Now Reading
Female entrepreneurs 31% less likely to get funding

Female entrepreneurs 31% less likely to get funding

The report, The Investment Reset: Steps to Closing the Gender Funding Gap, was formed with research built in partnership with Sapio Research. It polled 200 entrepreneurs and 200 investors in the UK and revealed that female entrepreneurs are less likely to be successful in funding applications, receive lower amounts of funding even when they were successful and wait longer to receive funding than their male counterparts.

National Women’s Enterprise Week, an initiative in partnership with the British Library Business & IP Centre (BIPC) Network, aims to empower, support and celebrate female entrepreneurship through an accelerator programme for female entrepreneurs and supplementary nationwide events between 16th and 20th June 2025, courtesy of the BIPC. The report’s publication coincides with the opening of applications for NWEW’s free, three-day accelerator programme for UK female entrepreneurs, offering exclusive access to mentoring from investors and pitch coaches, resources and expert advice, before the opportunity to pitch to a panel of venture capitalists and angel investors.

Female entrepreneurs are disproportionately unsuccessful in receiving funding

The report found a 36% difference between male and female entrepreneurs who have applied or are currently applying for early-stage/seed business funding, and female founders are 31% less likely to be successful. Additionally, male founders received 44% more funding than female founders. As such, 60% of the total investors surveyed said their portfolio was made up of either all-male or majority-male founders.

The stark difference in the genders applying for funding is no surprise when other women’s perceptions of female founders point to inequality. Women are much more likely to feel that female leaders are less confident in asking for investment (28% women vs 18% men) and that female leaders do not know where to look for support, financial aid and/or lack networks in the same way men do (24% women vs 13% men).

For the female entrepreneurs who have received funding, aside from the money itself, the report found they value advice from their investment partners much more than male founders (54% vs 27%). Connections and networking were also highly valued, a factor which was also popular with male founders.

The gender investment gap

The report found that women typically get funding from women, and men get funding from men. To illustrate this difference:

  • 0% of female entrepreneurs, compared to 25% of male entrepreneurs, who received funding said their investors were all male
  • 33% of female entrepreneurs, versus 2% of male entrepreneurs, who received funding said their investors were all female
  • Female investors are up to twice as likely to invest in companies founded by women. Indeed, only 5% of all investors, all of them women, said their portfolios contained a majority of female-led businesses
  • Conversely, 42% of male investors in our survey have a majority male-led portfolio (vs 29% of female investors), with none of these investors having a majority of female-led companies  

And, because the sector is so heavily male-dominated – just 17.7% of senior investment firm stakeholders are women–investors are seven times more likely to have a majority male-led portfolio than a majority female-led one. Entrepreneurs cite this imbalance as the leading reason female-led businesses are underinvested (47% of women felt this, vs 35% of men).

According to the report, many male investors are defensive about this imbalance, saying it just reflects the number and merit of those who approached them (45% of male vs 32% of female investors). However, male investors are more likely to base their investment decision-making on subjective judgements such as “gut feeling” and chemistry (19% of male vs 9% of female investors) rather than more impartial measures such as current growth (40% of male vs 47% of female investors) making it even harder for female entrepreneurs to be successful, given they’re often working against relatability constraints.

What can be done to correct gender inequality in investment?

The investors NWEW surveyed highlighted a number of solutions to solve the inequalities in startup funding, including increasing the number of women in the investment industry (81% of female investors vs 76% of male investors believe this will be beneficial) and having an industry code of practice to improve fairness in business investment (77% of female investors vs 66% of male investors are supportive of this). However, despite these solutions, nearly a third (31%) of all investors see measures to create more equality in their portfolio as an ‘unnecessary restraint’.

Many male investors also believe the deficit of equal investment is the fault of entrepreneurs, with 34% believing more training was needed for female founders to pitch; a higher percentage than those that felt training was needed for investors to combat unconscious biases (21%).

