The combined market capitalisation of the 100 largest tech companies in Central and Eastern Europe amounts to nearly $117 billion, according to the “Digital Champions CEE 2025” report, prepared by the Digital Poland Foundation.
ADVERTISEMENT
The first three places in this year’s ranking of the largest technology companies in Central and Eastern Europe were taken by Estonian fintech Wise, as well as two Polish companies: InPost and Allegro.
The report shows that the value of 32 companies in the region exceeds $1 billion, while another 50 boast valuations above $250 million. The largest number of companies on the list come from Poland — the region’s biggest economy — with 39 technology firms from the country having a combined valuation of over $43bn.
Meanwhile, Estonia and the Czech Republic each have 13 companies among the CEE digital champions, with the value of Estonian firms being nearly twice as high as that of Czech firms — $21.7bn versus $12.2bn. Lithuania (7 companies) and Romania (6 companies) rank further down the list.
CEE: Poland and the Baltics are tech frontrunners
“Poland has become fertile ground for building digital companies, and local VC and PE funds play an increasingly important role in driving their growth. It is worth noting that companies that have leveraged such financing often not only gain a strong position in the domestic and regional markets but also make significant progress on the global stage. InPost, Booksy, and ICEYE are the best examples — technology companies whose products and services have gained international reach far beyond Poland and the CEE region,” said Rozalia Urbanek, Investment Director at PFR Ventures.
ICEYE is a Finnish company that was co-founded by Poland’s Rafal Modrzewski, and it also has significant operations in Poland.
Although the largest number of companies in the top 100 ranking come from Poland, the Baltic countries remain the undisputed leaders of the technology sector in the region. The 23 companies from Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia included in the ranking account for over 30% of the total valuation of all companies on the list, while these countries are home to only about 4% of the CEE region’s population.
As the report points out, the technology sector in Central and Eastern Europe performs exceptionally well compared to the overall economy of the region’s countries. Technology companies from CEE countries account for more than 8% of the European digital economy, with a combined value of €3 trillion. Importantly, over the past decade, the value of companies here has grown two to three times faster than similar firms in Western Europe.
Challenges for the industry
“Technology companies from the CEE region have enormous potential and consistently prove that they are on par with competitors from other parts of the world. However, it’s important to emphasise that these companies must have an international outlook, as only that allows them to fully realise their potential. Developing technology in Central and Eastern Europe also has a significant advantage — the region offers excellent IT talent while enabling businesses to operate at reasonable costs,” said Filip Kaczmarzyk, Management Board Member at XTB, in an interview with Euronews.
Representatives of technology companies, however, point to numerous growth barriers. Marcin Kuśmierz, CEO of e-commerce company Allegro, highlights issues such as complex EU regulations, a lack of synchronisation in their implementation across member states, and unfair competition from outside the EU.
“We believe that these burdens are disproportionately greater for European companies compared to their non-European competitors. In our dialogue with national and EU authorities, we consistently call for a level playing field for all entities operating in the EU market, regardless of their size or origin, as this is the best way to foster healthy competition and innovation, as well as to protect consumer interests,” Marcin Kuśmierz told Euronews.
Related
Business funding: Where is venture capital flowing in Europe?How do you grow a unicorn? What Europe can do to support its start-ups
One of the biggest challenges for technology companies in the Central and Eastern European (CEE) region is limited access to capital.
“Although many companies have innovative ideas and the potential to expand into foreign markets, they often lack sufficient capital to successfully execute their plans. Accessing external sources of financing, such as venture capital funds, could provide crucial support for companies in the CEE region. A similar situation applies to IPOs — few companies choose this route, considering it too complex or risky,” said Szymon Wałach, Vice President of Digital and Strategy at InPost.
He adds, however, that investor interest in the sector is growing, as evidenced by the total value of investments in CEE tech companies in 2024, which reached €3.89bn. Poland, with €592.1 million, ranked second — just behind Turkey.
A survey conducted by The Recursive in early 2025 showed that 62% of venture capitalists in the CEE region expect a more favourable investment climate in 2025 compared to the previous year. Investors are particularly optimistic about long-term growth opportunities in the artificial intelligence, cyber security and deep technology sectors.
