Vertical vs. General: How to Choose Your Program's Focus (Decision Framework)

A program director reached out to me a few months ago with a dilemma.

Her accelerator had been running as a "generalist" program for three years—accepting founders from any sector, any stage, any background. The pitch was simple: "We help all great founders, regardless of industry."

Sounds inclusive, right?

Except it wasn't working.

Mentors were stretched thin trying to advise a SaaS founder, a hardware startup, and a HealthTech company in the same cohort. Workshops felt generic. Peer learning was weak because founders couldn't relate to each other's challenges. And when she looked at outcomes, the data was messy—some sectors thrived, others consistently struggled.

She asked me: "Should we go vertical? Or are we just looking for an excuse to narrow our pipeline?"

It's a question I hear all the time. And the answer isn't simple.

The Generalist Trap

Here's the thing about running a generalist accelerator—it sounds like the smart move.

You cast a wide net. You maximize deal flow. You don't limit yourself to one sector that might dry up or become oversaturated. You pride yourself on being "sector-agnostic" and finding great founders wherever they are.

In theory, this works.

In practice? It's brutal.

Because here's what actually happens:

Your curriculum becomes one-size-fits-none. You can't go deep on HealthTech regulatory pathways when half your cohort is building B2B SaaS. You can't dive into hardware manufacturing logistics when most founders are in fintech. So you default to generic frameworks—Lean Startup, Business Model Canvas, pitch deck templates—that sound useful but don't address the specific challenges each founder is facing.

Your mentors burn out. A great B2B SaaS mentor might be useless for a hardware founder. A retail expert can't advise a healthcare compliance problem. So you either recruit dozens of mentors to cover every possible sector (expensive, hard to manage) or you stretch the mentors you have across domains where they lack expertise.

Guess which one happens more often?

Peer learning collapses. One of the most valuable parts of a cohort is peer support—founders helping each other through shared challenges. But if your cohort is a mix of pre-revenue SaaS, growth-stage hardware, and early traction fintech, what do they actually have in common?

They're all "founders," sure. But the problems they're solving are so different that peer learning becomes shallow.

Your brand gets fuzzy. If you're "the accelerator for everyone," you're not really known for anything. Founders, mentors, and investors can't quickly answer: "What does [your program] do?"

That lack of clarity makes it harder to recruit top-tier mentors, harder to attract high-quality founders, and harder to build a reputation as the program for a specific type of startup.

The Vertical Temptation

So the obvious answer is: "Go vertical. Pick a sector, own it, and build deep expertise."

And for a lot of programs, that's the right move.

Vertical programs can offer real value:

• Deep, relevant curriculum (e.g., FDA pathways for HealthTech, pilot programs for ConTech)

• Mentors with actual domain expertise

• Stronger peer learning (everyone's solving similar challenges)

• Clearer brand positioning ("We're the ConTech accelerator in North America")

• Better investor fit (you can target VCs who specialize in your vertical)

But—and this is a big but—going vertical comes with real risks.

Risk 1: Your pipeline shrinks. If you go from "all startups" to "only HealthTech," you've just eliminated 95% of potential applicants. Can you still hit your cohort size? Do you have the sourcing channels to find enough high-quality founders in that niche?

Risk 2: You're betting on one sector. What if the sector you pick has a down year? What if investor appetite dries up for that vertical? What if regulatory changes make it harder for startups in that space to succeed?

Generalist programs have diversification. Vertical programs are concentrated bets.

Risk 3: You might not have the expertise (yet). Deciding to "become a HealthTech accelerator" doesn't magically give you access to HealthTech mentors, regulatory experts, and clinical advisors. If you don't already have deep connections in that vertical, you'll spend 12-18 months building them.

Are you willing to make that investment?

Risk 4: You'll exclude great founders who don't fit the vertical. The best founder you'll see this year might be building something outside your chosen sector. If you're strictly vertical, you'll have to turn them away.

That stings.

The Framework

Alright, so how do you actually make this decision?

I'm going to walk you through a framework I use with programs trying to figure out whether to stay general or go vertical.

Step 1: Audit Your Current Cohorts

Pull data on your last 2-3 cohorts. Look at:

Sector distribution: What percentage of your founders are in SaaS, hardware, HealthTech, fintech, etc.?

Outcome variance by sector: Are certain sectors consistently outperforming others? Are some struggling more than others?

Founder feedback: When you survey founders post-program, do certain sectors report higher satisfaction? Do some say the program "wasn't built for them"?

Mentor utilization: Which mentors are most engaged? Which ones are stretched thin or underutilized?

If you see clear patterns—like "our HealthTech founders consistently struggle while our SaaS founders thrive"—that's a signal.

It might mean your program is unintentionally optimized for one type of startup, even though you claim to be generalist.

Step 2: Assess Your Competitive Position

Look at the other programs in your region or niche.

Are you competing with strong vertical programs? If there's already a well-established HealthTech accelerator in your market, starting a generalist program and hoping to attract HealthTech founders is going to be an uphill battle. They'll go to the specialist.

Is there a gap you can fill? Maybe there's no ConTech program in your region, but there's demand from founders and corporates in that space. That's an opportunity.

What's your unfair advantage? Do you have deep expertise, mentor networks, or corporate partnerships in a specific vertical? If yes, lean into it. If not, going vertical is going to require a lot of upfront investment.

