The FPGA Market by the Numbers

The global market for field-programmable gate arrays was worth $11.73 billion in 2025 and is forecast to reach $19.34 billion by 2030, a compound annual growth rate of 10.5% (MarketsandMarkets, 2025). Independent houses land in a similar band with different methodologies: Knowledge Sourcing Intelligence models $11.41 billion in 2025 growing to $17.76 billion by 2030 at 9.25% (Knowledge Sourcing, 2025), while Precedence Research runs the curve out to $27.43 billion by 2035 (Precedence Research, 2025).

Write those three figures into your plan side by side rather than picking the biggest one. Any investor who has read a semiconductor deck before knows that FPGA market sizings diverge by roughly 50% at the ten-year horizon, and a founder who shows the spread reads as someone who has actually opened the reports. A founder who quotes only the $27B number reads as someone who has not.

Who actually sells the silicon

This market is not fragmented. AMD holds roughly 55% of global FPGA share following its $49 billion acquisition of Xilinx in 2022, and Intel's Altera business holds roughly 30% — together more than 80% of the market (PCBInsider, 2025). Lattice Semiconductor, Microchip Technology and a handful of smaller players divide what is left. Altera itself has had an unusual decade: acquired by Intel in 2015, run as an internal division, revived as a brand in 2024, then spun out to Silver Lake in 2025 as an independent company again.

That concentration is the most important structural fact for anyone writing an FPGA business plan, and it cuts both ways. A new entrant cannot realistically sell FPGA silicon — the incumbents' scale, toolchain lock-in and process-node access are not attackable with a seed round. But the whole ecosystem of design work, IP cores, boards and modules sits downstream of two vendors whose devices get more capable and more complicated every generation. The harder Versal and Agilex get, the more customers need people who can drive them. That is the business your plan should describe.

What pulls demand through

Demand is driven by customisable high-performance compute in data centres, telecoms and automotive, plus AI acceleration, 5G infrastructure and edge computing. Each has a different procurement rhythm, and your plan should say which one you are selling into. Defence and aerospace run multi-year programmes, pay well, and carry the export-control obligations covered below. Telecom vendors buy in bursts tied to standards cycles. Automotive tier-ones want functional-safety evidence and will audit your process before awarding anything. Data-centre and AI-adjacent customers move fastest and pay fastest, but churn hardest.

Two Very Different FPGA Businesses

The phrase "FPGA business" covers two ventures that share a keyword and almost nothing else. Getting this wrong at the plan stage is the fastest way to lose an investor in the first meeting, because the capital requirement differs by roughly three orders of magnitude.

Track 1 — Building FPGA silicon

Designing your own FPGA family means raising tens or hundreds of millions of dollars, taping out on an advanced process, paying the NRE to have chips manufactured, and — the part founders always underestimate — funding a software team to write the place-and-route toolchain that maps arbitrary customer designs onto your fabric. Total design cost runs into tens of millions before a single part ships (HardwareBee).

The reasons to do it are all narrow: radiation-hardened parts for space and defence, FPGA fabric merged with other silicon IP into an integrated SoC, or a sovereign-capability play where a government is the anchor customer. A plan on this track is a deep-tech venture plan with a tape-out schedule, a foundry relationship and a Series A of $30M+ — not a business plan in the sense this page means.

Track 2 — FPGA design services and IP

This is the accessible route and the one the rest of this guide models. You sell engineering: RTL development in VHDL or Verilog, IP core integration, DSP algorithm implementation, high-level synthesis, verification, board bring-up, timing closure, and MPSoC or RFSoC firmware. Your customers are companies that need FPGA work done and cannot justify a permanent FPGA team — which, given how few FPGA engineers exist relative to demand, is most of them.

Startups and scale-ups are a good beachhead: limited internal resources, aggressive milestones, investor pressure, and an FPGA mistake at that stage is disproportionately expensive. They engage external partners precisely because hiring a full-time FPGA engineer is not yet practical. The trade is that they are also the customers most likely to run out of money mid-engagement, which is why the payment-terms section of your plan matters more than the technology section.

A third position sits between them: the system-on-module product company, selling FPGA-based boards built around someone else's silicon. Enclustra runs exactly this hybrid, pairing vendor-independent design services with its own SoM line. It converts services revenue into product revenue over time, but needs inventory financing and a hardware supply chain, pushing capital toward the top of the services band and beyond.