Readers look to the NYT to deliver well-reasoned and fact-checked information and analysis in areas where they are not themselves experts. However, based on my professional focus on data and analysis of energy and related environmental issues over the past 45 years, which includes White House and Department of Energy senior positions in the Carter, Bush 41, Clinton, Bush 43, Obama, and Trump 45 administrations as well as work at leading universities and think tanks, NYT coverage of these subjects too often fails to live up to its own standards for accuracy and journalistic integrity. As a lifetime reader of the NYT, the frequency of errors and a refusal to fix them raises doubts regarding the accuracy of information presented on other topics. Whether or not the problem extends beyond energy and climate, the NYT readership clearly deserves better. Three recent NYT articles illustrate the problem: a July 22 article by Max Bearak, ostensibly reporting on remarks by UN Secretary-General Guterres’ on renewable energy; a May 26 article by Ivan Penn on competition between electric vehicles (EVs) and vehicles powered by internal combustion engine (ICEVs); and an April 23 column by David Wallace-Wells on the loss of cultural and political momentum for action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. These are considered in turn below, followed by some summary conclusions. Max Bearak’s July 22 2025 article “U.S. Is Missing the Century’s ‘Greatest Economic Opportunity,’ U.N. Chief Says” (July 23 print edition).The article opens with a review of UN Secretary-General Guterres’ remarks promoting renewable energy investment as both an economic opportunity and an environmental imperative. With deft mixing of quoted and unquoted words, Bearak reports that Guterres explicitly criticized the U.S. and other countries that follow its policies on fossil fuels. Though that may well be the Secretary-General opinion, that view is not borne out in the as-delivered transcript of his remarks.The bulk of the article turns to a discussion of energy data and climate policy that attempts to explain why the current situation has arisen, noting that this material was “left unsaid” by Mr. Guterres. From this point forward the reporter’s own analysis seeks to establish that China, in contrast to the U.S., is constructively pursuing a green energy transition. Unfortunately, the article presents faulty and misleading data. In seeking to highlight China’s constructive role the article states “Over the past decade, China has gone from a largely coal-powered economy to one that is deploying more renewable energy than anywhere else.” Growth in China’s production and deployment of a wide range of renewable energy technologies is indeed very impressive. However, data in the 2025 Statistical Review of Word Energy (a widely-respected source of energy data available online here), show that China is still largely powered by coal. In 2024 coal provided 58.1% of China’s total energy use (92.2 out of 158.9 exajoules), while in 2014 it accounted for 69.8% of China’s energy use (82.1 out of 117.6 exajoules). (FYI, 1 exajoule = 947.8 trillion British Thermal Units).Thus, coal still dominates in China’s energy mix, although coal use grew more slowly than total energy use over the past decade. Following its discussion of China’s renewable energy progress, the article turns to energy use and production the U.S. and other rich countries. It incorrectly states that “Relatively wealthy countries like the U.S., Canada, Australia and Saudi Arabia are also the world’s biggest producers of fossil fuels.” Data in the 2025 Statistical Review show that China’s total production of coal, oil, and natural gas totaled 112.3 exajoules in 2024, 32% higher than that of the second leading producer, the U.S., which totaled 85.0 exajoules. Indeed, China’s production of coal (94.5 exajoules) alone exceeds the total fossil fuel production of any other country. Moreover, the 2024 data is no anomaly; China has been by far the world’s largest fossil fuel producer in every year since 2005. Despite having contacted the NYT corrections team and the author to point out these errors, as well as the article’s mischaracterization of the temperature-related aim of the 2015 Paris Agreement, no corrections have been made to date. Ivan Penn’s May 26 2025 article “Electric Vehicles Died a Century Ago: Could that Happen Again?” (May 27 print edition).The article draws a parallel between the current competition between electric vehicles (EVs) and those with internal combustion engines (ICEVs) and the competition between them at the dawn of the automobile age. According to the article “scholars who have studied the earlier age of electric vehicles see parallels in their demise in the early decades of the 1900s and the attacks they are facing now. In both eras, electric cars struggled to gain acceptance in the marketplace and were undermined by politics.” Actions taken since the start of the Trump Administration to eliminate EV subsidies and to modify mandates and regulations that would have forced very rapid rates of EV adoption do matter.These actions are widely expected to slow, but not stop, EV market share growth, compared to the outlook assuming a continuation of Biden-era policies. However, available data and research clearly refute the claim that the market extinction of EVs a hundred year ago can be attributed to lawmakers of that era having “put their thumbs on the scale — and coming out on the side of oil” by enacting a very generous oil depletion allowance in 1926.The oil policy changes discussed in the article cannot have played a major role in the demise of EVs a century ago because EVs were already on their deathbed before they occurred. Data on vehicle manufacturing and registrations show that at least 98%, and possibly more than 99%, of the 17.5 million vehicles registered to operate in 1925 were already ICEVs. The article avoids recognizing that reality, which directly undercuts its line of argument. The Department of Energy’s History of Electric Cars paper, prepared during the Obama Administration, specifically notes that the market share of EV sales peaked in 1899 and 1900 and declined thereafter, while the absolute level of EV production peaked in 1912 and declined thereafter. The early peaking of both EV market share and production occurred against the backdrop of explosive growth in both annual vehicle sales (from 4,200 in 1900 to 181,000 in 1910 and 3.74 million in 1925) and total vehicle registrations (from 8000 in 1900 to 459,000 in 1910 to 17.5 