Simon Glairy is a recognized expert in the fields of insurance and Insurtech, with a specialized focus on risk management and AI-driven risk assessment. Throughout his career, he has guided dozens of early-stage founders through the complexities of scaling disruptive technology while maintaining the strategic rigor necessary to survive in competitive markets. As the May 27 deadline for Startup Battlefield 2026 approaches, Simon provides a deep dive into the selection criteria for this premier competition at TechCrunch Disrupt in San Francisco. This conversation explores the shift from “polished” to “promising” startups, the critical importance of showing a working product over a slide deck, and why geographic diversity is reshaping the 2026 cohort.
Many founders hesitate to apply because they feel their startup is too early or lacks sufficient traction. Based on the patterns you see every year, why is this mindset often a mistake for those looking to join the Startup Battlefield?
Every year, we witness a recurring pattern where the most impactful founders are the ones who almost didn’t apply because they felt they weren’t ready. They get caught up in the idea that they need significant revenue or a massive customer base, but the truth is that this program has never been about rewarding the most polished companies. Instead, we are looking for the most promising ones, seeking out that spark of a category-defining idea rather than a perfect balance sheet or a finalized marketing plan. We sift through thousands of applications to find those who are meaningfully different, and often, the founders who think they are “too early” are exactly where they need to be to make a genuine impact. If you are waiting for a moment of perfect traction, you might miss the window to join a prestigious list of past champions that includes giants like Discord and Cloudflare.
The selection process prioritizes disruption over incremental improvement. How should a founder articulate their product’s ability to make existing solutions feel obsolete rather than just being a slightly better version of what is already out there?
When we look at product disruption, the fundamental question we ask is whether the innovation represents a real shift in how a specific industry or geography functions. We are not interested in 10% improvements; we are looking for the thing that makes the current way of doing things feel fundamentally outdated or even obsolete. Founders must be able to demonstrate that their build isn’t just an iteration but a genuine change that forces the market to look at a problem through a completely new lens. This involves a deep dive into the technology itself and whether it has the potential to become a giant in its own right, impacting the industry in a way that is genuinely transformative. The key is to show that your solution changes the game entirely, much like the most recent crop of winners who dared to challenge established norms and showcased their product on the global stage.
You’ve mentioned that the founding team’s narrative is a critical part of the evaluation. What are the specific elements of an origin story that convince you a team has the necessary conviction to succeed?
The framework of “Why you, why now, why this problem?” is the heartbeat of a successful application, yet it is often the most underwritten section by founders. We are looking for a clear articulation of conviction that goes far beyond just citing a large market size or listing generic industry trends in a spreadsheet. A standout origin story explains the unique insight the founder had that others missed, providing an emotional and intellectual connection to the specific problem they are solving. We want to hear the narrative of how you arrived at this solution and why your specific background makes you the only person capable of building it. This founding story is a meaningful part of how we evaluate teams, as it reveals the grit and vision required to scale a company from a raw idea to a market leader.
Startup Battlefield 200 prides itself on industrial and geographic diversity. Why is it important for companies from “non-traditional” tech hubs to apply, and how does this diversity strengthen the cohort?
The Startup Battlefield 200 is intentionally designed as a global cohort because we know that innovation isn’t restricted to Silicon Valley; it happens in every corner of the world and every vertical in tech. We actively scout for founders across 99+ countries, looking for those building something important in geographies or sectors that rarely get the spotlight they deserve. By including a diverse range of perspectives, the program fosters a much richer environment for disruption and provides a platform for technology that hasn’t had its “moment” yet in the mainstream media. Whether you are building in a capital-intensive industry or a niche market with unique funding dynamics, your presence in the cohort ensures that the global tech landscape is truly represented. This geographic diversity is essential for finding the next world-changing company before the rest of the world even realizes it has arrived.
A major point of confusion for many applicants is the balance between having a working product and having a market presence. Could you clarify the requirements regarding a working MVP versus revenue, and how a pre-launch company can successfully navigate this?
One of the most important things to understand is that being pre-launch does not disqualify you from the Startup Battlefield; in fact, pre-launch companies are genuinely welcome. While you absolutely need a working MVP to be considered, you do not need to show a single dollar of revenue or a long list of active customers to be taken seriously. The evaluation is focused on the technology itself, so we want to see your product in action, even if it is a rough screen recording from your phone or a slightly unpolished prototype. We are looking for the core technology to be showcased in real-time, rather than through an animated explainer video with upbeat music or a static mockup. By showing us that the product actually works, you prove the technical feasibility of your vision, which is far more valuable at this stage than a polished sales deck or a few local press profiles.
Many founders are tempted to claim they have no competitors to emphasize their uniqueness. Why is this approach usually a red flag, and what is the better way to handle the competitive landscape in an application?
Claiming you have no competitors is one of the most common mistakes and it immediately raises red flags about how well a founder actually understands their market. It is almost never a credible answer, and it suggests a lack of thorough research or an inability to recognize the alternative solutions customers are currently using to solve their problems. A strong application acknowledges competitors honestly and then explains, with specific detail, why your solution will ultimately win the category. You should be prepared to name the players in your space and clearly define the “moat” that protects your innovation from being easily replicated by established giants. This section is one of the most underdeveloped parts of many applications, so taking the time to provide a clear, competitive analysis shows us that you have the strategic rigor to succeed in a crowded market.
Regarding funding, there is often uncertainty about whether a company is “too far along” if they have already raised a Series A. How do you view different funding stages during the review process?
We welcome a wide variety of financial backgrounds, from entirely bootstrapped companies to those who have closed pre-seed and seed rounds with top-tier investors like General Catalyst. While the program is primarily focused on early-stage startups, Series A companies are still reviewed on a case-by-case basis, particularly if they are operating in capital-intensive industries or raising in markets where funding dynamics differ from Silicon Valley norms. The goal is to find the most promising technology, regardless of whether you’ve raised a few thousand dollars from friends or several million from venture capitalists. If your core technology hasn’t yet had its major global showcase, you are likely a good fit for the stage at Disrupt. We want to see companies whose technology is ready for its moment, regardless of how much capital they have already secured.
With the May 27 deadline fast approaching, what are the most critical “do’s and don’ts” for founders who are putting the final touches on their applications right now?
As the May 27 deadline approaches, the most critical piece of advice is to show, not just tell; we want to see your MVP working in real-time without the distraction of over-polished marketing materials. Don’t spend your final hours adding “upbeat background music” to an explainer video; instead, focus on writing clearly and telling the truth about where your product and team currently stand. We can see around rough edges and unpolished interfaces, but we cannot see around an application that is so carefully managed that the actual soul of the company becomes invisible. If you realize you’ve submitted before you were truly ready, remember that you can resubmit a new application until the deadline tomorrow, though you cannot edit an existing one. Finally, if you are still on the fence about applying, just hit submit—the worst-case scenario is that you’ll have a much stronger application for next year after having gone through the process.
What is your forecast for the 2026 Startup Battlefield?
My forecast for the 2026 Startup Battlefield is that we will see a surge in breakthrough technologies from emerging markets that address local problems with massive global scalability. I expect the winner to be a company that focuses on a capital-intensive sector, perhaps in climate tech or AI-driven infrastructure, where the founding team can demonstrate an undeniable technical moat. We are seeing more founders moving away from incremental software-as-a-service models and toward deep tech that solves physical-world problems. By the time TechCrunch Disrupt concludes on October 15 in San Francisco, I believe the tech world will be talking about a champion that makes our current digital tools feel like relics of a previous era. The caliber of applications we have seen so far suggests that the 2026 cohort will be one of the most diverse and disruptive in the history of the competition.