Questions Founders Ask First

These come up in almost every FPGA discovery call we run, and every one of them belongs somewhere in your written plan.

Can a small team design its own FPGA chip?

Technically yes, commercially almost never. The blocker is not the fabric design — it is the toolchain. A customer buying your FPGA needs software that can synthesise, place and route their design onto your architecture, and that software is a multi-year effort by a dedicated team. This is why the handful of successful FPGA startups target niches where the incumbents structurally cannot follow, such as radiation-hardened parts, rather than competing on general-purpose logic density.

Which vendor should a new design firm standardise on?

Pick one primary and one secondary, and say so explicitly in the plan. Given AMD's ~55% share, standardising on Vivado and the Zynq UltraScale+ / Versal families puts you where most of the work is. Altera's Quartus Prime Pro and the Agilex family are the natural second. Lattice (Radiant, the Avant mid-range family, CertusPro-NX) is worth a deliberate bet if you are targeting low-power edge and small-form-factor work where AMD and Altera are over-specified. Microchip's Libero and PolarFire matter if you are chasing defence and space, where flash-based fabric and radiation tolerance are the requirement.

What you should not do is claim all four. Three toolchains means three licence bills, three sets of quirks, and no genuine depth in any of them — and any technical buyer reading your capability statement will spot it instantly.

What does the tooling actually cost?

AMD moved Vivado to a tiered licensing model from the 2026.1 release: BASIC, CORE and PRO as annual subscriptions, ENTERPRISE and GOLD as perpetual options (AMD, Vivado licensing options). BASIC is free and annually renewed — a genuinely usable entry point for a two-person team on smaller parts. CORE adds full simulation and ChipScope debug plus advanced UltraScale/UltraScale+ features; PRO adds full Versal adaptive SoC support. Model a mix rather than a flat per-seat number: BASIC for juniors, CORE for anyone doing real debug, PRO only if a named Versal engagement justifies it.

Do FPGA designs need an export licence?

Often, yes — and this is the question founders are least prepared for. Most integrated-circuit controls sit under ECCN 3A001 of the Commerce Control List, and 3A001 items require a licence for China (BIS, Commerce Control List Overview and the Country Chart). The full section below covers what this means day to day, including the deemed-export rule that catches design firms hiring international engineers.

What It Costs to Open the Doors

A two-to-four engineer FPGA design-services firm, working from a home lab or a small serviced unit, needs roughly $45,000 to $220,000 (£35,000 to £175,000) to reach the point where invoices cover costs. The band is wide because two decisions dominate it: how many paid EDA seats you need on day one, and whether you buy lab instruments or rent bench time.

Line-by-line breakdown

• EDA tool seats: $6,000–$60,000/yr (£4,800–£48,000). Vivado BASIC is free; CORE and PRO are annual subscriptions; ENTERPRISE and GOLD are perpetual. Add Quartus Prime Pro if you commit to Altera, and a simulator seat (Questa or Riviera-PRO) unless you can live on Verilator and cocotb.
• Development boards and SoM evaluation kits: $8,000–$35,000 (£6,400–£28,000). Zynq UltraScale+ and Agilex kits, a Lattice Avant or CertusPro-NX board if you serve edge customers, PolarFire if defence is on the roadmap.
• Lab bench: $12,000–$60,000 (£9,500–£48,000). Oscilloscope with adequate bandwidth for your SerDes rates, logic analyser, protocol analyser, JTAG pods, ESD-safe bench. This is the line where founders either save $40K by renting time at a shared lab or blow the budget on a scope they use twice a quarter.
• Workstations and build/regression compute: $6,000–$25,000 (£4,800–£20,000). Synthesis and place-and-route runs are memory-hungry; a shared build server or cloud burst capacity beats four underspecified laptops.
• Export-control compliance setup: $3,000–$15,000 (£2,500–£12,000). Classification review, a screening process, and an hour or two of specialist counsel. Cheap now, ruinous later.
• Professional indemnity / errors & omissions plus general liability: $2,500–$9,000/yr (£2,000–£7,000). Clients embedding your RTL in shipped product will ask for it before they sign.
• Legal templates: $3,000–$10,000 (£2,400–£8,000). Master services agreement, statement-of-work template, IP assignment terms, mutual NDA. The IP assignment clause is where the money is: whether reusable blocks stay yours decides if you ever build an IP business.
• Working capital: $15,000–$60,000 (£12,000–£48,000). Engineering invoices to primes and tier-ones commonly settle net-45 to net-60. You pay salaries monthly. That gap is the reason well-booked design shops still die.

