A ten-figure valuation, prestigious investors, sometimes thousands of employees: on paper, everything points towards a unicorn ringing the bell at a stock exchange. Yet that ceremony is hardly a mandatory crowning achievement. For European technology companies, the question is becoming more practical: who will finance the next stage, who will be able to sell their shares and who will retain control? Looking ahead to September 2026, three paths are competing to shape the future of the continent’s champions: going public, being acquired by a strategic buyer and an extended life in private ownership.
This analysis draws on established events, notably the reversal in technology funding after 2021 and landmark transactions in 2023–2024. The outlook for September 2026 consists of scenarios, not an account of subsequent events presented as established facts.
Going public is no longer an automatic reward
The shift is primarily about the cost of money. After the euphoria of 2020–2021, rising interest rates made distant profits less attractive. Companies funded to capture their markets quickly had to demonstrate that they could also retain customers, control spending and generate cash. The promise of a major platform is no longer enough to justify any price.
An IPO starkly exposes this gap. In private markets, a valuation results from a transaction at a particular point in time, sometimes with protections attached for new investors. On the stock market, the price moves every day. A private valuation and a market capitalisation therefore do not measure exactly the same thing. Forgoing a listing may avoid a public markdown; it does not erase the underlying decline in value.
Liquidity, too, deserves to be demystified. An IPO allows a company to raise capital and potentially enables shareholders to sell shares, but existing shareholders are often subject to temporary lock-up agreements. Even afterwards, selling a large block without weighing on the share price remains difficult. Going public opens a door: it does not guarantee that everyone can walk through it immediately.
Listing: funding a strategy, not rescuing a narrative
The stock market retains powerful advantages. It can broaden the investor base, facilitate subsequent equity raises and provide tradable shares to finance acquisitions. It can also make employee share ownership easier to understand. For a company with predictable revenues and sound finances, this infrastructure can support years of development.
But it requires a different organisational structure: internal controls, financial communications, governance and the ability to explain a bad quarter without changing course. The cost is not merely administrative. Executives must devote time to investors and accept that their strategy will be debated publicly. A company still searching for a business model risks exposing its uncertainty at the worst possible moment.
New York does not solve everything
Arm’s Nasdaq IPO in September 2023 illustrated the appeal of the US market for a technology company born in Europe. Deep capital pools and the presence of specialist investors matter. But Arm, the British chip architecture designer controlled by SoftBank, is not a model that every European start-up can replicate.
Choosing New York requires a credible investment case for US investors: commercial exposure, scale and sector peers. A European listing may be a better fit for a primarily regional business. The right criterion is not the prestige of the exchange, but the likelihood of finding investors capable of understanding the company and financing its growth path.
A strategic acquisition: an exit, but on what terms?
For some founders, selling to an established group offers an operational shortcut. The buyer brings global distribution, industrial capabilities or a customer base that would be difficult to reach independently. It may attach value to synergies that a financial investor would not pay for. Excellent technology does not always need to become a standalone group to find its market.
An acquisition, however, is neither automatic nor quick. The abandonment of Adobe’s proposed acquisition of Figma in December 2023 in the face of regulatory obstacles was a reminder of that. Figma is American, but the case is directly relevant to European thinking: a tie-up with a dominant player can raise major competition concerns. An announced deal is not yet cash in hand.
Then there is the issue that deal presentations tend to downplay: what happens afterwards. Where will investment decisions be made? What will become of the teams, the brand and products that compete with the buyer’s own? For founders, the price must be weighed against commitments to autonomy and any contingent earn-out payments. For Europe, the stakes also involve the location of intellectual property and strategic decision-making.
Staying private: buying time, not eternity
Remaining private allows a company to avoid daily share-price pressure and negotiate with a limited number of shareholders. Secondary transactions can provide liquidity to employees or early investors without selling the entire company. Some businesses thus combine growth financing with a gradual reshaping of their shareholder base.
This freedom has a downside. Venture capital funds have deadlines of their own: they must return money to their investors. The longer a company stays private, the more the interests of founders, employees, existing investors and new backers may diverge. Control depends not only on the percentage held, but also on veto rights and negotiated provisions.
A secondary transaction does not necessarily put cash into the company’s coffers, either: it primarily pays the sellers. And preserving a headline valuation through preferential terms can shift risk onto less-protected shareholders. Staying private is a sound choice only if the business and its funding genuinely allow it to wait.
Three questions before choosing
Rather than ranking exits by prestige, a board should test each scenario against the same questions:
- How much capital is needed? Financing a factory, an acquisition or software development requires different amounts of money and different partners.
- What liquidity, and for whom? Money intended for growth must be distinguished from the proceeds expected by selling shareholders.
- Who will have control after the transaction? Governance, special rights and operational autonomy deserve as much scrutiny as the price.
For European policymakers, increasing the number of IPOs should therefore not be an end in itself. The challenge also involves developing sustained demand for technology stocks, specialist equity research and growth financing. Ringing a bell in Paris, Amsterdam or Frankfurt guarantees neither an enduring industrial presence nor commercial success.
What next? Looking ahead to September 2026, the most credible scenario is not a single solution for all unicorns, but a more demanding selection process. Companies capable of funding their operations will have greater freedom to choose their timing; others may find themselves subject to the timetables of their creditors or shareholders. Going public will remain relevant when it serves a sustainable long-term business strategy. The real sign of maturity may be the ability to do so — without being obliged to.
