StartUp Perú 13G: Emprendimientos Innovadores — Historical Reference

StartUp Perú 13G: Emprendimientos Innovadores — Historical Reference

Application status: closed. The official Startup Perú page marks the Emprendimientos Innovadores 13G call as closed. Its official bases set the final submission deadline at 20 January 2026, 13:00. The current official calendar does not announce a later Startup Perú generation, so this page is an archive of the 13G call rather than an invitation to submit a new application.

StartUp Perú is the startup-support initiative operated by ProInnóvate, the innovation and productive-development program of Peru’s Ministry of Production (PRODUCE). The program uses competitive, non-reimbursable cofinancing to help early ventures validate and develop innovative products. The call documented here was specifically Emprendimientos Innovadores 13G, the track for startups that already had a minimum viable product (PMV) and early evidence that potential customers or users were interested.

This is not the same as a general business loan, a prize for an untested idea, or the older opportunity described by the previous version of this page. The official 13G materials do not support the previous page’s higher award figure, international immersion trips, a five-year age limit for every applicant, or a promise of access to a particular accelerator network. The confirmed maximum for this track was S/ 67,000 in total ProInnóvate resources, with a defined split between project capital and accompaniment.

Key details

Because the opportunity is closed, the amount and eligibility below describe the 13G cycle for historical reference. They should not be treated as current terms for a future generation unless ProInnóvate publishes a new set of bases.

What the 13G Innovadores track was designed to support

The official objective was to help startups with at least one PMV with traction accelerate validation and development of a commercial product for market entry. In practical terms, the startup needed to have moved beyond a concept deck. A PMV was understood as a version of a new product or service that allowed the team to gather meaningful information from customers. The bases asked for evidence that the product had been tested with potential customers or users and had shown signs of acceptance.

The call also required an innovation case. A proposal needed merit at least at the national level, with international novelty valued where present. It needed clear differentiation from what already existed in its target market and potential for growth materially above the average of its sector. Technology or prior scientific and technological development was desirable, but the official wording did not limit the competition to one narrow industry. The stronger question was whether the product, service, or process created a defensible difference and could grow.

The bases also referred to a responsible value chain. That means applicants had to think about the positive and negative effects connected to how the business operates, not just its sales pitch. A strong historical application would therefore have connected its product, customers, growth plan, and operating practices rather than presenting innovation as a label without evidence.

Funding and project structure

The headline maximum was S/ 67,000 in non-reimbursable resources. Up to S/ 60,000 could be used as seed capital for the submitted project. A fixed S/ 7,000 was assigned for the services of an incubator or accelerator in the ProInnóvate network. That second amount was part of the total, not an additional S/ 7,000 on top of the headline figure.

ProInnóvate could provide no more than 70% of the total project value. The team had to provide at least the remaining 30% as counterpart contribution. Within that counterpart, the bases allowed a minimum 10% monetary contribution and up to 20% in non-monetary contribution. The precise budget and contract terms were to be established through the award process and a pre-contract meeting; the call was not an unrestricted cash transfer.

The project could run for up to eight months from its start. The bases described project execution through milestones and stated that financing would be delivered according to the agreed arrangements. A team planning its budget therefore needed to connect each expense to a measurable validation or development objective.

Eligible activities included specialist consulting and services for validating the business model, market studies and focus groups, prototype improvement, additional functionality, technical validation, testing, final commercial-development work, digital marketing, and other prototyping or product-validation costs. Smaller equipment and goods connected to the project could represent no more than 25% of the seed-capital component. Team-member fees were capped at 40% of seed capital, and business travel, networking, or participation in incubation or acceleration activities had a 20% cap when they materially supported the project objectives.

Who could apply

The call accepted two broad applicant profiles.

A natural person could apply with a DNI or Carnet de Extranjería, but not alone: the application had to be submitted through an entrepreneurial team. A young company could apply as a legal entity using an active and valid RUC, also through an entrepreneurial team. If a natural-person team won, it committed to form a new legal entity after the application closing date or during project execution. The bases specifically did not allow the project expenses to be executed through an already existing legal entity created before the closing date in that route.

A company applicant had to be legally established in Peru, have an active and valid RUC, and have no more than eighteen months of incorporation at the call’s closing date. It also had to report maximum sales of S/ 120,000 excluding IGV for the relevant last year. For the company route, the founders participating in the entrepreneurial team had to hold at least 51% of the company.