Funding routes that actually fit

In the US, the SBA 7(a) programme is the standard route, and the relevant classification is NAICS 541330, Engineering Services. That code has seen 12,075 SBA loans approved at an average of $329,000, about 3% below the $340,000 national SBA average, with typical repayment terms of 125 months and roughly 1,030 approved lenders active in the category (PeerSense, SBA industry data). Engineering Services was among the top NAICS codes funded by SBA 7(a) in FY2024 by approval dollars. A $329,000 average against a $45K–$220K requirement means a well-built FPGA services plan sits comfortably inside what lenders in this category already write — you are not asking them to do anything unusual.

In the UK, the Start Up Loans scheme offers up to £25,000 per founder at 6% fixed with free mentoring, which for a two-founder spin-out is £50,000 of unsecured capital before you speak to anyone else. That rarely covers an equipped launch on its own, so most UK FPGA shops pair it with founder capital or a small angel round.

Two public programmes change the cost table above rather than just adding to it, because both subsidise EDA access — the largest single line. The EU Chips Act route is covered in the export-control section below, since the same framework governs both. In India, the Design Linked Incentive scheme funds ICs, chipsets, SoCs, systems and IP cores over a five-year window, targeting 100 semiconductor design companies with at least 20 scaling past INR 15 billion (roughly US$169 million) of revenue. As of 31 July 2025, 23 chip design projects had been approved and 72 companies had access to industry-grade EDA tools through the C-DAC national grid (India Semiconductor Mission, DLI Scheme). If you are incorporating in India, that grid access alone removes the largest single line from the startup budget.

Engineer Pay, Utilisation & the Cost Base

Everything in an FPGA services P&L is downstream of one number: what you pay engineers, multiplied by how much of their time you sell.

The median annual wage for computer hardware engineers was $155,020 in May 2024 (US Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook). FPGA specialists sit above that median, not on it. Reported FPGA consultant compensation averages $220,240 a year, about $106 an hour, with a 25th-to-75th percentile band of $174,818 to $282,280 (ZipRecruiter, FPGA consultant salary). Location moves it further: San Francisco runs about 27.1% above the national average, with Mountain View close behind.

Now put those two numbers next to the rate card. Individual FPGA design and verification contracts commonly post at $80–$100/hr, with ASIC-and-FPGA design solutions roles at $110–$113/hr on W2 and some engagements reaching $125/hr. That is the rate an individual commands. If your firm bills at the individual contractor rate, you are charging a market price for labour while carrying a company's cost base — EDA seats, lab, insurance, pre-sales time, admin — and the arithmetic does not close.

Read the last two rows carefully, because they are the whole business. Fifteen points of utilisation move your break-even rate by $30 an hour. There is no marketing tactic, no tool, and no pricing trick with that kind of effect on the model. A plan that forecasts revenue growth without forecasting utilisation is not a plan.

It is also why UK and EU shops price in a narrower band. UK FPGA engineers cost less in absolute terms, but UK day rates compress correspondingly, so the utilisation maths does not get easier — it just runs at smaller numbers.

The three utilisation killers

• Pre-sales scoping. FPGA engagements need a technically credible person to scope them, and that person is a billable engineer. Budget 8–12% of senior capacity to unpaid scoping and put it in the model rather than pretending it is free.
• The gap between contracts. Two-week gaps between engagements are normal and they are pure loss. This is why firms with a named specialism outperform generalists: specialists get called before the work is scoped, generalists get called after it is put out to tender.
• Timing closure overruns on fixed-price work. Every hour past the quote is an hour billed at zero. See the mistakes section below.

Pricing, Rates & Where Margin Comes From

An FPGA design house has three revenue lines, and a plan that shows all three with different margin profiles reads far better than one that shows a single hourly rate multiplied by twelve months.

1. Time and materials engineering

The base of the business. Individual contract rates in the US run $80–$125/hr; firm-level blended day rates run $900–$1,600/day (£650–£1,200/day in the UK). The spread within that band is set almost entirely by specialism. Generic RTL work sits at the bottom. High-speed SerDes, RFSoC, video compression, and anything with a functional-safety or radiation-tolerance requirement sits at the top, because the pool of people who can do it is small enough to name.

