How Horizon Europe proposals are scored
Last updated 2026-05-26
Horizon Europe proposals are assessed by independent expert evaluators against three award criteria — Excellence, Impact, and Quality and efficiency of the implementation. Each is scored from 0 to 5. A proposal must clear a threshold on every criterion and an overall threshold to be considered for funding.
The three award criteria
Excellence asks whether the project is ambitious and sound: how clear and credible the objectives are, how the work goes beyond the state of the art, and how well the methodology fits the challenge. For research and innovation actions this criterion carries significant weight.
Impact asks what changes if the project succeeds: the credibility of the pathway to the outcomes the call asks for, the scale and significance of the effects, and the quality of the dissemination, exploitation, and communication plan. For innovation actions, impact is often where proposals win or lose.
Quality and efficiency of the implementation asks whether the plan is realistic: a coherent work plan, a credible allocation of resources, and a consortium with the right capacity and a sensible balance of roles.
The scoring scale and thresholds
Evaluators score each criterion from 0 to 5, with half-point steps. A score of 0 means the proposal fails the criterion or cannot be assessed; 5 means it is addressed excellently. In most collaborative calls the threshold is 3 out of 5 per criterion and 10 out of 15 overall.
Clearing the thresholds makes a proposal eligible — not funded. Because calls are heavily oversubscribed, the real funding line usually sits well above the formal threshold, often above 13 out of 15. A proposal with one weak criterion rarely survives, even if the other two are strong.
How proposals are ranked
After individual scoring, evaluators reach a consensus and the proposals that pass all thresholds are ranked by total score. Where scores are tied, the work programme's tie-breaking rules apply — commonly prioritising Impact, then Excellence, and sometimes factors such as budget balance or under-represented groups.
The European Innovation Council and some other instruments use their own adapted criteria and processes, including interviews. Always read the evaluation section of the specific call before writing.
Primary sources
This guide summarises the public Horizon Europe evaluation model. Use the official programme guide and the call-specific Funding & Tenders Portal page as the source of truth before writing or submitting a proposal.
What separates a funded score
The single most common reason strong projects score poorly is a weak fit with the exact call topic. Evaluators score against what the topic asked for — its expected outcomes and scope — not against the project in the abstract. A brilliant project answering the wrong topic still loses.
The other recurring gaps are a thin or generic impact section, an implementation plan that ignores real risk, and an unbalanced consortium. A specialist who has evaluated or won proposals in the relevant cluster can usually spot these before submission — which is why a credible match on fundingme.eu ends with an introduction to one.
Frequently asked questions
What score do you need to win Horizon Europe funding?
Each criterion is scored from 0 to 5, with a threshold of 3 per criterion and an overall threshold of 10 out of 15 in most collaborative calls. Clearing the thresholds makes a proposal eligible for funding, but because budgets are limited, the practical bar is usually well above 13 out of 15.
How many evaluation criteria does Horizon Europe use?
Three: Excellence, Impact, and Quality and efficiency of the implementation. Independent expert evaluators score each one and write a consensus report. Some instruments, such as the European Innovation Council, use their own adapted criteria.
What happens if two proposals get the same score?
Calls apply tie-breaking rules set out in the work programme. These typically prioritise the score on Impact first, then Excellence, and may also consider factors such as supporting under-represented groups or budget balance.