When launching a startup, picking a geographic base is more than just choosing your city; it’s choosing your ecosystem. Even though remote work has loosened some ties, five core dimensions remain deeply influenced by location.
- Talent Acquisition: A city near strong universities, research centers, or a large professional workforce makes hiring engineers, developers, and executives easier. Cities with growing populations and healthy economies draw more professionals, expanding your talent pool.
- Tax Breaks and Incentives: Many cities and states offer credits, grants, or reduced taxes to attract new businesses—especially tech or innovation-driven ventures. The location you choose can materially impact your early cash flow.
- Access to Capital and Funding: Being in a place where venture capital firms, angel networks, and accelerators are nearby lowers friction when raising money. One survey found that location remains a barrier for 67% of firms trying to scale globally.
- Market Proximity and Networking: Physical proximity to customers, partners, suppliers, and fellow entrepreneurs enables faster iteration, better collaboration, and richer learnings from neighboring companies.
- Infrastructure and Business Environment: From coworking spaces and high-speed internet to quality of life and regulatory ease, your city must support both the day-to-day and the long-term. Although technology has made remote startup life viable, tangible infrastructure still matters for many industries.
All told, location remains a strategic choice. The city you operate from aligns with your industry, ambition, and growth path.
The Top 10 U.S. Cities for Startups in 2025
Below is an HTML table listing the top U.S. cities for startups, based on the StartupBlink Global Startup Ecosystem Index 2025.
| Rank | City | Global Rank | Score | Reasons |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | San Francisco | 1 | 852.643 | Undisputed global leader with 19.9% growth; epicenter of AI and innovation; dense network of startups, investors, and tech giants. |
| 2 | New York | 2 | 315.515 | Strong runner-up with 25.5% growth; more than twice the activity of the next U.S. city; immense investor depth. |
| 3 | Los Angeles | 4 | 139.115 | 14.1% growth; strength in Ecommerce and Retail; growing global relevance. |
| 4 | Boston | 6 | 128.476 | 17.1% growth; deep in Healthtech; supported by strong academic and research institutions. |
| 5 | Seattle | 15 | 57.799 | 11.0% growth; strengths in Energy and Environment; stable ecosystem, though growth has slowed. |
| 6 | Austin–Round Rock Area | 16 | 51.211 | 24.1% growth; emerging tech hub with lower costs and solid infrastructure. |
| 7 | Chicago | 19 | 48.036 | 13.7% growth; strengths in Marketing and Sales; experiencing rank decline. |
| 8 | Washington, D.C. | 22 | 44.620 | 17.5% growth; strengths in Energy and Environment; dropped from top twenty due to slower growth. |
| 9 | San Diego | 25 | 40.698 | 19.4% growth; standout in Healthtech; part of U.S. Healthtech leadership. |
| 10 | Dallas | 27 | 35.516 | 5.2% growth; strengths in Transportation; slower growth but part of a large ecosystem. |
The Catch: Why the Winning Cities Are So Expensive
The cities above represent ecosystems that offer enormous upside, but those benefits come at a cost. In coastal hubs like San Francisco, developers command rates between $150 and $250 per hour, while elsewhere the range may fall closer to $100 to $175. Rent for a small office or apartment team-share in San Francisco can quickly exceed six figures annually, with a ten-person team easily paying over $130,000 a year just for office space.
Studies of startup costs have shown that the Bay Area’s expenses are over 50% higher than the national average. In practical terms, setting up in one of these global winner cities often means a much higher burn rate and a need for deeper funding and faster scaling. The payoff, however, is access to capital, investor visibility, and partnership opportunities that are virtually impossible to replicate elsewhere.
Balancing Affordability and Opportunity
If you choose a top-tier hub like San Francisco or New York, you gain peak access to talent, funding, and exit potential, but you carry significantly higher costs and must scale aggressively. If you choose a mid-tier or emerging city, you may enjoy lower operational costs and less competition for talent, but you sacrifice investor depth, network effects, and the potential ceiling of your valuation.
Your decision should align with your ambition. If your startup expects rapid expansion, large raises, and global reach, a big-city hub makes sense. If your strategy is lean, regional, or still finding product-market fit, a more affordable city might be the better choice. Industry also matters: hardware, biotech, and advanced manufacturing benefit more from proximity to physical ecosystems, whereas software and AI startups can thrive in more distributed environments.
Why I Don’t Promote Indianapolis Anymore
My home, Indianapolis, once looked like a rising Midwest hub for marketing and sales-driven startups, with a moderate cost of living, strong local universities, and an ecosystem that seemed on the move. Indy’s tech presence once employed over 182,000 workers and contributed roughly $23.6 billion to the economy. Today it’s shrinking… rapidly.
Corruption and mismanagement in public-private funding organizations, violence, and poor city administration have severely dampened what was once a promising entrepreneurial environment. Many talented professionals have relocated to larger, better-managed cities with more robust investment ecosystems and greater upward mobility. The government here seems to support corporations headquartered out of the state instead of encouraging homegrown companies that grow and keep profits local.
Indianapolis now faces the challenge of rebuilding confidence among entrepreneurs and investors who have lost faith in its leadership. As someone who used to be a major advocate for launching and scaling startups in Indianapolis, it’s difficult to ignore what has changed.
I continue to lead the most successful startups in this city, have launched initiatives to promote them, and have used my publication and influence to showcase the city for over a decade… yet have been entirely ignored by the tech mafia as they pick winners and losers based on lining their own pockets. I’ll continue to help the companies that hire me to help them succeed… but now advise entrepreneurs who haven’t put down roots to look elsewhere.
Final Thoughts
Selecting your startup’s location remains a deeply strategic choice. The top-tier U.S. cities offer unmatched access, network effects, and investor upside, but they are financially demanding. Cities like Indianapolis, which once provided an attractive balance between cost and opportunity, have lost ground due to leadership failures and talent flight.
Founders must now decide between the affordability of secondary markets and the exponential investment opportunities that come from operating in the nation’s most expensive (but most rewarding) startup ecosystems.
Related Martech Zone Content
