We used a randomized controlled trial to compare matching grants earmarked for technical training and consulting services with more flexible cash grants and with a control group. The experiment was implemented in a semi-urban and rural fragile setting where subsidizing innovative activities might be particularly important. Firms were selected on the basis of a business plan competition. After two years, beneficiaries of cash grants showed higher survival rates, improved business practices, a higher degree of formalization, and more activities for innovation relative to recipients of matching grants and the control group, but we saw no effects on profits, sales, and employment. Across all outcomes, beneficiaries of cash grants performed better than beneficiaries of matching grants, for them the treatment effects are smaller and often insignificant, though implementation costs were higher. Recipients of cash grants also increased their capital stock more and were more resilient to the COVID-19 crisis.