See Also
When global labour market data is released, headlines tend to fixate on a single metric: unemployment. This year is no different. According to the latest figures from the United Nations and the International Labour Organisation, global unemployment remains relatively stable at just under five per cent. At face value, this suggests a labour market that is holding firm despite economic uncertainty, geopolitical instability and technological upheaval. In reality, it masks a serious and underreported problem: the true global jobs crisis is not a lack of work, but the growing scale of informal work. More than 2.1 billion people worldwide are employed in the informal economy, including misclassified workers operating outside effective regulatory coverage, where employment is typically unregistered, contracts are absent or unenforced, and access to labour rights and social protections is limited or non-existent. That represents a large portion of the global workforce. If unemployment reveals how many people cannot find work, informality shows how many are working without protection or long-term opportunity. Informal work is often associated with developing economies or unregulated sectors. However, this form of work is increasingly occurring within developed economies and regulated sectors, hidden within otherwise legitimate, fast-growing small and medium-sized enterprises – and this is often unintentional. For both businesses operating solely in domestic markets and those that have expanded abroad, adopting new workforce models and attempting to respond to rapid technological change, the crisis of informality is emerging in three key areas. The first is worker misclassification. Individuals are engaged as independent contractors but operate in practice like employees – working fulltime, at set hours, for years at a time. This is particularly prevalent in gig and platform-based roles, where algorithms determine pay, hours and performance without considering employment rights. Gig and platform work often presents as flexible and empowering, however, in practice, many platforms exercise employer-like control over payment, performance management, hours, and length of engagement, while explicitly avoiding employer obligations such as tax filings and the provision of statutory benefits like annual leave and healthcare. The result is a growing cohort of workers who fall between legal categories, carrying the risks of self-employment without the autonomy or protections that should accompany this mode of work. The second area is cross-border remote work, where informality can inadvertently arise. With post-COVID remote working models here to stay, companies are directly hiring overseas talent, assuming that because the worker is not based in the company’s home country, local employment laws do not apply. Where employment is not properly registered (whether by the employer and/or employee), local labour law is not applied, or social security obligations are misunderstood or ignored, these arrangements can slip into a form of modern informality, even where the relationship appears to be formal on the surface. This is often the point at which organisations begin to seek external guidance. In many cases, neither party fully understands the legal implications of the arrangement, which leaves both employer and worker exposed. We frequently see organisations approach us when a specific issue surfaces, such as payroll inconsistencies, questions around benefits entitlement, or concerns raised by the workers themselves, including registration process failures. Business leaders should also be aware that permanent establishment risk can arise if a remote employee is deemed to represent the company locally, which can trigger corporate tax obligations. Social security errors can happen when contributions are not made correctly in either jurisdiction, leaving workers without coverage and employers facing backdated liabilities. Meanwhile, employment law conflicts can emerge when contracts fail to meet the requirements of the host country regarding notice periods, benefits or termination rights. The third driver of informality is structural. These arrangements are becoming more common as artificial intelligence and evolving workforce models outpace regulation. Businesses are innovating at speed, but legal frameworks are struggling to keep pace. The UK’s Employment Rights Act offers a clear case study of the direction of travel. Worker protections are expanding, classification rules are tightening and enforcement is becoming more coordinated across agencies. Informal arrangements that once sat in legal grey areas are moving firmly into view and what was previously tolerated is falling under scrutiny. The challenge is that informality is rarely a deliberate choice. For many growing organisations, it becomes the default because compliant pathways are complicated and difficult to navigate alone, particularly across multiple jurisdictions. Legal advice, payroll, tax, HR, and immigration compliance are often siloed, leaving gaps that businesses may not even realise exist until a problem arises. For instance, digital nomad visas are often viewed as providing holders with wholly compliant right to work status, however employers may not realise that this is not always the case and contracts may not reflect the correct legal status or entitlements. Addressing informality requires a change in how we think about employment at a global level and recognising that flexibility and compliance are not mutually exclusive. Businesses need models that allow them to access global talent quickly while ensuring workers are properly employed and protected under local law. As attention remains fixed on unemployment figures, informality continues to expand beneath the surface. It is this hidden cohort of workers, contributing economically without security or rights, that represents the real crisis in the global labour market. Solving it will require coordinated action from policymakers and businesses alike, and a commitment to building workforce models that are not only innovative, but sustainable and fair.

But those investors slow to focus on equality of opportunity would be wise to take heed – the majority (56%) of those who have say it has improved their profitability.

Alison Cork MBE, Founder of National Women’s Enterprise Week, said: “This report should serve as a catalyst for action. Fully female-founded companies receive just 2p of every £1 of equity investment and they have to fight to just get in the door. The fact is, with fewer female investors, women-led businesses are more likely to be left behind. This is despite female-founded businesses being quicker to turn a profit, which NWEW unearthed in 2022. It is vital that investors of all genders back female-founded businesses, and set equality targets to ensure a broad portfolio.

“The report findings show not only do female entrepreneurs lack the financial opportunities men do, but they also significantly value advice and guidance but often don’t know where to find it. This is why National Women’s Enterprise Week is so important, and I encourage women to apply for the accelerator programme to showcase their business, and gain support and mentorship from our community.”

For more startup news, check out the other articles on the website, and subscribe to the magazine for free. Listen to The Cereal Entrepreneur podcast for more interviews with entrepreneurs and big-hitters in the startup ecosystem.

Startups Magazine. All rights reserved. c 2026. Company number is: 06755141

Scroll To Top