HR tech adoption and future of work trends statistics (2026)

TL;DR: HR tech adoption and future of work trends statistics in 2026

Table of Contents

More HR AI tools will not fix bad management.

HR tech adoption and future of work trends statistics in 2026 show a clear gap: only 39% of organizations use AI in at least one HR activity, while 62% already use AI somewhere in the business. At the same time, 52% of workers lack the AI training they need, which means many companies are buying software faster than they are building judgment, policy, or team readiness.

HR AI is still patchy, with much of it sitting outside the HRMS, so hiring and people decisions can get messy fast.
The real risk for founders is not missing a tool, but letting managers use AI without rules, training, or human review.
If you run a startup or small business, you will get better results by auditing current AI use, cutting duplicate tools, and putting HR and IT in the same workflow.

If you want the market context, see this HR technology market forecast or this short overview of HR tech trends for 2026 and compare them with your own team before your stack gets ahead of your people.

Check out other fresh news, stats and trends that you might like:

Employee stock options usage and dilution statistics (2026) | STARTUP EDITION

When your HR startup automates hiring, onboarding, and performance reviews, but the office plant still has better retention stats than your engineers. Unsplash

HR tech adoption and future of work trends statistics in 2026 tell a story that many founders do not want to hear: AI is spreading faster than managerial judgment, and that gap is where a lot of expensive mistakes will happen. I am Violetta Bonenkamp, also known as Mean CEO, and I am writing this from the point of view of a European parallel entrepreneur who has built startups across deeptech, edtech, AI tooling, and no-code systems. From where I stand, the big question is not whether HR teams are buying more tools. The real question is whether small companies, startup founders, and owner-led businesses are building workplaces that can actually absorb those tools without turning hiring, management, and planning into chaos.

One stat captures the tension perfectly: only 39% of organizations had implemented AI in at least one HR activity, while 62% used AI somewhere in the business, according to reporting cited by HR technology statistics and trends for 2026 from EvalFlow. That means a lot of companies are already living with AI-shaped work, while HR itself is still catching up. For bootstrapped firms, women-led startups, and EU founders with lean teams, this matters right now because every bad hiring decision, every confused manager, and every duplicated software subscription hits cash harder than it hits a giant enterprise.

What is the methodology behind these HR tech adoption and future of work trends statistics?

I selected recent numbers from 2025 and 2026 reports, benchmark roundups, and curated industry coverage, with an emphasis on sources that cite named surveys or recognized brands such as SHRM, Microsoft, Indeed, YouGov, Cornerstone, McKinsey, and the World Economic Forum. I also reviewed synthesis pages such as HR Technology Statistics 2026 from Rewordin and 2026 HR tech statistics from HiringThing because they pull together figures that matter to operators.

The geographic coverage is mixed. Some figures are global, some are enterprise-heavy, and some are US-based. When a number is likely to skew US-centric, I say so. That matters because Europe has different labor laws, privacy rules, consultation norms, and works council realities, and those change how HR software can be used in hiring, surveillance, layoffs, and employee data processing.

These statistics are directional, not promises. Founder stage, team size, country, industry, and cash position still matter. I also add my own operator lens from building systems at CADChain and Fe/male Switch, where I have spent years turning complex technology into workflows that non-experts can actually use. My bias is simple: tools matter less than behavior, governance, and workflow design.

What are the headline HR tech numbers founders should know in 2026?

39% of organizations had implemented AI in at least one HR activity.
- Founder takeaway: HR AI use is real, but it is still far from universal, so you can still build sensible policy before your stack gets messy.
62% of organizations used AI somewhere in the business.
- Founder takeaway: work is changing faster than HR policy, which means shadow AI and informal usage are already shaping decisions.
12% of organizations had AI embedded in the core HRMS, according to reporting summarized by Rewordin.
- Founder takeaway: most firms are patching AI onto HR from the outside, which raises consistency and compliance issues.
27% of organizations used AI in recruiting.
- Founder takeaway: recruitment remains the front door for HR tech, so hiring is where founders will feel AI first.
52% of workers are not receiving the AI training they need, based on an Indeed and YouGov survey cited by SHRM.
- Founder takeaway: buying tools without teaching people how to use them is a tax on your payroll.
43% of managers said they felt poorly equipped or not equipped at all to provide AI training.
- Founder takeaway: your middle layer may be your weakest layer, and in startups that often means founders themselves.
94% of IT and HR leaders say a more adaptive shared approach to workforce planning is necessary, according to SHRM’s reporting on Cornerstone research.
- Founder takeaway: HR and tech can no longer operate as separate tribes.
67% higher likelihood of making workforce decisions at the speed AI requires when HR and IT collaborate closely.
- Founder takeaway: cross-functional coordination is becoming a speed advantage, not just an internal nice-to-have.
60% of managers use AI to help determine who gets laid off, according to a Resume Templates survey cited by SHRM.
- Founder takeaway: high-stakes talent decisions are already being shaped by AI, which means governance cannot wait.
92% of companies plan to increase AI investments over the next 3 years, according to McKinsey data cited by Cake.
- Founder takeaway: if your team is not learning now, competitors may outpace you while you are still debating software demos.

