Crowdfunding in Europe: report ESMA 2025

In December 2025 ESMA published its first Market Report: Crowdfunding in the EU, a paper that represents a turning point for all crowdfunding discussions. Not so much for the numbers themselves, but for the historical moment it captures: it is the First report based on data collected after the European Regulation on Crowdfunding Service Providers (ECSP) came into effective force, ending the transition period in November 2023.

Until now, every comparison between European countries suffered from a structural limitation: Heterogeneous national regulatory frameworks, different regulatory perimeters, and non-comparable levels of maturity. The result was a market that was formally European, but in fact fragmented. Analyses of individual markets, moreover, were also scarce and were often incomplete and, again, not comparable with each other. The ESMA 2025 report is the first successful attempt to Observing crowdfunding as a unified phenomenon, while maintaining the complexity of its national declinations.

The data analyzed cover the whole of 2024 and relate exclusively to the following equity-based and lending-based crowdfunding, namely the types regulated by the ECSP: those involving the so-called securities. Donation and reward crowdfunding remain outside the scope. The picture that emerges is one of a market still concentrated in a few countries, driven by lending, with some major anomalies - first and foremost the Italian case-which deserve in-depth analysis.

The regulatory environment: a summary

Prior to the ECSP, crowdfunding in Europe was developed on the basis of. mainly national, with profoundly different rules, operating limits, and levels of investor protection from country to country. This fragmentation has long discouraged cross-border activity and limited the emergence of a true single crowdfunding market.

The Regulation (EU) 2020/1503, known as ECSP, was designed precisely to overcome these limitations by introducing uniform rules for crowdfunding service providers that offer businesses the infrastructure to raise capital online.

The regulation regulates both loan-based crowdfunding and crowdfunding based on transferable equity or debt instruments, defining organizational requirements, transparency obligations, marketing rules, and safeguards for retail and sophisticated investors.

Although the ECSP was approved in 2020, its implementation was far from immediate. After its formal entry into force, member states benefited from a transitional period, which was extended several times to allow platforms to obtain authorization and national authorities to organize supervisory mechanisms. Only in November 2023 did the new regime become fully operational throughout the Union.

This element is crucial: data prior to 2024 are inevitably affected by regulatory asymmetries and incomplete coverage of licensed providers. The ESMA 2025 report, on the other hand, is based on information submitted by national competent authorities on authorized and active platforms according to the ECSP framework, making consistent cross-country comparisons possible for the first time.

2024, 21 member states reported data on at least one active provider, while other countries were not yet operating under the new regime. 

Size of the European crowdfunding market

The ESMA 2025 report consistently quantifies the size of the regulated crowdfunding market at the European level for the first time. In 2024, 181 licensed crowdfunding service providers have collected a total of 4.25 billion in the 21 European Economic Area countries in which at least one provider was operating under ECSP.

The overall value and concentration of the market

One of the most obvious elements to emerge from the report is the Very strong concentration of capital raised in a small number of countries. Five national markets-France, the Netherlands, Spain, Italy and Lithuania-generate over 80% of the total European value.

In detail:

• France: 1.45 billion, Europe's first market by volume
  
• Netherlands: 1 billion
  
• Spain: 450 million
  
• Italy: 290 million
  
• Lithuania: 280 million

This distribution highlights how European crowdfunding, while formally harmonized, remains in fact polarized, with national markets that have achieved critical mass and others that are still marginal or in embryonic stages.

The distribution by type of crowdfunding

From the perspective of the tools used, European crowdfunding in 2024 is clearly dominated by lending. According to ESMA:

• 58% of the collection took place through loan-based crowdfunding
• 23% via debt-based crowdfunding (transferable debt instruments such as the Minibond)
• 12% via equity crowdfunding
• the remaining share concerns instruments eligible for ECSP purposes but minority.

This breakdown reflects some structural features of the European market and the crowdfunding instrument:

• the lending crowdfunding lends itself to projects that can be standardized, have a defined duration, and have risk profiles that are more easily understood by retail investors;
  
• l’equity crowdfunding remains a more selective instrument, with higher average tickets and a more complex decision-making process;
  
• the debt crowdfunding occupies an intermediate position, often linked to structured operations or already more mature companies.

An interesting fact also concerns the number of projects: lending projects are by far the most numerous (over 10,000 in 2024), but have a significantly lower average amount collected than equity and debt crowdfunding, confirming their function as a widespread and granular financing tool.

Geography of crowdfunding: the countries driving the market

We have seen that the geographic analysis of the ESMA 2025 report notes a far from uniform development, with a few countries playing a leading role and many others remaining on the fringes of the regulated market.

Top European markets by capital raised

In 2024, the leadership of European crowdfunding is firmly in the hands of the France, which is confirmed as the first market by volume with 1.45 billion raised and with a 20% of lending campaigns, a 55% of debt (Minibond) campaigns and about a 10% of equity campaigns.

Immediately following this are the Netherlands, with 1 billion. The Dutch market is strongly oriented toward lending crowdfunding, which alone accounts for more than 80% of national funding.

La Spain occupies the third place with 450 million, raised 60% in lending and 40% in equity crowdfunding. Italy sees lending crowdfunding around 45% tied with equity crowdfunding, while Lithuania is dominated by lending (over 90%).