2. Fixed-price modules

Discrete, well-bounded deliverables: a 10G Ethernet MAC bring-up, a DDR4 controller integration, an AXI interconnect refactor, a specific DSP chain. These price at $25,000–$120,000 and carry better margin than T&M when scoped well, because you keep the upside from your own reusable blocks. They carry worse margin than T&M when scoped badly, and the dividing line is whether the deliverable includes timing closure.

3. IP core licensing

The line that changes the shape of the business. A core you have already built and verified licenses at $8,000–$60,000 per design win with 15–25% annual maintenance. The marginal cost is a support obligation, not an engineering month, so the margin is closer to software than services. Two things gate it: your master services agreement must let you retain background and reusable IP, and you need enough repeat engagements in one domain to have built something worth licensing. Both are decisions you make in year one and cannot retrofit in year three.

The worked example in full

Scenario A — the trap. Three billable engineers, 1,700 available hours each, 5,100 hours total. At 68% utilisation that is 3,468 billable hours. At a $115 blended rate that is $398,820 of revenue. Fully loaded engineer cost is $189,124 each (BLS median plus 22% burden), so $567,373 for three. The firm is $168,553 underwater before a single EDA seat is paid for. Every founder who has run an FPGA shop recognises this year.

Scenario B — the same firm, fixed. Same three engineers. Utilisation up to 82% (4,182 hours) and the blended rate up to $135, because the firm now sells "RFSoC and high-speed SerDes" rather than "FPGA design". That is $564,570. Add one fixed-price IP integration at $65,000 and two IP core licences at $18,000 each, and revenue reaches $665,570 against the same $567,373 of engineering cost plus roughly $48,000 of EDA and lab overhead. Net is about $50,000, or 7.5% — thin, but positive, and improving every year the IP line compounds.

The gap between those two scenarios is $266,750 on identical headcount. Nothing about the team changed. What changed was positioning, which drove the rate, which drove the utilisation, which drove everything. If your plan's financial section does not make that mechanism visible, an investor will assume you have not found it yet.

Margin ranges to quote

• Gross margin on billable engineering: 45–60%
• Gross margin on IP core licensing: 75–90% after the first design win
• Net margin, whole firm: 12–22% at steady state
• Utilisation target: 78–85% for billable engineers; below 70% the firm loses money at any realistic rate
• Customer concentration ceiling: no client above 35% of revenue by year three, or the firm is a contractor with extra steps

Export Control & Legal Requirements

Most business plan guides for technical services businesses cover incorporation and insurance and stop. For FPGA work that is negligent, because export control is not a footnote here — it determines who you can hire, which clients you can take, and whether a commit to a shared repository is a criminal offence.

United States

Most controls on semiconductor devices live in ECCN 3A001 of the Commerce Control List within the Export Administration Regulations. Items under 3A001 require a licence for China and carry various reasons for control. Whether any given device or design needs a licence comes from combining the reason for control with the Country Chart in Supplement 1 to Part 738 (BIS, Commerce Control List Overview and the Country Chart).

There are exits. Certain semiconductor devices under specific 7- or 9-character ECCNs within 3A001 qualify for Licence Exception LVS, GBS or STA. Licence Exception NAC authorises export and re-export of items classified 3A001.z to Macau and Country Group D:5, or to an entity headquartered in — or ultimately parented in — Macau or a D:5 destination, wherever located (BIS, Part 740: License Exceptions). Note also the de minimis rule at §734.4, which determines when a foreign-made item containing US content falls under the EAR at all (BIS, §734.4 De minimis U.S. content).

The deemed export rule is the one that catches design firms. Releasing controlled technology to a foreign national inside the United States counts as an export to that person's home country (BIS, Deemed Exports). For an FPGA services firm this is not theoretical. Giving a foreign-national contractor repository access to controlled RTL, a controlled netlist, or controlled design technology can require a licence before the first commit. Firms discover this when a defence prime's compliance team asks for their nationality matrix, by which point the release has already happened. Deemed-export licences commonly take 30–90 days, which is longer than most engagements.