Are companies really adopting HR AI, or are they just experimenting?

Let’s break it down. The most revealing cluster here is 39% using AI in at least one HR activity, 12% with AI embedded in the HRMS, and 27% using AI in recruiting. These numbers suggest that a lot of 2026 HR tech activity is still bolt-on usage rather than deeply structured system design.

That distinction matters. A founder using a general assistant to draft job descriptions is very different from a company whose Human Resource Management System, or HRMS, has AI features woven into workflows for recruitment, performance reviews, workforce planning, and employee support. The first is experimentation. The second changes how the company actually runs.

From my European founder perspective, this is exactly where people get seduced by demos and miss the plumbing. At CADChain, I learned that if a compliance layer sits outside the workflow, people skip it. HR is similar. If AI lives in random browser tabs, separate subscriptions, and unofficial habits, you do not have a system. You have scattered behavior with legal exposure attached.

For lean startups, this is actually good news. It means the race is still open. Enterprises may spend more, but many are still messy underneath. A smaller founder-led company can move faster by choosing one or two narrow use cases and building clear rules around them.

What does this mean for bootstrapped and EU startups?

Do not buy an HR stack because you feel late. Buy only for one problem you can name in plain language, such as interview scheduling, candidate screening, internal knowledge search, or policy Q&A.
Keep human review inside every hiring and firing flow. Europe is less forgiving than many founders assume when employment decisions start looking automated.
Track where AI is actually used. If your team is already using ChatGPT, Copilot, or other assistants in recruiting, write the policy now rather than pretending usage does not exist.

Next steps: run a 30-day audit of every AI touchpoint in people operations. List the tool, the task, the owner, the data touched, and the final human approver. Founders are often shocked by what they discover.

Why are managers the weakest link in the future of work transition?

Two numbers should worry every employer: 52% of workers are not getting the AI training they need, and 43% of managers feel poorly equipped or not equipped at all to provide that training, based on the Indeed and YouGov data cited by SHRM’s August 2026 HR technology trends coverage. This is a management problem disguised as a software problem.

Many founders assume AI literacy will somehow spread by osmosis. It will not. People may experiment with prompts, note-taking bots, and writing assistants, but that is not the same as knowing when to trust outputs, when to verify, how to protect employee data, and how to avoid biased or low-quality judgments. In startups, the issue is sharper because the manager is often a founder, a first-time team lead, or a stressed operator doing three jobs at once.

I have a strong view on this. Education must be experiential and slightly uncomfortable. You do not prepare managers for AI by sending them a PDF called “Responsible AI policy v1.” You prepare them by giving them real scenarios with trade-offs, role-play, and review loops. This is one reason I built game-based learning systems. People learn judgment from constrained decisions, not from corporate wallpaper.

The future of work debate often fixates on workers being replaced. The more immediate threat is that undertrained managers will misuse AI in hiring, feedback, promotion, and layoffs. That can wreck trust long before it wrecks headcount.

What should founders do in the next 90 days?

Train managers before the whole team. If managers cannot explain approved AI use, they cannot supervise it.
Create three live scenarios. One for hiring, one for performance feedback, and one for sensitive workforce planning. Show where AI can help and where humans must decide.
Define prohibited uses in plain language. Ban feeding confidential employee data into unapproved tools. Ban unsupervised AI scoring for layoffs or hiring decisions.

If you are a solo founder with contractors, this still applies. You may not have “managers,” but you do have people making judgments that shape work quality, fairness, and legal exposure.