Alongside the volumes collected, the number of licensed providers is a useful indicator for assessing the maturity of the national ecosystem. Marked differences emerge in this respect as well.

In 2024, the France hosted 50 authorized providers, the highest number in Europe, followed by Italy (27) e Spain (25). These figures reflect not only the size of the markets, but also the regulatory history of individual countries: France and Italy, in particular, had introduced national crowdfunding regulatory frameworks several years before the ECSP, fostering the emergence and growth of structured domestic operators.

A case in point is the Lithuania, which despite having lower overall volumes than large markets, records the higher number of projects funded (over 2,600 in 2024). This figure reflects early regulation, strong specialization in lending crowdfunding, and a decided openness to the international market.

The ESMA report also highlights the existence of a group of countries where regulated crowdfunding is found to be still marginal or absent. 2024, 9 European Economic Area states had not yet authorized any active providers under ECSP.

The profile of investors

The basis of crowdfunding investors is composed of For the 88% from retail investors. (or unsophisticated), while only 11% are classified as sophisticated. The average investment ticket is around 660 euros overall, while if we restrict the field to sophisticated investors only, it rises to 2660 euros.

The Italian case: an exception in the European landscape

In the European context outlined by the ESMA 2025 report, Italy represents a case rather atypical. Unlike all other major crowdfunding markets, our country shows a distribution of instruments that falls outside the dominant model at the EU level, making equity crowdfunding more central than lending.

This characteristic is not a statistical detail, but the result of a specific regulatory and market path that distinguishes Italy from the rest of Europe.

According to ESMA data, in major European markets the lending crowdfunding is the predominant form of lending: it accounts for 81% in the Netherlands, 60% in Spain and even 96% in Lithuania. Lending also remains a significant component in Italy, as we have seen, but the striking fact is another: the share of equity crowdfunding is significantly higher than in other countries, apart from Spain.

In the rest of the Union, equity crowdfunding tends to remain a niche, both in volume and number of projects, while in Italy it takes on a structural role within the crowdinvesting ecosystem. 

Another peculiar aspect of Italy is that there are so many authorized crowdfunding platforms in our country, but relatively few campaigns are launched and concluded, for a similarly modest overall volume of fundraising. 

The structural reasons for the Italian anomaly

This peculiarity cannot be explained by conjunctural factors alone. On the contrary, it is rooted in a number of structural elements that have oriented the Italian market toward equity crowdfunding since its origins.

The first factor is. regulate. Italy has been the First country in Europe to have specific legislation on equity crowdfunding, back in 2013, initially reserved for innovative startups and then gradually expanded. This created a time advantage which has enabled the emergence of specialized platforms, dedicated expertise and increased familiarity of the instrument among companies and investors.

The second element concerns the demand for capital. In Italy, equity crowdfunding has emerged as a response to the Structural difficulty in accessing venture capital by startups and SMEs, in an environment where venture capital has historically been less developed than in other European countries. 

A third factor is related to the sectoral composition of projects. Unlike markets such as Lithuania or the Netherlands, which are strongly oriented toward real estate, Italy has also seen a greater spread of campaigns in other sectors, such as services, manufacturing, food, retail and technological innovation, areas where venture capital is more consistent than debt.

The last factor is. fiscal: negligence on the part of the Internal Revenue Service has inhibited a real explosion of lending crowdfunding in Italy for years. It was only recently, in fact, that the withholding tax that curtailed investors' interest upstream was abolished, adding to the normal IRPEF rate that would then be paid downstream. The fact then remains that lending crowdfunding interest is not charged the 26% tax provided for other investment income, but the normal IRPEF, creating an inequitable and inconvenient discrepancy for investors. If investors are discouraged from participating in lending crowdfunding campaigns, companies are discouraged from launching them.

The Internal Revenue Service is dealing with this issue, and from this point of view, we can expect a gradual normalization, but it will take time.

Cross-border crowdfunding: promises and limitations of the single market

One of the stated goals of the ECSP Regulation was the creation of a true single European crowdfunding market, capable of crossing national boundaries on both the platform and investor sides. The ESMA 2025 report makes it possible for the first time to assess, on an empirical basis, how far this goal has actually been achieved. In the first year, it should be clarified, it is understandably premature to speak of achievement of the actual goal, because the goal is actually a continuum.

In 2024, on average, only 8% of the capital raised from European platforms came from investors residing in a country other than the provider's country. As was to be expected, for now the national dimension remains predominant. 

Alongside this average figure, the ESMA report highlights. very marked differences between countries. Some markets show strong openness to cross-border investment, while others are almost completely closed. Very high shares, for example, are found in Estonia (77%) e Latvia (47%), countries that have developed business models explicitly geared toward an international audience.

At the opposite extreme are markets such as Poland, Portugal, Romania and Slovakia, where platforms serve exclusively or nearly exclusively domestic investors.

The ESMA report implicitly suggests that the barriers to cross-border are no longer regulatory in nature, but operational, cultural and market. Language, knowledge of the local business environment, trust in the proposing companies, and investment taxation continue to steer retail investors' choices toward the domestic market.

For businesses, the report confirms that European crowdfunding is not a uniform market, but a set of national markets with different logics. The choice of instrument (equity, lending, or debt) and country in which to operate remains a strategic factor in assessing whether to crowdfunding abroad, which must take into account the structure of capital demand, average ticket and investors' expectations.