Evaluation Criteria

Evaluation criteria are the standards used to assess EU grant proposals during the peer-review process. Under Horizon Europe and most EU funding programmes, proposals are evaluated against three core criteria — Excellence, Impact, and Quality and Efficiency of the Implementation — each scored on a 0-5 scale with individual and overall thresholds. The evaluation criteria framework is established by Article 188 of the EU Financial Regulation (Regulation 2018/1046) and detailed in each programme's work programme.

How It Works

When a research consortium or individual researcher submits a proposal to an EU grant programme, the proposal enters a rigorous peer-review evaluation process. Independent expert evaluators, recruited from across Europe and beyond, assess the proposal against the published evaluation criteria.

The standard evaluation process follows these steps:

Individual evaluation. Each proposal is assigned to a panel of typically three to five independent experts. Each expert reads the full proposal and scores it individually against each criterion on the 0-5 scale. Half-point scores (e.g., 3.5, 4.5) are permitted. The expert also writes qualitative comments explaining the score, highlighting strengths and weaknesses.
Consensus meeting. After individual evaluation, the experts meet (physically or virtually) to discuss each proposal and agree on consensus scores and comments. The consensus report becomes the official evaluation result communicated to the applicant. Disagreements are resolved through discussion; if consensus cannot be reached, a rapporteur or panel chair arbitrates.
Threshold application. Each criterion has a minimum threshold (typically 3 out of 5). If a proposal scores below the threshold on any single criterion, it is rejected regardless of its total score. There is also an overall threshold (typically 10 out of 15) for the combined score across all three criteria.
Ranking. Proposals that pass all thresholds are ranked by total score. In case of tied scores, a predefined tie-breaking methodology applies (typically Impact first, then Excellence, then Implementation, then additional factors such as gender balance, geographic diversity, and widening participation).
Budget allocation. Proposals are funded in rank order until the available budget for the call is exhausted. Proposals above all thresholds but below the budget cut-off are placed on a reserve list.

The three standard criteria for Horizon Europe are:

Excellence (scored 0-5, threshold 3.0): This criterion assesses the scientific and technical quality of the proposal. Evaluators examine the clarity and pertinence of the objectives, the soundness of the methodology, the ambition and novelty of the approach, and the credibility of the interdisciplinary or transdisciplinary dimensions. For Research and Innovation Actions (RIA), this criterion carries particular weight as it directly assesses the knowledge frontier contribution.

Impact (scored 0-5, threshold 3.0): This criterion assesses the potential for the project to generate scientific, economic, societal, or environmental impact. Evaluators look at the scale and significance of expected outcomes, the credibility of pathways to impact (dissemination, exploitation, communication plans), and the contribution to EU policy priorities. For Innovation Actions (IA), Impact is weighted at 1.5x during ranking.

Quality and Efficiency of the Implementation (scored 0-5, threshold 3.0): This criterion assesses the work plan, task structure, work packages, deliverables, milestones, resource allocation, consortium composition, and management structure. Evaluators assess whether the plan is realistic, whether the budget is appropriate, and whether each partner has a clear role and the necessary expertise.

Legal Framework

Article 188 of the EU Financial Regulation (Regulation 2018/1046) provides the overarching legal basis for the evaluation of grant proposals. It requires that proposals be evaluated on the basis of pre-announced criteria and specifies that the evaluation process must ensure equal treatment, transparency, and objectivity.

Regulation (EU) 2021/695 (the Horizon Europe Regulation) establishes the specific evaluation criteria for Horizon Europe in Article 29. The regulation specifies that proposals shall be evaluated on the basis of Excellence, Impact, and Quality and Efficiency of the Implementation, and mandates independent expert evaluation.

The Horizon Europe Model Grant Agreement (HE MGA) and the annual Work Programmes provide the detailed, call-specific criteria. Each call topic in the work programme specifies the applicable evaluation criteria, any modifications to standard weightings, and the expected scope of the proposal. For example, some calls may add specific sub-criteria (such as "open science practices" under Excellence) or modify the standard weighting.

The European Research Council (ERC) operates under an exception: ERC grants use a single evaluation criterion, Scientific Excellence, assessed through a two-step process (Step 1 evaluates the track record and synopsis; Step 2 evaluates the full proposal). ERC uses A/B/C ratings rather than the 0-5 numerical scale.

Marie Sklodowska-Curie Actions (MSCA) also use the three standard criteria but with adapted sub-criteria focused on the quality of the training environment, the research fellow's career development, and institutional mobility arrangements.

The European Innovation Council (EIC) Accelerator uses a different evaluation approach, combining written evaluation with a pitch interview before a jury panel. The jury assesses Excellence, Impact, and the team and implementation capacity, culminating in a GO/NO-GO decision for blended finance (grant + equity).