Is workforce readiness becoming a shared HR and IT problem?

Yes, and the stats are blunt. 94% of IT and HR leaders say a more adaptive, shared approach to workforce planning is necessary, and organizations where HR and IT collaborate closely are 67% more likely to make workforce decisions at the speed AI requires, according to SHRM’s write-up of Cornerstone research in The Executive Download on HR technology trends.

This is one of the most useful future of work signals in 2026. Workforce readiness is no longer just recruiting, learning, or culture. It is also system access, permissions, tool selection, data flow, policy design, security, and budget discipline. In plain English, HR and IT now co-own the operating logic of work.

For founders, especially in Europe, this changes reporting lines and meeting structures. If your people lead and your tech lead barely talk, your company will move slowly and make contradictory decisions. One team buys assistants. The other team worries about privacy. Nobody maps roles, skills, or process changes. Then frustration spreads, and staff quietly return to old habits.

I have seen this pattern outside HR too. In deeptech and IP tooling, the teams that win are not always the ones with the fanciest product. They are often the ones that make compliance, usability, and daily workflow work together. The same principle applies to HR tech. Protection and compliance should be invisible inside the process, not bolted on after the team has already improvised.

Three moves for founders

Put HR and IT in the same weekly review for 12 weeks. Discuss tools, training gaps, data handling, and role redesign in one place.
Create a shared owner map. Who owns training, permissions, procurement, policy, and vendor review for each HR-related AI tool?
Review your org chart by task, not just job title. AI changes tasks first, and job titles later.

Founders who do this early will look “organized” later, but this is not bureaucracy. It is speed insurance.

Are companies spending on AI faster than they can track it?

Yes, and this trend may become the quiet budget killer of 2026. SHRM summarized research from Harness showing that enterprise AI spending has grown faster than governance processes, making it hard for organizations to monitor costs, manage risk, and spot redundant tools. Add to that the widely cited figure that 92% of companies plan to increase AI investments over the next 3 years, and you get a dangerous mix of urgency, duplication, and weak oversight.

Founders often think waste is an enterprise problem. It is not. In small businesses, hidden AI spend can be worse because it hides inside expense cards, department trials, founder experiments, and contractor tools. One person buys a recruiter assistant, another buys a note summarizer, another upgrades a project tool for AI features, and nobody asks whether the stack overlaps or whether the data handling is acceptable.

This is where my no-code and startup tooling background makes me slightly provocative: more tools usually mean less clarity. If you cannot explain why a tool exists, what task it changes, and how you will judge success, you are not investing. You are shopping under pressure.

For EU startups, there is another wrinkle. Privacy law, employee monitoring rules, and local labor practice can turn a cheap monthly tool into an expensive governance problem if it touches people data in the wrong way. So founders should evaluate HR AI spend with the same seriousness they apply to legal subscriptions or payroll systems.

How to regain control fast

Set up a simple AI spend register. Tool name, user count, monthly cost, use case, and data touched. That alone removes a lot of fog.
Delete overlap aggressively. If two tools summarize meetings, keep one. If three tools draft job ads, keep one.
Approve HR-related tools centrally. In a small company, “centrally” can still mean the founder and one operations lead.

Here is why this matters: every euro tied up in duplicated subscriptions is a euro not spent on training, documentation, or better hiring process design.

How is AI changing jobs, skills, and decision-making at work?

The future of work discussion gets noisy, so let’s focus on the numbers that actually help founders think. Reporting gathered by Rewordin suggests that in HR contexts, organizations reported 87% improved work output, 75% improved work quality, 70% increased creativity, 57% increased upskilling opportunity, 39% shifts in job responsibilities, 24% new roles created, and only 7% job displacement. Another broader benchmark cited by Evolveup says 39% of workers’ core skills are expected to change by 2030.

The message is not “AI kills jobs tomorrow.” The message is that work is being re-sliced into tasks, judgment points, and new expectations. Skills churn matters more than simple headcount panic. This is especially relevant for founders, because a team of 5 to 25 people feels task shifts immediately. One person suddenly handles more synthesis, more vendor review, more editing, more quality control, and more cross-functional work.