Step 3: Define "Vertical" Clearly

Here's where a lot of programs get tripped up.

"Going vertical" doesn't have to mean picking one narrow sector and excluding everything else.

There's a spectrum:

Strict Vertical: Only HealthTech. Period. (High focus, small pipeline)

Thematic Vertical: "Future of Work" or "Climate Tech" (broader, but still focused)

Stage + Vertical: "Early-stage B2B SaaS" (narrows by both sector and founder stage)

Vertical Tracks: Run a generalist program with specialized tracks (e.g., one cohort, but HealthTech founders get a separate regulatory workshop series)

Vertical Cohorts: Run multiple cohorts per year, each focused on a different vertical

You don't have to go all-in on one narrow sector. You can find a middle ground that gives you focus and flexibility.

Step 4: Test Before You Commit

Before you rebrand as "The HealthTech Accelerator," test the waters.

Run a pilot vertical cohort. Keep your generalist program, but run one vertical-specific cohort as an experiment. See if you can source enough quality founders. See if the outcomes improve. See if mentors and investors respond positively.

Add a vertical track to your existing program. Keep your cohort generalist, but offer specialized curriculum or mentor matching for founders in a specific sector. Measure whether those founders report higher satisfaction and better outcomes.

Survey your founder pipeline. Ask applicants: "If we ran a sector-specific program, what sector would you want?" If 60% say HealthTech, you've got signal.

Testing reduces risk. You get data before you make a permanent decision.

Step 5: Run the Decision Matrix

Here's the final step. Answer these questions honestly:

Question	Generalist	Vertical
Do we have deep expertise in a specific sector?	☐	☐
Can we source enough high-quality founders in one vertical to fill cohorts?	☐	☐
Do we have strong mentor/investor networks in one sector?	☐	☐
Are our current outcomes strong across all sectors?	☐	☐
Is our brand positioning clear and differentiated?	☐	☐
Are we competing with established vertical programs?	☐	☐
Do our stakeholders care about one specific sector?	☐	☐

If you checked mostly "Vertical," you should seriously consider going vertical.

If you checked mostly "Generalist," stay general—but tighten your positioning. (More on that below.)

If it's mixed? You're in the "explore hybrid models" zone.

The Hybrid Middle Ground (Often the Best Option)

Most programs I work with don't need to pick a strict binary.

They need a focus without being exclusionary.

Here are a few models that work:

Model 1: Stage + Loose Vertical "We work with pre-revenue B2B startups, with a focus on SaaS, marketplaces, and fintech."

You've narrowed by stage (which gives you curriculum focus) and indicated your strengths (B2B software), but you're not turning away a great B2B hardware founder if they apply.

Model 2: Generalist with Vertical Expertise "We're a generalist program, but we have deep expertise in HealthTech and ConTech. Founders in those sectors get access to specialized mentors and curriculum."

You keep your pipeline wide, but you signal strength in specific areas.

Model 3: Vertical Cohorts on a Rotation "We run four cohorts per year: Q1 is HealthTech, Q2 is Climate Tech, Q3 is Fintech, Q4 is open."

You get the benefits of focus (deep curriculum, strong mentor fit, clear branding) without locking yourself into one sector year-round.

Model 4: Geographic + Vertical "We're the startup program for [City/Region], with a focus on sectors where [City] has competitive advantage—like biotech and advanced manufacturing."

You lean into local strengths without artificially narrowing your pipeline.

Common Mistakes to Avoid

Before you make the call, watch out for these traps:

Mistake 1: Going vertical because it's trendy Don't pick a vertical just because "everyone's doing HealthTech." Pick it because you have expertise, demand, and competitive advantage.

Mistake 2: Staying generalist out of fear A lot of programs stay generalist because they're afraid of shrinking their pipeline. But a smaller, higher-quality pipeline is often better than a large, noisy one.

Mistake 3: Picking a vertical your stakeholders want, not one your team can execute If your corporate sponsor wants you to "do Climate Tech," but you don't have climate mentors, climate investors, or climate expertise, you're setting yourself up to fail.

Mistake 4: Thinking "vertical" solves everything Going vertical won't fix bad selection processes, weak mentorship, or unclear program goals. It's a strategic choice, not a silver bullet.

The Bottom Line

The decision between generalist and vertical isn't about which is "better."

It's about which aligns with your strengths, your market position, and your ability to execute.

If you have deep expertise, strong mentor networks, and competitive advantage in a specific sector—and you can source enough quality founders in that space—go vertical.

If you don't have those things yet, or if your strength is being a connector across diverse sectors, stay generalist. But tighten your positioning so you're known for something.

And if you're somewhere in the middle? Test hybrid models. Run a pilot vertical cohort. Add specialized tracks. See what works.

Just don't stay stuck in the "we're for everyone" trap while your peer programs build deep expertise and clearer brands.

Pick a focus. Own it. Build from there.

.

.

.

Not sure where you stand? I've created a Vertical vs. General Decision Matrix—a diagnostic tool that helps you assess your program's readiness for vertical specialization and identify the best path forward. Download it here.

You might also find the Sector Opportunity Scorecard useful—it walks you through evaluating potential verticals based on demand, expertise, competition, and market conditions. Grab it here.

This post is part of a series on program design and operations for accelerators, incubators, and startup studios. If you found this useful, you might also like: "The Program Goals Trap" and "Building Your Theory of Change."