Practical Examples

Example 1: RIA Proposal in Energy Research. A consortium of eight partners from six countries submits a proposal for a Research and Innovation Action on next-generation battery technology. The proposal receives: Excellence 4.5 (ambitious scientific objectives, novel methodology), Impact 4.0 (clear pathway from laboratory to pre-industrial testing, good dissemination plan but limited exploitation strategy), Implementation 3.5 (solid work plan but slight imbalance in partner effort allocation). Total: 12.0/15. The proposal passes all thresholds (each criterion above 3.0, total above 10.0) and is ranked above the budget line. It is selected for funding.

Example 2: IA Proposal with Low Impact Score. A consortium submits an Innovation Action proposal for smart mobility solutions. Scores: Excellence 4.0, Impact 2.5, Implementation 4.0. Total: 10.5/15. Despite the high total score, the proposal is rejected because Impact falls below the individual threshold of 3.0. The evaluators noted that the proposal lacked a credible market uptake strategy and did not adequately address how the solution would scale beyond the pilot cities.

Example 3: Tie-Breaking Scenario. Two CSA proposals receive identical total scores of 13.0/15. Proposal A scores Impact 5.0, Excellence 4.0, Implementation 4.0. Proposal B scores Impact 4.0, Excellence 5.0, Implementation 4.0. Under the standard tie-breaking rules (Impact first), Proposal A is ranked higher and receives funding.

Key Considerations for Suppliers

Treat the evaluation criteria as your proposal blueprint. Structure your proposal to mirror the three criteria sections exactly. Evaluators have limited time per proposal (typically 2-4 hours for a 45-page document) and will look for clear answers to the specific questions in the evaluation form. Make it easy for them to find the information by using headings that correspond to the criteria.

Score 4+ on every criterion. While the minimum threshold is 3/5, proposals near the threshold rarely receive funding. In competitive calls with success rates of 10-15%, successful proposals typically average 4.0-4.5 across all criteria. A score of 3.5 on any criterion usually places you below the budget line. Aim for excellence on every dimension.

Address weaknesses proactively. If your consortium has a gap (e.g., limited industrial expertise, a partner from a country that is not a widening country), acknowledge it and explain your mitigation strategy. Evaluators appreciate honest self-assessment more than unaddressed weaknesses.

Read the Evaluation Summary Reports (ESRs). If your proposal is rejected, the ESR provides the consensus scores and detailed evaluator comments for each criterion. These reports are invaluable for understanding what the evaluators valued and where your proposal fell short. Use them to improve resubmissions.

Understand the Impact weighting for IAs. For Innovation Actions, the Impact criterion is weighted 1.5 times during ranking. This means a score of 4.5 on Impact is worth 6.75 in the ranking, compared to 4.5 for the other criteria. If you are applying for an IA, invest disproportionate effort in your Impact section — market analysis, commercialization plan, user engagement strategy, and quantified KPIs.

Grant — The funding instrument to which evaluation criteria are applied during proposal assessment.
Research and Innovation Action (RIA) — The most common Horizon Europe grant type, evaluated using the standard three criteria at 100% funding rate.
Innovation Action (IA) — Grant type where Impact is weighted 1.5x during ranking.
Horizon Europe — The EU's flagship R&I programme that defines the evaluation criteria framework.
ERC — European Research Council, which uses the single criterion of Scientific Excellence.
Work Package — The implementation structure assessed under the third evaluation criterion.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the difference between evaluation criteria for grants and award criteria for procurement?

Evaluation criteria for grants assess the quality and potential of a proposed project before it is carried out — they determine whether a proposal deserves public funding to produce new knowledge, innovation, or public goods. Award criteria in procurement evaluate competing offers for a defined deliverable that the contracting authority already knows it needs. Grant evaluation is inherently forward-looking and involves expert judgment about scientific merit and societal impact. Procurement evaluation is more concrete, assessing specific tender proposals against predefined requirements, pricing, and quality measures.

Can evaluation criteria change between work programme editions?

The three overarching criteria (Excellence, Impact, Implementation) are stable across Horizon Europe. However, the specific sub-criteria and the emphasis within each criterion can vary between work programme editions and individual call topics. For example, one call might emphasize "open science practices" under Excellence, while another might prioritize "contribution to EU strategic autonomy" under Impact. Always read the specific call text and evaluation criteria in the work programme topic description, not just the general Horizon Europe guidelines.

What happens if evaluators disagree on scores?

The consensus meeting is specifically designed to resolve disagreements. Evaluators discuss their individual assessments and reach agreement on a consensus score and a consensus report. If disagreement persists, the panel chair or a rapporteur can mediate. In rare cases, additional expert opinions may be sought. The final consensus score and report represent the panel's collective judgment and are the basis for the funding decision. Individual evaluator scores are not disclosed to applicants.