There is also a strange but useful finding from SHRM’s August 2026 coverage: OpenAI analyzed more than 800,000 work-related ChatGPT conversations and found that 43.5% of occupation-specific messages were associated with tasks about other occupations, with HR among the top three functions showing high task crossover. Translation: job boundaries are getting blurrier. Your marketer is doing light research ops, your HR lead is doing tool evaluation, your founder is doing first-pass legal drafting, and your product person is doing training support.

As a parallel entrepreneur, I see this as confirmation of something I have practiced for years. Teams are no longer built around narrow role purity. They are built around who can absorb adjacent tasks without quality collapsing. But there is a catch. If your company has no documented standards, crossover becomes chaos.

Practical moves for the next quarter

Map your top 10 recurring tasks by person and by tool. Then ask which of those tasks can be automated, accelerated, or reassigned.
Rewrite role descriptions around skills and outputs. Do not rely only on static job titles written two years ago.
Create one human review checkpoint per high-risk process. Hiring, promotion, compensation, termination, and grievance handling all need named accountability.

If you skip this work, AI will still reshape jobs in your company. It will just do it badly and without your consent.

What do AI maturity statistics tell founders about the real gap?

Microsoft’s 2026 Work Trend Index, cited by EvalFlow, classified only 19% of AI users as “Frontier”, its highest capability group. At the same time, 16% were classified as stalled, 10% were in a blocked agency group, and 5% had unclaimed capacity. The labels are proprietary, so do not treat them as universal categories. Still, the broad message is useful: use does not equal maturity.

This is one of my favorite founder lessons because it mirrors startup life so well. Many teams think touching a tool means they have changed the system. They have not. Real maturity means repeatable workflows, known limits, trained people, documented safeguards, and visible decision ownership.

For small businesses, this should actually reduce panic. You do not need to become “advanced” across everything. You need to avoid the immature middle, where usage is widespread enough to create risk but too shallow to create stable value. That is the trap zone.

My own operating principle is human-in-the-loop AI. Humans remain responsible for judgment, ethics, negotiation, and narrative. Machines handle pattern spotting, drafting, sorting, and repetitive scaffolding. If your HR tech stack flips that order, your maturity is lower than your software bill suggests.

A founder maturity test

Can you name the three HR tasks where AI saves the most time?
Can you name the three HR tasks where AI should never act alone?
Can each manager explain your rules without opening a policy file?

If the answer is no, you are still in experimentation mode, even if your team uses AI every day.

What are my quotable predictions on HR tech and the future of work?

These are short on purpose so founders, journalists, and operators can quote them directly.

“By 2027, small companies that train managers before rolling out HR AI to staff will make fewer expensive people mistakes than companies that buy more tools first.”
“By 2027, the winners in HR tech will not be the firms with the biggest software stack, but the firms that can explain in one page who decides what when AI is involved.”
“By 2028, founders who treat HR and IT as one workforce design function will move faster than rivals that still treat people systems and tech systems as separate silos.”
“By 2027, European startups that keep human review inside hiring and firing flows will avoid a wave of trust and compliance damage that lazy AI usage will create elsewhere.”
“By 2028, the most useful future of work skill will be task redesign, because jobs will change through work decomposition long before formal org charts catch up.”
“By 2027, founders who track AI spend at tool level will preserve more runway than peers who let every team improvise subscriptions under pressure.”

These are grounded in the 2026 data: uneven HR AI uptake, low manager readiness, rising spend, and growing task crossover. Put bluntly, the problem is not lack of software. The problem is weak operating discipline.

Where is the data weak, inconsistent, or under-researched?

This part matters because honest analysis beats fake certainty. The HR tech adoption and future of work trends statistics in 2026 come with at least five limitations.

Global versus local distortion. Many reports blend US and global patterns, while EU labor law and privacy frameworks can change tool usage a lot.
Self-reported usage. When companies say they “use AI,” that can mean anything from one recruiter using a drafting assistant to enterprise-wide workflow redesign.
Function versus business confusion. The gap between 62% using AI somewhere in the business and 39% using it in HR is a reminder that broad AI headlines often hide function-specific reality.
Too little founder segmentation. Many reports fail to split bootstrapped firms from VC-backed firms, solo founders from larger teams, or startups from mature enterprises.
Weak gender and EU founder visibility. We still lack strong, comparable public data on how women-led startups in different EU countries adopt HR tech, train managers, or budget for AI.