Every team, regardless of route, had to meet the core team rules:

• Two to four natural persons had to be directly involved in project activities.
• One member had to serve as the Líder Emprendedor and act as the project’s general coordinator.
• The leader had to be a founding partner of the startup.
• At least one team member needed full-time availability for the project.
• Other members needed at least 20% availability.
• The leader and at least half of the team had to be Peruvian or resident in Peru.
• The team had to satisfy the additional requirements in the official annexes.

The official criteria make this a poor fit for a solo founder applying without a team, an idea with no tested product, or a company that cannot show either the required age and sales profile or a credible commitment to form the required entity.

How the application worked

The 13G application was free and online. The official bases directed applicants to the ProInnóvate online system at inngenius.proinnovate.gob.pe. The applicant had to complete the form to 100% and submit the required materials before the closing time.

There were two submission routes. A startup could apply independently and go through the full selection process. Alternatively, it could seek backing from an incubator or accelerator financed by ProInnóvate. The applicant had to contact the eligible organisation directly, and a startup could receive backing from no more than one incubator or accelerator. A backed application still had to be filed through the online system according to the official calendar; backing did not remove the need to submit the formal application.

The required package included a video of up to three minutes in which the entrepreneurial team explained the problem, its solution, why the proposal was innovative at national or international level, how the startup planned to grow, how it would use the funding, and why the team was suited to execute the project. The video had to remain available during evaluation and could not be changed after the deadline.

The form also required the legal-check and commitment declaration. Where relevant, an applicant had to provide documentation concerning a SUNAT coactive-debt instalment arrangement. A company applicant had to show that the leader was an accionista and that the founding partners in the team held at least 51% of the company. Applicants who passed the first evaluation stage also had to complete a baseline survey sent to the entrepreneurial leader. ProInnóvate reserved the right to request originals and to verify submitted information.

How applications were evaluated

The official process used external evaluation, legal review, Technical Committee evaluation, and final ratification. External evaluators reviewed innovation merit, business model, scalability, and the entrepreneurial team. The published scoring framework gave substantial weight to competitive differentiation, product testing or commercial traction, market knowledge, the capital-execution plan, team composition, and execution capacity.

Legal review checked the legitimacy of submitted documents and compliance with the legal requirements. A missing or defective document could prevent a project from reaching the Technical Committee. The committee then evaluated eligible proposals after a mandatory interview with the Líder Emprendedor, with the participation of other team members valued as relevant. Proposals connected to environmental sustainability or climate adaptation could receive the additional assessment described in the bases, subject to meeting that criterion.

For an applicant preparing a similar future call, the practical lesson is to keep evidence aligned across the form, video, budget, and team story. A traction metric should be explainable; a market claim should connect to customer evidence; and each expense should have a clear place in the validation plan. The committee was not evaluating a generic business plan in isolation. It was evaluating whether this particular team had a differentiated product, a credible market path, and the capacity to use public cofinancing responsibly.

Timeline and current interpretation

The official bases set the final submission deadline at 20 January 2026 at 13:00. The Startup Perú website now labels the 13G Innovadores call closed, and the official ProInnóvate calendar lists the 13G competition in the completed call schedule rather than showing an open application window. No later generation is announced on the official calendar reviewed for this page.

That status matters for readers. There is no current application step to complete through the archived 13G page, and the historical S/ 67,000 terms should not be assumed to carry forward. A future call could change its amount, age limits, sales threshold, team rules, budget caps, or application system. Anyone preparing for a later round should use this page only to understand the prior structure and then wait for new bases published by ProInnóvate.

The official place to monitor is the Startup Perú program page and the ProInnóvate contest calendar. Questions about the 13G bases were directed to [email protected], but a closed-call contact route is not evidence that applications remain open. Before sending documents, verify that a newly published call has an open status, a valid deadline, and its own current bases.

Bottom line

StartUp Perú 13G Emprendimientos Innovadores was a serious early-stage cofinancing route for teams that had already built and tested a PMV. Its confirmed package was up to S/ 67,000, composed of up to S/ 60,000 in seed capital and a fixed S/ 7,000 for incubator or accelerator accompaniment, with projects lasting up to eight months and requiring counterpart contribution.

The call is closed. This page preserves the verified 13G terms, corrects the earlier unsupported amount and application advice, and points readers to the official ProInnóvate source for any future announcement.