Beyond export control, the US baseline is unremarkable: state registration ($50–$800, 1–14 days), an EIN, professional indemnity cover, and the IP assignment terms in your MSA. Advanced-computing and semiconductor controls have been tightened repeatedly since 2022, so treat classification as a live obligation rather than a one-time task.

United Kingdom

The Export Control Joint Unit (ECJU), part of the Department for Business and Trade, regulates strategic exports and enforces dual-use controls. SPIRE is the licensing portal: you register the company, apply for licences, and notify ECJU before first shipment. Registration is mandatory before you can rely on a dual-use licence, you must specify where export records are kept and where ECJU may inspect them, and certain documents carry a four-year retention requirement (GOV.UK, Export controls: dual-use items, software and technology).

The entry that matters for this sector is PL9013, which covers semiconductors, integrated circuits, dry-etch equipment, scanning electron microscope equipment, parametric signal amplifiers, cryogenic cooling systems and components, EUV masks and reticles, cryogenic wafer probing equipment and advanced materials (Hogan Lovells, UK expands export controls to semiconductor, quantum and cryogenic technologies).

The practical route for most UK design houses is an Open General Export Licence. The dual-use OGEL to EU member states was updated to account for the new semiconductor entries and permits export to all 27 EU member states plus Australia, Canada, Iceland, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, Switzerland, the Channel Islands and the US, subject to exclusions (Baker McKenzie, Global Sanctions and Export Controls Blog). OGELs let you register once and ship without individual applications; anything outside the covered destinations needs a SIEL, targeted at 20 working days. Both are free to apply for — the cost is process, not fees.

• Register with Companies House (£50 online, same-day to 24 hours) and with HMRC for VAT once you cross the threshold
• Register on SPIRE before relying on any dual-use licence
• Assess whether your deliverables touch PL9013 or the dual-use list, and record the assessment
• Register for the appropriate OGEL and accept its record-keeping conditions (four-year retention)
• Apply for a SIEL for destinations the OGEL does not cover — allow 20 working days
• Carry professional indemnity cover; primes and tier-ones will ask for the certificate before the MSA

Third jurisdiction: the European Union

An EU-based FPGA design house sits inside a policy framework built to help it. The Chips Joint Undertaking carries around €11 billion of expected funding across Research and Innovation Actions, Innovation Actions and Coordination and Support Actions, open to consortia of RTOs, SMEs, large enterprises and universities. The Chips Fund exists to improve debt and equity access specifically for start-ups, scale-ups, SMEs and small mid-caps. All Member States plus Norway have established competence centres providing SMEs and start-ups with support, training and access to large infrastructure, and the Act's design platform is a cloud environment integrating IP libraries, EDA tools and support services (European Commission, European Chips Act).

Read that against the cost table above: the largest startup line for an FPGA design house is EDA tooling, and the EU has built a mechanism subsidising exactly that line for exactly your company size. If you are incorporating in the EU and your plan does not name the competence centre in your Member State, you have left money and credibility on the table.

FPGA Terms Your Investor Will Ask About

FPGA is the most jargon-dense category we write plans for. An investor or a bank underwriter will not know these terms, and your plan has to work for that reader without patronising the technical one. These are the eight that come up most; define them once, early, and then use them freely.

• RTL (register-transfer level): the level of abstraction at which FPGA logic is described, written in VHDL or Verilog. When a client says "we need RTL", they are buying design work, not a chip.
• HDL (hardware description language): the languages themselves — VHDL and Verilog / SystemVerilog. Fluency in both is table stakes; being genuinely strong in verification methodology is what commands the rate.
• Timing closure: the process of getting a design to meet its clock constraints after place-and-route. It is iterative, it is unpredictable, and it is the reason fixed-price FPGA quotes go wrong. Explain this to your investor before it happens, not after.
• Place-and-route: the toolchain step that maps your logic onto physical fabric resources and wires them together. Runs can take hours on large parts, which is why build compute is a real cost line.
• LUT, BRAM, DSP slice: the three resource types you are budgeting against inside the device — lookup tables for logic, block RAM for memory, DSP slices for arithmetic. "We ran out of DSP slices" is a schedule risk that belongs in your plan's risk register.
• SerDes (serialiser/deserialiser): the high-speed transceivers that move data in and out at multi-gigabit rates. High-speed SerDes work is one of the specialisms that reliably prices at the top of the band.
• SoM (system-on-module): a small board carrying the FPGA plus memory and power, dropped into a customer's carrier board. Selling SoMs converts a services firm into a product firm — with inventory, supply chain and working-capital consequences.
• HLS (high-level synthesis): generating RTL from C/C++ or similar. It shortens some projects dramatically and is oversold on others; a plan that treats HLS as a moat rather than a tool will not survive technical diligence.

