![Joanna Ata]()
Joanna Ata
Founder & CEO at Liatto
Joanna AtaJoanna is committed to promoting innovation in ageing, longevity and care.
Joanna, you have been working in the aging field for a while, yet you have overlooked several countries. When comparing the U.S. and the E.U., what are the biggest differences in the agetech/aging sector and its founders?
Having worked across both the U.S. and European aging ecosystems, the biggest differences are less about innovation itself and more about how markets are structured and how founders approach growth. The U.S. aging sector is strongly shaped by private operators, venture capital expectations, and large enterprise buyers. This creates an environment where founders are encouraged to move quickly, define large market opportunities early, and position their solutions around scale and measurable return on investment. In senior living and healthcare settings, decisions are often tied to operational efficiency, staffing challenges, and financial outcomes. As a result, products tend to be framed around solving urgent operational problems, reducing staff burden, improving occupancy, or demonstrating measurable engagement or health outcomes.
In the European Union, the environment is more fragmented and more influenced by public systems, regional policies, and local care structures. There is rarely a single pathway to scale. Founders often need to navigate different regulations, funding models, and cultural expectations country by country. This slows down expansion but also creates solutions that are more deeply integrated into existing care ecosystems. Many EU founders come from healthcare, academia, or social innovation backgrounds rather than pure technology or venture environments. This often leads to strong problem understanding and credibility with care organizations, but sometimes slower commercialization and weaker early go to market strategies compared to their U.S. counterparts.
Another noticeable difference is how aging itself is framed. In the U.S., the conversation increasingly connects aging with longevity, independence, and consumer driven wellness, alongside institutional care. In Europe, aging is still more closely associated with public responsibility and social care infrastructure. This influences product design and messaging. European solutions often emphasize accessibility, inclusion, and system integration, while U.S. companies more frequently focus on individual outcomes, lifestyle improvement, and market driven adoption.
From practical experience working with senior living operators and engagement focused services, I also see differences in adoption behavior. U.S. organizations tend to pilot quickly if the value proposition is clear, especially when staffing shortages or resident satisfaction are involved. European organizations may move more cautiously, but once a solution aligns with policy goals or operational standards, adoption can become more stable and long term. Neither approach is better, but they reward different founder skills. U.S. founders often excel at storytelling and momentum building, while EU founders often excel at stakeholder alignment and long term integration.
What is increasingly similar on both sides is the underlying demographic pressure. Aging populations, workforce shortages, and rising care costs are forcing both markets to look for scalable solutions. The difference is that the U.S. tends to respond through market acceleration, while Europe responds through system adaptation. Founders entering the space need to understand which environment they are building for, because success depends as much on navigating the structure of the aging ecosystem as it does on the product itself.
Is there an EU country that stands out? If so, which one and why?
If I had to highlight one country that consistently stands out in the European aging and agetech landscape, I would point to the Netherlands. What makes it notable is not that it produces the most startups, but that it has managed to create alignment between care providers, municipalities, innovation programs, and founders. There is a strong culture of piloting practical solutions in real environments, particularly in senior living and community based care. Organizations are generally open to testing new approaches if they clearly improve quality of life or reduce pressure on staff, which makes it easier for founders to move from concept to real world implementation.
The Dutch system has also been forced to confront workforce shortages earlier than many other European countries, which accelerated openness to innovation. As a result, many solutions focus less on technology for its own sake and more on supporting independence, enabling aging at home, and making care delivery sustainable. This creates a healthier environment for founders because success is measured by adoption and usefulness rather than novelty. From my experience working with engagement and wellness focused services, this practical orientation matters. Solutions that help staff save time, improve daily experiences for older adults, or strengthen connection tend to gain traction more quickly in environments where operators are already thinking in systems rather than isolated tools.
That said, it is important to recognize that Europe does not have a single dominant aging innovation market. Germany stands out because of its size and purchasing power, particularly in institutional care, although adoption cycles can be slow. The Nordic countries, especially Sweden and Denmark, are strong in design driven care models and public innovation, often setting early examples of how technology can be integrated into daily life without feeling intrusive. France has scale and national level initiatives that can accelerate adoption once alignment is achieved.
The reason the Netherlands often emerges in conversations is that it sits at the intersection of these strengths. It combines a strong care infrastructure, openness to experimentation, and a willingness to collaborate across public and private sectors. For founders entering the European aging space, this makes it one of the few environments where innovation, implementation, and long term adoption tend to move in the same direction.
It seems that the demographic shift is getting more and more attention. Several terms are popping up: agetech, the silver economy, and, of course, longevity. For founders entering the space, it might be confusing. How do you guide them?
The first thing I try to do is remove the pressure to choose a label. Agetech, the silver economy, and longevity are useful terms for investors, media, and conferences, but they are often confusing for founders because they describe the space from different angles rather than defining what a company should build. When founders start by asking, “Which category am I in?”, they usually move too quickly into positioning before they have clarity about the actual problem they are solving.
I guide founders to start with three very practical questions. Who is the primary user? Who makes the buying decision? And who ultimately pays? In the aging sector, these are often three different people. An older adult might use the product, a family member might influence the decision, and an organization or insurer might pay. Many early failures happen because teams assume these roles overlap. Once this is clear, the terminology becomes less important, because the company understands where value is created and how adoption will realistically happen.
I also encourage founders to treat these terms as lenses rather than identities. Agetech is usually the technology lens, how tools support independence, safety, engagement, or care delivery. The silver economy is the market lens, focusing on purchasing power, services, and economic opportunity around aging populations. Longevity is the time horizon lens, centered on prevention, healthspan, and extending quality of life over decades. A company may sit across all three, but it should anchor itself in one clear job to be done. In my experience working with senior living operators and engagement focused products, solutions gain traction when they solve an immediate and recognizable problem, such as reducing staff workload, improving engagement, or helping families feel more connected.
