The University of Minnesota announced on April 9 that it has launched its 300th startup since 2006, with more than 140 launched since 2020. These startups have raised $3.5 billion in investment capital, created about 1,500 jobs, and more than 70 percent of them have stayed in Minnesota. The university ranks third among all U.S. public universities for startup creation, according to the Association of University Technology Managers.

Let’s put these numbers in context: the university’s annual research expenditure reached $1.44 billion in 2024, making it the 12th among U.S. public research universities. Three hundred startups over 20 years is about 15 per year, compared to 941 startups created across all U.S. universities in 2024, according to AUTM. The 1,500 jobs average about 5 employees per startup, and the $3.5 billion in investment capital amounts to approximately $2.3 million per job. The University of Georgia, which leads AUTM in commercial products brought to market with 69 in 2024, provides a useful comparison using a different, more outcome-oriented metric than startup formation. It is difficult to directly compare because the University of Minnesota does not prominently report how many of its technologies have reached commercial use, which is arguably a more meaningful indicator of success than the number of companies launched.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, roughly half of all new businesses in the United States close within 5 years, and about two-thirds are gone within 10 years. University startups are not exempt from that reality. The more relevant question is whether the state of Minnesota is doing what it can to give these companies a better chance, especially considering the caliber of the research behind them and the fact that more than half of the university’s startup portfolio, 28 percent in biopharmaceuticals and 27 percent in medical devices, sits in sectors where early-stage companies need significant support to survive regulatory timelines and capital-intensive development cycles.

Launch Minnesota, the state’s primary startup support program, has distributed $9.7 million since it began operating in 2019, awarding 383 grants to companies. The program’s grantees raised more than $240 million in follow-on funding, and 66 percent of grants went to businesses owned by women, veterans, BIPOC individuals, and residents of Greater Minnesota. For many founders, that $20,000 to $50,000 matching grant functioned as their first outside check. The program’s annual appropriation was $2.5 million, including $1.5 million for innovation grants, covering all startups in the state. Launch Minnesota’s grant program was not continued in the state’s 2026-27 biennium budget. Minnesota also has a 25 percent angel tax credit, but after allocating $5 million in 2024, the program had no funding available in 2025.

Let’s look at our counterparts in the Midwest. Ohio’s Third Frontier program has invested $2.1 billion in technology-based economic development initiatives, creating or attracting more than 600 companies, generating 55,000 jobs, and producing a total economic impact of $6.6 billion at a 9-to-1 return on public investment. Michigan launched a $60 million Innovation Fund in 2025 and, over the past five years, has leveraged $85 in private capital for every public dollar, helping catalyze 15,800 jobs across 1,400 companies. Indiana offers a 25 percent venture capital tax credit, capped at $20 million per year, to attract out-of-state investors into local startups. Minnesota’s combined direct startup investment and its angel tax credit, when it is funded, do not approach any of these figures.

The university has been a strong engine for generating startups, but no university technology transfer office, no matter how well run, is large enough on its own to determine whether those startups succeed in the market. That depends on available capital, regulatory support, mentorship networks, and the kind of sustained early-stage funding that allows a five-person medical device company to survive long enough to get through FDA clearance. The university’s “Discover, Advance, Impact” initiative, which is currently raising $40 million with a $20 million institutional match to fund commercialization support, is an acknowledgment that the ecosystem around it is not providing what its startups need. While other states have made supporting startups a public policy priority, Minnesota has mostly left this responsibility to the university and the market.

Three hundred startups is a milestone worth celebrating. But the real test is whether these startups reach the people they were created to help. That outcome depends on Minnesota’s willingness to build the infrastructure that turns new ventures into sustainable companies with products, employees, and revenue. If we value homegrown innovation over legacy corporations, then closing the gap between Minnesota’s investment and that of its peer states must be where the work starts. 

Lucy Bichakhchyan holds an MS in Management of Technology from the University of Minnesota, where her work focused on successful startup leadership. She works at a medical device startup in Minnesota.

Disclosure: The author is a University of Minnesota alumna and works in Minnesota's medtech sector. She has no financial relationship with Launch Minnesota, the University of Minnesota's Technology Commercialization office, or any programs referenced in this piece.