: Which methods, work packages, or prototypes are being tested?
- Risk: Why is it uncertain that the approach will work?
An example from software development:
Existing systems process 10 requests per second. The goal is to process 50 requests per second through a new caching and prioritization approach. It is uncertain whether latency can be kept stable under real load peaks.
That is significantly stronger than:
We are building an innovative platform with a better user experience.
The BSFZ still assesses the same basic criteria. But the further the state of the art progresses, the more precisely the technical novelty must be worked out. You can find more on this in our guide to the requirements for the Forschungszulage.
Why the Forschungszulage Remains So Attractive Anyway
The Forschungszulage is open to all sectors, can be claimed retroactively, and is not tied to classic funding-call cycles. Especially compared with EU or project-based grants, this is a major advantage: there, you often need to plan in advance, report continuously, and explain every deviation. With the Forschungszulage, by contrast, you can often describe retroactively what actually happened.
Eligible costs include in particular:
- Personnel costs for R&D employees
- Contract research
- Own work by sole traders and partners
- Certain project-related fixed assets
You can find more information on calculating the funding amount and a quick calculator in our calculation guide.
A Brief Classification of the 2024 and 2026 Changes
In addition to the shifted technical benchmark, there have been and will be legal adjustments, for example regarding higher assessment bases, SME advantages, fixed assets, and overhead costs from 2026 onward. You can find a compact overview here: 2024 and 2026 changes.
In practice, this means it can make sense to clearly separate projects by time period and check which expenses fall into which funding period.
Conclusion
The Forschungszulage has not suddenly become more technical. It has always been technical. What has changed is the state of the art — and therefore the question of what still counts as novel and technically uncertain today.
Anyone who wants to apply successfully today should not rely on buzzwords, but on specific technical benchmarks. That is exactly where the opportunity lies: many companies have eligible R&D projects, but they need to work them out properly.
Even companies with losses can benefit, because the allowance can be paid out as a tax refund if there is not enough tax liability.
Do you still have questions about this topic?
We are happy to discuss your specific case in a free initial consultation. We'll find out in just a few minutes how much funding your company can receive.