One more term, commercial rather than technical: background IP (what you bring to an engagement) versus foreground IP (what you create during it). Whether your MSA assigns foreground IP wholesale to the client or licenses it back to you is the clause that decides whether the IP core revenue line in your forecast is real or fictional.

Five Ways FPGA Shops Lose Money

These are the failure modes we see most often when founders bring us an FPGA plan to review. Each one belongs in the risk section of yours, with a mitigation next to it.

1. Pricing off the contractor rate

A firm billing $110/hr is charging an individual's price while carrying a company's costs. Founders anchor on the contractor number because it is the one they know from their own career, and it quietly kills the business over eighteen months. The break-even table above is the number to price against.

2. Treating export control as a later problem

The deemed-export rule means the violation happens at repository access, not at shipment. A firm that hires a talented foreign-national engineer, grants repo access on day one, and only classifies its deliverables when a prime's compliance team asks has already made the release. Classify before the first hire, not before the first invoice.

3. Claiming every vendor

Capability statements listing Vivado, Quartus, Radiant and Libero read as inexperience to anyone technical: four toolchains across four engineers means depth in none and four licence bills against the same revenue.

4. Fixed-pricing timing closure

Every other step in the FPGA flow can be estimated with experience. Timing closure cannot — it depends on how the design interacts with a specific device's fabric, and the last 3% of the clock target can take as long as the first 97%. Quote fixed-price up to and including implementation, then move to time and materials for closure, and write that boundary into the SOW template.

5. Selling "FPGA design"

The named firms in this space do not sell FPGA design generically. Fidus leads with architecture definition, high-level synthesis and FPGA prototyping. Promwad leads with RTL, IP core integration, DSP algorithms, HLS, verification and MPSoC/RFSoC firmware. Enclustra leads with vendor independence across high-speed hardware, HDL firmware and embedded software. Mistral leads with 27+ years in FPGA-based design and signal processing. Every one of them is answering "what specifically?" before the prospect asks. A firm that answers "FPGA design" gets invited to tenders; a firm that answers "RFSoC and high-speed SerDes" gets called before the tender exists — which, as the utilisation section showed, is the entire difference between the two scenarios.

Sample Business Plan Preview

Here is an extract from an FPGA design-services plan written by our team, so you can see the level of specificity we work at:

What's in the Template

Every Avvale business plan template includes these sections, pre-structured for your industry:

• Executive Summary — Your business at a glance. For an FPGA firm this is where the specialism goes, not the technology.
• Company Overview — Legal structure, ownership, location, and founding story. Where prior programme experience earns its keep.
• Industry Analysis — Market size, growth, and regulatory position. The $11.73B → $19.34B series and the ECCN 3A001 / PL9013 exposure both belong here.
• Customer Analysis — Which buyer you serve: defence programmes, telecom vendors, automotive tier-ones, or AI and data-centre customers. Different cycles, different payment terms.
• Competitor Analysis — Where you sit against the named design houses and the vendors' own design-help programmes.
• Marketing Plan — How a specialist gets called before the tender: conference presence, published reference designs, ecosystem partner listings, engineer-to-engineer referral.
• Operations Plan — Toolchain, lab arrangement, verification methodology, and the utilisation model everything else depends on.
• Management Team — Founder bios, advisory board, and key hires — including how nationality screening interacts with the hiring plan.

The optional Financial Forecast add-on (included in our $300/£250 and $1,000/£800 packages) provides a 5-year Excel model with income statement, cash flow, balance sheet, break-even analysis, and startup capital requirements. For FPGA services firms we build the utilisation driver in explicitly, so you can flex billable hours and blended rate and watch the P&L respond.

Related guides you may want alongside this one: our semiconductor industry business plan template if you are further up the supply chain, the electronic components manufacturer business plan template if you are heading toward SoM production, and the IoT business plan template if your FPGA work is edge-device focused. If you would rather not write any of it, our business plan writers can take it from here.

Frequently Asked Questions