Another important part of the guidance is helping founders understand that aging is not a niche. It is a demographic reality that cuts across healthcare, housing, travel, finance, and social connection. The mistake is often trying to design “for older adults” as a single group. A healthy, active 65 year old has very little in common with someone living with cognitive decline or someone receiving institutional care. Founders who succeed usually define a very specific context first, for example older adults living independently, family caregivers managing care coordination, or staff working inside senior living communities.
Finally, I encourage founders to stay grounded in implementation, not just vision. The demographic shift is real and attracting attention, but adoption in the aging sector depends on trust, simplicity, and consistency. Products succeed when they fit naturally into existing routines rather than requiring behavior change from already stretched staff or families. The founders who navigate this space well are not the ones with the strongest longevity narrative, but the ones who understand daily reality and build solutions that make life measurably easier for the people involved.
What are the common mistakes teams make when entering the aging domain?
One of the most common mistakes teams make is entering the aging domain with assumptions rather than observation. Aging is often treated as a single market or persona, when in reality it includes people with very different levels of health, independence, income, and motivation. Teams frequently design for a generalized idea of “older adults,” which results in products that feel either overly simplified or disconnected from real needs. The companies that succeed usually start with a very specific context, for example older adults living independently, family caregivers managing coordination, or staff inside senior living communities trying to manage limited time and resources.
Another recurring mistake is misunderstanding who the real customer is. In many aging related businesses, the user, the buyer, and the payer are not the same person. A product may be genuinely helpful for older adults but still fail because it does not align with how organizations purchase, how families make decisions, or how budgets are allocated. I see this often in engagement and wellness solutions, where teams focus heavily on experience but underestimate procurement processes, training requirements, and internal adoption. If staff or caregivers experience friction, even a good product struggles to survive.
Teams also tend to underestimate implementation. In the aging sector, adoption depends less on innovation and more on consistency and ease of use. Staff are already stretched, families are often overwhelmed, and older adults may be cautious about change. Solutions that require significant behavior change, complex onboarding, or continuous explanation rarely scale. From practical experience working with senior living operators, the products that work best are those that fit naturally into existing routines and make someone’s day easier immediately, without requiring additional effort.
Another mistake is leading with emotional messaging instead of clear outcomes. Caring language is important, but it is not a differentiator. Organizations and families need to understand what will actually improve. Will this reduce staff workload? Improve engagement? Help someone stay independent longer? Reduce family stress? Teams sometimes rely on the emotional appeal of aging and care, but buyers ultimately make decisions based on clarity and tangible impact.
Finally, many teams underestimate how much trust matters in this space. Aging related decisions are deeply personal and often made during stressful moments. Building credibility takes longer than in many other technology sectors. Partnerships, references, and gradual adoption matter more than rapid growth claims. Founders who approach the sector with patience and humility, and who spend time understanding daily realities rather than trying to disrupt them immediately, tend to build more sustainable companies over time.
Looking ahead to 2027, what market segments will be the most interesting for founders focusing on the EU
Looking toward 2027, the most interesting opportunities in the European aging market will emerge in areas where demographic pressure, workforce constraints, and public system limitations intersect. Europe is aging faster than many other regions, while at the same time facing shortages of care workers and increasing financial pressure on public systems. This means the strongest opportunities will not necessarily come from entirely new categories, but from solutions that make existing systems more sustainable without requiring major structural change.
One of the most important segments will continue to be workforce support inside care environments. Across much of the EU, staffing shortages are already the primary operational challenge for care providers and senior living organizations. Founders who focus on reducing administrative burden, simplifying communication, improving staff training, or enabling staff to spend more time with residents rather than on coordination tasks will find strong demand. The key here is not replacing human care but supporting it. Solutions that demonstrably save time or reduce stress for staff tend to be adopted faster because the need is immediate and widely understood.
A second area with strong potential is engagement, mental wellbeing, and social connection as infrastructure rather than entertainment. As European systems increasingly recognize loneliness, cognitive decline, and social isolation as public health issues, engagement is moving from being seen as optional to being part of preventive care. From my experience working with engagement and wellness services, organizations respond when engagement supports multiple outcomes at once, mood, cognition, family satisfaction, and staff efficiency. Founders who can connect engagement to measurable wellbeing or operational benefits will be well positioned.
Another significant opportunity lies in supporting family caregivers, particularly in countries where aging at home is a policy priority. Families already carry a large portion of care responsibility, often without coordination tools or guidance. Solutions that reduce complexity, help families navigate services, or provide reassurance and structure will become more valuable as institutional capacity remains limited. Importantly, these solutions must respect cultural differences across Europe, where family involvement and expectations vary widely between countries. Aging at home and service coordination will also continue to grow, but the opportunity is less about smart devices and more about orchestration. Europe’s challenge is fragmentation. Many services exist, but they are difficult to navigate. Founders who help connect existing services, scheduling, transportation, health appointments, social activities, and support networks into simpler experiences will address a real gap without needing to build entirely new infrastructure.
Finally, early cognitive health and prevention will become increasingly relevant. As longevity increases, governments and healthcare systems are becoming more interested in delaying decline rather than only responding to crisis. Solutions that support cognitive stimulation, early detection, or lifestyle based prevention, especially those that can be integrated into community settings rather than clinical environments, are likely to gain attention.
What connects all of these segments is that the EU rewards practicality over disruption. The most interesting opportunities are not necessarily the most technologically ambitious ones, but those that fit naturally into existing care structures, align with policy direction, and make daily life easier for older adults, families, and staff at the same time. Founders who understand that adoption in Europe depends on alignment with systems, not just innovation, will have a significant advantage by 2027.