million in 1925). The History of Electric Cars paper also identifies the four major drivers of the EV decline in the early 20th century: improved roads, which favored ICEVs that could offer long range capability; oil discoveries in Texas that led to lower gasoline prices; the invention of the electric starter, which eliminated the need for a hand crank to start ICEVs; and mass production of ICEVs, which dramatically lowered their cost. The 1926 oil tax policy change does not make the list. Indeed, it is not even mentioned in the paper.Federal policy can sometimes be a key driver of energy market outcomes, as has arguably been the case with the Price Anderson Act that enabled commercial nuclear power, the Natural Gas Act, and renewable fuel content mandates. That said, the fate of EVs a century ago shows that federal policies are not always a significant factor in market outcomes. Today’s EV advocates can draw solace from that point, since modern EVs have many positive attributes that should favor continued EV market share growth, and perhaps a future market-leading role, even with the recent removal of some policy stimulants.David Wallace-Wells’ April 23, 2025 article, “The World Seems to Be Surrendering to Climate Change” (subsequently revised twice).Wallace-Wells discusses the declining cultural and political momentum for ambitious action to limit greenhouse gas emissions in recent years, noting that this trend applies both domestically and globally. In closing, the article observes that when climate advocates reckon with the loss of cultural and political momentum they often point to green records set each year. After reviewing some of these recent records and pointing out that a staggering share of global progress is taking place in China, Wallace-Wells notes that progress in the U.S. can be similarly breathtaking. It is here that problems in both the data cited and in the NYT corrections process are clearly evident.In describing U.S. green energy progress, the original version of the article stated that electricity generation from renewables exceeded that from fossil fuels in 2024, which is woefully incorrect. Data readily available from the U.S. Energy Information Administration website and many other sources show that renewables provided 20% of 2024 US generation compared to 60% from fossil fuels. The NYT did issue a correction, but the initial one it posted on April 25 claimed that monthly electricity generated by renewables in the U.S. exceeded the amount generated using fossil fuels for the first time in March. That updated claim was also wrong, as fossil generation substantially exceeded renewable generation in both March 2024 and March 2025. When this new error was called to its attention, the paper issued a further correction, still dated April 25, that now appears on its website. The final correction took an approach that is simultaneously misleading for readers and instructive regarding how hard the NYT strives to avoid issuing clear substantive corrections that may embarrass its authors or cast doubt on its preferred narratives. Rather than simply strike the original errant point or its errant replacement, which are not at all central to the main focus of the article, the second correction reframes it as a comparison between generation from clean sources and fossil fuels. The trick here is that “clean sources” evidently includes include nuclear generation, which provides roughly 20% of U.S. generation, to finally make the comparison valid. However, nuclear is not once mentioned in the article or in the final correction note, which even suggests that the original article was also comparing generation from clean sources and fossil fuels. The losers here are the general readers, who would likely assume that “clean sources” is simply a synonym for “renewables” and never know that they had been badly misled.ConclusionUnfortunately, I could go on – the three articles reviewed above are only examples of a larger problem that has been evident for some time. The NYT, which has a very deep bench of staff who specialize in energy and climate matters, including the authors of these articles, must do better. Bearak should be able to correctly identify the world’s largest fossil fuel producer and coal’s continuing role as the dominant energy source in China. Penn should be able to recognize that history does not support the notion that EV developments today are repeating, or even closely rhyming with, the history of EVs a century ago. The temptation to craft tidy morality fable or reprise the origins dubious oil depletion policy first introduced in the mid-1920s that provided a huge windfall to the oil industry does not grant a license to posit a clearly invalid parallelism. The editors overseeing these articles also bear responsibility. Finally, even when factual errors do slip into articles, a sound and well-implemented corrections policy can greatly mitigate the damage. The stated NYT correction policy that “when we learn of a mistake, we acknowledge it with a correction” is sound, but its current implementation is atrocious. The so-called Grey Lady of journalism should be blushing in shame. The paper quickly corrects errors that are of minor importance to most readers, such as misspelled names, incorrect job titles, or inaccurate event dates. However, when substantive factual errors are identified and reported to the paper, as in the examples discussed above, its response is to either stonewall, as in the case of the Bearak article, or to obfuscate and evade, as in its correction of the comparison of renewable and fossil fuel generation levels in the Wallace-Wells article. In the latter case, the common observation that the cover-up is often worse than the crime clearly applies. The NYT must always remember that the purpose of corrections is to inform the reader of what is actually true, rather than to protect its writers from embarrassment or protect preferred narratives that cannot withstand scrutiny. Howard Gruenspecht served in senior White House positions in the Carter and Bush 41 Administrations, in Deputy Assistant Secretary and Office Director roles in the Department of Energy policy office during the Bush 41 and Clinton Administrations, and as the Deputy Administrator (top non-political position) of the U.S. Energy Information Administration, which provides independent energy data and analysis, during the Bush 43, Obama, and Trump 45 Administrations. * * *We’ve sold a TON of these lighter / flashlight combos…
Satisfaction guaranteed or your money backLoading recommendations…