I care about these gaps because systems problems hit undercapitalized founders differently. Women do not need more inspiration. They need infrastructure. That includes clearer benchmarks for compliance burden, tool affordability, HR process maturity, and training access across different founder profiles.

There is also a deeper problem in this category. A lot of reports focus on tools, spending, and predicted job change, but much less on decision quality. Did hiring improve? Did bias shrink? Did managers become better coaches? Did trust rise? Those are harder questions, and they matter more than software counts.

How should startups, women founders, solopreneurs, and EU businesses use these numbers?

Bootstrapped startups

If you are bootstrapping, the numbers argue for restraint and precision. The mix of 39% HR AI use, 12% embedded HRMS AI, and spending outrunning tracking tells you that there is no prize for buying five tools at once. Start narrow. Pick one expensive people bottleneck and fix that first.

Use recruiting AI only if hiring volume justifies it.
Track time saved, error reduction, and human review burden for 90 days.
Keep spend visible because duplicated subscriptions quietly eat runway.

Women-led startups

If access to capital is tighter, compounding systems matter more than flashy procurement. You want workflows that reduce admin load and improve decision quality without increasing legal exposure. My bias here is strong because I built Fe/male Switch around practical scaffolding. Infrastructure beats motivation slogans.

Document hiring criteria before adding any AI screening.
Choose tools that reduce repetitive admin, not tools that promise magical judgment.
Invest first in manager training, policy clarity, and workflow simplicity.

Solopreneurs and very small teams

If you are a solo founder, the main lesson is that AI can act like a mini-team, but only if you define roles properly. You may use assistants for drafting job posts, writing policies, summarizing interviews, or comparing candidates. Still, you remain the accountable human. Do not outsource judgment because a tool sounds confident.

Create templates for interviews, scorecards, and policy checks.
Use AI for first drafts and structured comparison, then review manually.
Keep one source of truth for candidate notes and hiring criteria.

EU startups

European founders should read every AI-in-HR stat through a local compliance lens. Tool usage that looks casual in one market can trigger tougher scrutiny in another. The practical lesson is simple: if employee data, candidate data, or termination decisions are involved, choose boring clarity over clever automation.

Review vendor data handling before team-wide use.
Keep a human checkpoint in all high-stakes employment decisions.
Favor fewer tools with clearer process ownership.

What practical framework can founders use right now?

Here is a simple framework I would use with any startup team, whether it has 2 people or 200.

Observe
List every HR-related AI use in your company. Include hiring, feedback, training, scheduling, documentation, and workforce planning.
Interpret
Ask what each tool changes in time, cost, quality, risk, and human judgment. If you cannot answer, the tool is probably vanity software.
Act
Pick one area to improve in the next 90 days. Recruiting is usually the cleanest place to start because the task boundaries are easier to see.
Adapt
Review the result after 30, 60, and 90 days. Keep what worked, cut what confused people, and rewrite policy where behavior drift appeared.

90-day checklist for HR tech adoption and future of work readiness

Identify 2 statistics from this article that contradict your current assumptions.
Audit every AI tool touching people data, candidate data, or manager decisions.
Name one human owner for each HR-related AI process.
Train managers before broad employee rollout.
Delete one overlapping tool this month.
Write plain-language rules for approved and prohibited AI use.
Track one metric for 90 days, such as hiring cycle time, manager review time, training completion, or error rate in candidate handling.
Reassess whether the tool changed work quality or just created more digital clutter.

If I had to reduce the whole article to one operator lesson, it would be this: DO NOT CONFUSE TOOL ACTIVITY WITH ORGANIZATIONAL READINESS. In 2026, that confusion is one of the fastest ways to waste money, erode trust, and make bad people decisions with a modern-looking interface.

And yes, I am intentionally blunt about that. As a founder who has spent years building systems across Europe, I have learned that small teams do not need more tech theater. They need clearer workflows, stronger managerial judgment, and better-designed infrastructure. The companies that understand this early will have a very unfair advantage by the time everyone else catches up.

FAQ on HR Tech Adoption and Future of Work Trends Statistics in 2026

How should founders choose between an all-in-one HR platform and separate AI point solutions?

Start with the workflow, not the demo. If your team is small, one integrated system often reduces compliance gaps, duplicate spend, and messy handoffs better than multiple niche tools. Use point solutions only when a specific bottleneck clearly justifies them. Explore AI automations for startup operations and review HR technology market growth drivers.

What is a practical way to measure ROI from HR AI tools without overcomplicating it?

Track three things for 90 days: time saved, error reduction, and decision quality. For example, compare time-to-hire, interview scheduling hours, or candidate drop-off before and after rollout. If a tool saves time but adds confusion, it is not real ROI. Use the Bootstrapping Startup Playbook for lean tool decisions and see how HR tech ROI is framed by Technavio.

How can startups reduce bias when using AI in recruiting and employee decisions?

Use AI for drafting, summarizing, and structured comparisons, not final judgment. Predefine hiring criteria, require human sign-off, and audit outputs for inconsistency across candidates. High-stakes employment decisions need accountability, especially where privacy and labor rules are stricter. Read the European Startup Playbook for compliance-minded scaling and see SHRM’s future of work coverage on recruiting and workforce change.

Which HR processes are usually the safest to automate first in a startup?

Low-risk, repetitive tasks are the best first candidates: interview scheduling, FAQ handling, onboarding reminders, policy search, and meeting summaries. Avoid starting with layoffs, compensation, promotion, or grievance handling. Early wins should simplify work without weakening trust or legal defensibility. See startup prompting strategies for better AI workflows and read Factorial’s overview of practical HR tech trends.

How does remote and hybrid work change the HR tech stack startups actually need?

Hybrid teams need tools that support asynchronous coordination, self-service access, feedback loops, and clear documentation more than flashy automation. Strong scheduling, communication, and knowledge systems usually matter before advanced talent intelligence. The stack should reduce friction across locations and time zones. Discover scalable startup workflow design with AI automations and see six future HR technology shifts around hybrid work.

What warning signs show a company is adopting HR AI too fast?

Common signs include overlapping subscriptions, undocumented use of candidate data, managers inventing their own rules, and no one knowing which outputs require human review. If usage is spreading faster than policy, training, and ownership, operational risk is already building. Use the Bootstrapping Startup Playbook to control tool sprawl and review SHRM’s August 2026 note on AI spending outpacing governance.

How should women founders and capital-constrained teams prioritize HR tech spending?

Prioritize systems that reduce repetitive admin and improve consistency, not tools that promise magical decision-making. The best early investments are usually documentation, manager training, structured hiring templates, and one or two carefully chosen tools with clear owners and visible outcomes. Read the Female Entrepreneur Playbook for resource-smart growth and review HR technology statistics showing adoption versus proven value.

Why does employee experience matter in HR tech decisions, not just efficiency?

Because efficiency without trust creates churn, burnout, and poor adoption. Tools that improve clarity, flexibility, development, and wellbeing often perform better long term than systems built only to monitor or speed up admin. Sustainable HR tech should support people, not just process. Build founder-friendly systems with the European Startup Playbook and read SHRM on the employee-focused future of HR tech.

What skills should founders and managers build first for the future of work?

Focus on task redesign, judgment, AI supervision, data handling, and communication across functions. The most valuable leaders will know how to break work into steps, decide where AI helps, and preserve human accountability in sensitive moments. Strengthen founder AI literacy with Prompting For Startups and see SHRM’s future of work hub on skills and workforce planning.

How big is the long-term HR tech opportunity, and what does that mean for startup timing?

The market outlook suggests sustained growth, with reports projecting major expansion through 2031 to 2035 as cloud HR, AI recruitment, analytics, and compliance tools spread. That means founders still have time to adopt carefully rather than rushing into bad-fit software. Plan adoption timing with the European Startup Playbook and see the HR technology market forecast to 2035.

Violetta Bonenkamp

Violetta Bonenkamp, also known as Mean CEO, is a female entrepreneur and an experienced startup founder, bootstrapping her startups. She has an impressive educational background including an MBA and four other higher education degrees. She has over 20 years of work experience across multiple countries, including 10 years as a solopreneur and serial entrepreneur. Throughout her startup experience she has applied for multiple startup grants at the EU level, in the Netherlands and Malta, and her startups received quite a few of those. She’s been living, studying and working in many countries around the globe and her extensive multicultural experience has influenced her immensely. Constantly learning new things, like AI, SEO, zero code, code, etc. and scaling her businesses through smart systems.

HR tech adoption and future of work trends statistics (2026) | STARTUP EDITION